The AP reports that the Justice Department will issue a memo formally establishing a new policy regarding the federal prosecution of marijuana possession and sale in states that have decriminalized medical marijuana.
The Obama administration will not seek to arrest medical marijuana users and suppliers as long as they conform to state laws, under new policy guidelines to be sent to federal prosecutors Monday.Two Justice Department officials described the new policy to The Associated Press, saying prosecutors will be told it is not a good use of their time to arrest people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws. . . .
A three-page memo spelling out the policy is expected to be sent Monday to federal prosecutors in the 14 states, and also to top officials at the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration.
The memo, the officials said, emphasizes that prosecutors have wide discretion in choosing which cases to pursue, and says it is not a good use of federal manpower to prosecute those who are without a doubt in compliance with state law. . . .
At the same time, the officials said, the government will still prosecute those who use medical marijuana as a cover for other illegal activity. The memo particularly warns that some suspects may hide old-fashioned drug dealing or other crimes behind a medical marijuana business.
In particular, the memo urges prosecutors to pursue marijuana cases which involve violence, the illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or other crimes.
As I’ve noted on The Corner, assuming this is an accurate account of the guidelines, this is a positive step toward a more rational drug control policy and greater respect for state-level policymaking.
The Justice Department has to set prosecutorial priorities, as there are more federal crimes on the books than federal prosecutors can ever hope to prosecute. The aim should be to focus federal resources in those areas where there is a distinct federal interest, or where the federal government has a comparative advantage of state and local law enforcement. Where federal law conflicts with state law, prohibiting activities state laws allowed, federal efforts should still focus on those instances of alleged lawbreaking where there is a distinct federal interest, including spillover effects on neighboring jurisdictions.
The federal government has a legitimate interest in controlling interstate drug trafficking, but no particular interest in prosecuting those who seek to provide medical marijuana to local residents pursuant to state law. So it only makes sense for the Justice Department to tell federal prosecutors to focus their efforts on those who are not in compliance with state law, such as those who use medical marijuana distribution as a cover for other illegal activities, interstate drug trafficking in particular. California should be free to set its own marijuana policy, but the federal government retains an interest in preventing California’s choice from adversely affecting neighboring states.
Ideally, the federal government would treat marijuana like alcohol, retaining a federal role in controlling illegal interstate trafficking but leaving each state entirely free to set its own marijuana policy, whether it be prohibition, decriminalization, or somewhere in between. Fourteen states have already decriminalized medical marijuana to some degree. Were the federal government to allow states even greater autonomy, I suspect more would follow. I don’t expect the Obama Administration to promote such legislation, but it would represent the proper approach to marijuana use, medical and otherwise. Nonetheless, the new guidelines appear to be a step in the right direction.
UPDATE: The memo is now available on the DOJ site in HTML and PDF.
Ryan Waxx says:
I personally think that both extremes in the pot debate are both liars and con-men.
One must merely look to the crude propaganda of government commercials on the subject of drugs to begin to suspect them. But then you look into seizures and the various slimy ways that law enforcement enriches itself in the drug war, and all doubt is erased that it must be at the very least downgraded from a war, and all its “special constitutional exceptions” removed. Immediately.
On the other hand:
We have spent several decades now developing the most powerful painkillers ever known. Whereas morphine was a revolution in the ability to control pain, it has now been eclipsed by Vicodin, Ibuprofen, and several other drugs that are far more powerful and/or safe (which just as much an accomplishment) than anything that has come before.
And you want me to believe for all the millions of dollars and tangible, measurable, remarkable improvements in this science, that a weed known way back in George Washington’s time eclipsed them all, to where no relief short of this wonderdrug can comfort a person with cancer, yet no one noticed this? By that I mean if it was that effective, you’d have every doctor prescribing it from the 1800’s on.
But that didn’t happen, did it? What changed? You can either believe that the basic properties of the substance magically transformed since those days, or you can believe that the politics changed.
Some would have you believe that just by sheer coincidence this was the exact same drug that people of the same political persuasion who are boosting it now, were smoking back then — not for killing pain, but for recreation. Now of course, the excuse has suddenly been transformed. Just like a little kid who suddenly discovers that brownies can remove the ouchie in his foot, aging hippies have discovered much the same in pot brownies. That some people take this transparent ploy seriously is just sad.
This story is credible only if you believe in fairy tales. And yes, you can buy a doctor or a study for any fairy tale you like nowadays.
Oh, and one final test: If this was really about pain rather than the getting the camel’s nose in the tent, you’d think the legalization for pain would be the end of the debate... or at least the end of most of it, since those people who were in it for the pain would now have what they want.
Who thinks that’s going to happen? Who’s willing to show enough courage in their convictions that it’s only about the pain, that they will take the risk-free challenge of putting their name next to a blog comment that with legalization, the “medical marijuana” movement will not simply change lobby names and keep on keeping on?
Quote
October 19, 2009, 10:15 amAllan Walstad says:
Ryan–I thought the benefit of marijuana was to maintain the appetite of people on rad or chemo, not to kill pain.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 10:20 amRyan Waxx says:
That’s not what its boosters say.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 10:29 amHouston Lawyer says:
Coming up next, the Obama administration decides to stop enforcing federal firearms laws ...
The correct fix here is to amend the federal laws. The Democrats have a 70 vote majority in Congress and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, so why can’t they fix this properly?
Quote
October 19, 2009, 10:29 amRyan Waxx says:
Because it doesn’t involve a government takeover of a major sector of the economy.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 10:30 amDoug Keenan says:
They were, check the pharmacopeia. The Chinese were using cannabis medicinally for thousands of years.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 10:31 amRyan Waxx says:
Quote
October 19, 2009, 10:31 amBlah says:
This country is going to hell. Enjoy it, you pathetic stoners.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 10:33 amRyan Waxx says:
Excuse me, but not only did you manage to step on the “oh, it isn’t about pain” commenter above, but citing that SOME doctors used it SOME of the time just isn’t enough. Not even close, if you are going to portray it as more powerful than Vicodin. If it was, EVERY doctor would have prescribed it EVERY time.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 10:34 amAllan Walstad says:
Agreed. Otherwise, it’s like a minefield.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 10:34 amCato The Elder says:
Exactly. Well, not exactly, I’m more concerned about enforcing federal immigration laws, and rhetoric encouraging selective enforcement strikes me as far too accomodating of our lax “harbor city” status quo.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 10:42 amParatrooperJJ says:
Ryan — Morpine is stronger than Vicodin or Ibuprofen.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 10:50 amcubanbob says:
A broken clock is right twice a day, but it is till a broken clock.
“The Justice Department has to set prosecutorial priorities, as there are more federal crimes on the books than federal prosecutors can ever hope to prosecute. The aim should be to focus federal resources in those areas where there is a distinct federal interest, or where the federal government has a comparative advantage of state and local law enforcement. Where federal law conflicts with state law, prohibiting activities state laws allowed, federal efforts should still focus on those instances of alleged lawbreaking where there is a distinct federal interest, including spillover effects on neighboring jurisdictions.”
Perhaps the real problem is that there are too many laws. Perhaps Congress for once might actually do something useful and impose a moratorium on passing legislation and instead do a review of all existing laws and remove those that have out served their usefulness or are needlessly redundant.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 10:50 amAnton Sirius says:
Ryan, until you offer some reason as to why marijuana — medical or otherwise — shouldn’t be completely legal, you look like a zealot and a troll. They’re getting the camel’s nose in the tent? Oh noes! The whole freakin’ camel should never have been kicked out of the tent in the first place.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 10:56 ampc says:
I think you are dismissing how complex pain treatment can be. Vicodin may be fine for some people, but it can also induce nausea and vomiting, whereas marijuana may not (http://www.jpain.org/article/S1526-5900(08)00369–6/abstract).
There is no cure all drug; the absurdity of the argument generally comes from the side that says marijuana has no medicinal value. It would be equally absurd to claim that marijuana is a cure all, but outside of a small group of dedicated pot smokers, I haven’t heard anyone claim that.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 11:00 amkdackson says:
If they were only so understanding with garage sales, endangered species, and affirmative action.....
Quote
October 19, 2009, 11:07 amMissing Reagan says:
I cannot disagree more strongly with the post.
In Colorado, the voters approved “Medical Marijuana”. When the current administration signaled in the spring that they would not prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries, hundreds of stores started opening up around the state. In one location there are three stores within one block of each other.
“Prescriptions”, for a small fee, are handed out by Dr. Feelgood’s recruited through Craig’s List ads. “Patients” are reporting that some doctors write up a weed-approved diagnosis without even examining or interviewing the patient. Being turned down for a prescription is unheard of.
My daughter reports that college (and older high-school) age kids are picking up the prescriptions just so they can keep their habits in tact. One of her friends picked up a prescription card in an attempt to get around the strict anti-drug rules at his automotive technology school. He was turned down by the school, due to the danger involved in working with the equipment, and has since sought treatment for his addiction. Another friend of hers has now wrecked his car three times while driving ‘high’, but his pot is ‘legal’.
A local newspaper reported that the average age of a medical marijuana patient, since the change in the law, has dropped from late 40’s to early 50’s to down in the low 20’s. (Not a lot of cancer in that age group, if you catch my drift.) Unlike with real pharmacies and real medical prescriptions doses are not prescribed, usage is not monitored or limited.
A local alternative newspaper is hiring a “Weed Reviewer” that will work in the same way as a restaurant reviewer. They’ll perform review on varieties, stores, the ‘baked’ goods, etc. No, they’ don’t have a reviewer that visits Walgreens or Rite-Aid and last I checked the pharmacies aren’t hiring bakers to incorporate prescription drugs into brownies and muffins.
Meanwhile the local addiction treatment centers that deal with teenagers are admitting far more kids for marijuana addiction than they are for alcohol addiction.
In less than a year, medical marijuana has become a farce in our state.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 11:09 ampc says:
Missing Reagan, it sounds like you have a state or local enforcement issue. By the way, wrecking you car while high is just as illegal as wrecking your car while drunk, i.e. it’s a DUI.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 11:16 amArthurKirkland says:
If the Obama administration begins to dismantle the War On Drugs, it should be congratulated.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 11:16 amMark Buehner says:
This is bad news? How many people does alcohol abuse kill a year compared to marijuana?
Enough for whom? You seem to be missing the point. Why are busy bodies like yourself prancing around doing foux-research when this is a question between doctors and patients. Do perhaps millions of Americans abuse prescription drugs already? Sure. So why the hard-on for marijuana? Why not go after all the nasty vicodin addicts bringing down western civilization?
How about minding your own business and letting people do what they will with their bodies, particularly if a doctor is involved?
Quote
October 19, 2009, 11:29 amThe Everlasting Phelps » Blog Archive » A Step Toward Sanity? says:
[...] I’ll start to believe it when they stop raiding dispensaries. I’ll really believe it when he starts pardoning the political prisoners. Tommy Chong would be a good place to start. Category: Church of the Painful Truth | Comment (RSS) | Trackback [...]
Dave N says:
Fixed.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 11:35 amMissing Reagan says:
True enough, but it’s a national issue. The only time THC levels are tested is if the driver ends up in the emergency room, and often not even then. So if the police officer doesn’t see/smell the weed, the driver doesn’t get caught.
The kid I mentioned was involved in low-speed accidents with two of them being parked cars (one side-swiped and one rear-end). So no emergency room visit was required.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 11:37 amrarango says:
I dont often agree with Arthur Kirkland but certainly do in this case–Saint Milton has made the best case for legal drugs, and I agree with it–and Mr. Kirkland
Quote
October 19, 2009, 11:39 amcookiemonsta says:
Ryan,
There are many reasons why doctors haven’t widely prescribed marijuana. One is that, until recently, the only method of administering it was smoking. There are some medications that are insufflated, but none in smoke form. Doctors never prescribe smoke.
Marijuana has been used for medicinal purposes in India, as well as China, for thousands of years.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 11:44 amArt Eclectic says:
There is nothing more hilarious than people up in arms over the oncoming legalization of marijuana in our lifetime while those same people think alcohol is a perfectly legitimate social lubricant and the right of every American who is of legal age.
Have another serving of hypocrisy?
Quote
October 19, 2009, 11:48 amMark Field says:
Because they’ve spent 40 years as the victims of Republican demogoguery on the evils of drugs. This is a “Nixon to China” issue — the only ones who can end this nonsense are those who started it and profited most by it.
And 70 vote majority?
Quote
October 19, 2009, 11:54 amRyan Waxx says:
Are you now claiming that pot is the only effective painkiller that doesn’t induce vomiting? Volokh should include sound with their blog so you can play a laugh track with that.
You have failed to show that weed has some property that isn’t replicated by at least a dozen drugs... don’t worry, you aren’t alone. Well over a hundred years of scientists failed too, you know.
Oh, and here come the straw men, right on schedule:
Please show me where I claimed that “marijuana has no medicinal value”.
And now, I’m apparently doing “foux-research” (sic). Excuse me, but not only am I not engaged in research, faux or otherwise, but rather the point of my post, which apparently has bounced straight off your head rather than sink in, is that it is your side engaging in psuedoscience.
I repeat: You must either believe that weed has gained new properties within the last 20 years, or believe that the politics has gained new properties over the last 20 years. We know for a fact that the politics has changed: The weed generation is now in office. So I’d say it’s quite apparent which of the two propositions is true.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 11:59 amwhit says:
while i applaud the obama admin for dismantling this particularly gross branch of the war on drugs, i agree with previous posters, that the legislature really needs to get on the ball and change the LAW.
MJ is still schedule I, which is ridiculous. i’ll also agree with some other posters that there is plenty of script abuse on medical mj prescriptions.
this makes it JUST ANOTHER DRUG, frankly.
people shoppin’ for doctors to get unnecessary scripts have always been around and always will.
you don’t punish the legitimate users of medical mj , because some people are abusing the process
Quote
October 19, 2009, 12:03 pmChrisTS says:
Marijuana, like many substances, has varied medical uses. It is not addictive in the standard sense.
Alcohol is genuinely addictive and has numerous side-effects on health. It serves no medicinal purpose that is not already served by other substances.
One can get high on both marijuana and alcohol. If that is a reason for the law to step in, let’s ban the one with no unique medicinal value.
Cigarettes are extremely addictive,very dangerous for health, and have no medicinal value. Let’s ban smoking.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 12:06 pmSk says:
Believe it or not, this is a real victory for libertarianism. People can do what they want, when they want it, as long as it doesn’t harm others. This is true of many of our social structures, not just drug policy.
But I suspect, whats good for libertarianism isn’t going to be good for the country or society (in other words, in the future, we will all live in California). Its going to be an ugly world in the near future: hope you’re rich enough to live in a gated community, and send your kids to private schools. You can’t leave the country: unfortunately, there is really nowhere to go. About all you can do is self-select your community, and hope for the best.
Sk
Quote
October 19, 2009, 12:08 pmpc says:
That’s the message I took away from Reefer Madness.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 12:12 pmSL says:
My, my, SK? It was the best of times it was the worst of times. Society is going to hell in a hand basket. Same as it ever was.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 12:13 pmwhit says:
ChrisTS, cigarettes are a polydrug delivery device. some of the component drugs of cigarettes do have positive value, for example, nicotine. i know a few pro bodybuilders who use nicotine to help blunt appetite and for other effects. none of them smoke. they use the patches.
nicotine does a # of things, that make it an interesting and beneficial drug.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine
touches on some of these benefits and drawbacks.
ALL drugs have benefits and drawbacks, also dependant on dose. very few drugs are just plain bad. as the ancients said, everything is a poison in sufficient dose (and that includes water).
i think cigarettes are gross, and the incredibly addictive properties of nicotine should give one caution, but saying they have no medicinal value is not true.
alcohol also has value in improving health. the AMA , despite knowing of these benefits, has cautioned MD’s in letting their patients know about the benefits, since it could be seen as encouraging people to drink and nobody wants dr’s encouraging alcoholism
but alcohol, used sparingly is healthy and definitely has value.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 12:19 pmBob from Ohio says:
In California too. Hundreds of “stores”.
Assuming that pot used is sometimes justified, there are not enough “legitimate” users. People with no medical need are just getting high legally.
Pot advocates used people’s compassion for cancer victims to get around the bans on pot sale. Deceit to accomplish what they could not have done otherwise.
I now wait the “ends justify the means” comments here.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 12:25 pmrmd says:
How about it’s cheap and you can’t grow your own Vicodin? Not saying I recommend it, but those are properties that could be important to some people.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 12:30 pmOren says:
No need to change the law, just pass the Truth in Trials Act and let the jury weigh whether they believe the medical need is justified. If the government wants to argue that the medicinal defense is a scam and the defendants are just drug dealers with a State license, let them convince the jury of it.
If the officers investigating the accident had objective indica that he was under the influence of marijuana, they could obtain a warrant for a blood draw which would decisively settle the question.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 12:32 pmChrisTS says:
Whit:
Nicotine is not the only component of cigarettes, as you note. I said cigarettes have no medicinal value — not nicotine.
You are quite right that very small amounts of certain kinds of alcohol can beneficial for some people. As far as I know, however, “It serves no medicinal purpose that is not already served by other substances.” (I was picking up on Ryan’s claims.)
Quote
October 19, 2009, 12:37 pmRyan Waxx says:
True but irrelevant.
Its true that pot can be grown, but you must be aware that no one in the legalization movement has advanced this as the primary... or even “a” primary reason. So again we are back to the little kid coming up with more and more reasons that he must have a brownie. Next we shall examine the amount of fiber pot adds to ones diet, I expect.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 12:39 pmrmd says:
Nice goalpost moving there.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 12:41 pmwhit says:
“Nicotine is not the only component of cigarettes, as you note. I said cigarettes have no medicinal value – not nicotine. ”
imo, if a component drug has medicinal value, then the cigarettes have medicinal value
“You are quite right that very small amounts of certain kinds of alcohol can beneficial for some people. As far as I know, however, “It serves no medicinal purpose that is not already served by other substances.””
that is probably true. but it’s true of many (if not most drugs).
vicodin serves no medical purpose that is not already served by percocet for example. there are a host of opioids that fit under this distinction.
i’m just sayin’ that it’s problematic to say it has NO medicinal value.
the true question is does the medicinal value outweigh the dangers?
thats a much more difficult, and somewhat subjective question.
and you can apply it to any drug.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 12:43 pmDudeman says:
There is a strong argument that it would not be a DUI/OWI if the THC levels are within the theraputic range.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 12:46 pmRyan Waxx says:
Its not goalpost moving, its entirely consistent with my position that the people behind the legalization movement are full of crap and engaging in junk science. Therefore, your introducing claims of your own that have nothing to do with them (and indeed nothing to do with the policy towards pot, which is the subject of the OP) is totally irrelevant.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 12:52 pmRyan Waxx says:
There’s a “therapeutic” range where pot can control pain better than, say, Percoset, and you still aren’t considered under the influence? Truly, truly a miracle drug!
“I’m not drunk, Ofisher, ma alco...(hic)...owlca(hic)...ermm Beer levels are well withisn da thereputin range”
Quote
October 19, 2009, 12:57 pmgeokstr says:
While the use of MJ vs alcohol will probably reduce the number of high-speed accidents, it is just as likely that the rate of accidents overall might increase because of all the stoners driving 5 miles an hour on the freeways.
:-)
Quote
October 19, 2009, 12:59 pmAnthony says:
Medical marijuana has always been something of a smoke screen; while it does have some physiological effects, the side effects are relatively strong (much like alcohol — you can use alcohol as a sedative, it’s just not a very good choice for that purpose), and smoke is a terrible delivery mechanism. On the other hand, there’s no obvious reason why marijuana needs to be a schedule I drug, and classifying it as such has the side effect of blocking research. There are plenty of drugs whose primary use is pain mitigation and which can be abused in a recreational fashion, and marijuana does not seem to be exceptional within that field.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 12:59 pmd-berg says:
One day MJ will be legalized, pretty much like Prohibition ended — to enhance federal revenue. With budget deficits growing beyond reasonable, all measures to deal with the deficit will be on the table. Instead of raising existing taxes, here’s a great option — legalize MJ and tax it. New revenue stream for the gov’t. They will not be able to resist it.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 1:02 pmwhit says:
“There are plenty of drugs whose primary use is pain mitigation and which can be abused in a recreational fashion, and marijuana does not seem to be exceptional within that field.”
one nice thing about mj in this regard is that there is no possibility of fatal overdose and no real physical addiction.
i’m currently post-surgery, and my dr. prescribed several drugs, to include oxycontin, which is fabulously addictive, and deadly if you take too much.
but a pain reliever that is neither addictive nor dangerous (at least in the acute sense) IS exceptional within the field. the vast majority of pain relieving drugs are physically dangerous, and the risk generally increases with the effectiveness. (although even tylenol can ruin your liver)
Quote
October 19, 2009, 1:17 pmShelbyC says:
Ryan, just about every movement has many people like that. Any evidence that it’s more prevelant in the medical marijuana movement?
I’d imagine most of the supporters on this thread aren’t users, for example. And I’d imagine most users support legalization because they want to get high, and support medical marijuana because they want folks to have access to whatever works for their pain. How does that make them full of crap?
Quote
October 19, 2009, 1:25 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » A Step Toward Sanity on Medical Marijuana -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Charyl, andrew. andrew said: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » A Step Toward Sanity on ...: The Volokh Conspiracy · Home · About · E-Ma.. http://bit.ly/fVEcG [...]
AJK says:
The horror!!!
Quote
October 19, 2009, 1:39 pmOren says:
whit, be careful with that service weapon while on oxycodone. I hear some prosecutors take the narcotic drug user in possession of a firearm thing far too literally for anyone’s good.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 1:42 pmTamerlane says:
For those worried that the gates have been stormed and the pot-crazed barbarians are sacking the city, I’d like to provide a little comforting information from the People’s Republic of Massachusetts. The voters of our glorious Commonwealth passed a referendum last November that went into effect immediately and essentially decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana. (Those possessing less than half(?) an ounce could only be ticketed and charged with a misdemeanor subject to a fine of $100(?)) Despite all the pissing and moaning about how this was the beginning of the end I’ve noticed no serious degradation in the quality of life within the state.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 2:00 pmEMG says:
Just as it’s better for a guilty man to go free than for an innocent man to be wrongly condemned, it’s better to tolerate recreational drug use, even addiction, than to prevent the ill from getting whatever they need to feel better. I have loved ones who have suffered from the chilling effect that DEA policy has on doctors’ willingness to prescribe needed painkillers. Because of the subjective and unmeasurable nature of pain, there’s no way to make sure that only people who “really” need it get it — not unless you’re willing to let a certain number of people suffer. Healthy and abled-bodied people who have never experienced the pain to which they would condemn others should not be in the business of deciding how much pain relief is “enough.”
Quote
October 19, 2009, 2:04 pmseattle law student says:
Many of those people do not think Alcohol is perfectly legitimate, they would ban that as well despite the outcome of prohibition. There is a significant population in this country who earnestly believe that if something feels good it must be bad. It’s not a different mindset from the anti-contraceptive people who feel that sex must never be without consequences.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 2:05 pmpc says:
(Trying this again since the edit function borked the formatting last time)
There are people on both sides that are being disingenuous or outright deceitful. The problem for the pro-legalization movement is the drug warriors have a louder channel to push their lies: the federal government. Gen-Xers are now becoming politically powerful, so I feel pretty safe saying marijuana legalization will happen in my lifetime, if not within the next decade. We (Gen-Xers ) grew up in the middle of the drug war hysteria, indoctrinated with government propaganda about the evils of marijuana, how it’s a gateway drug, how it is super addictive and you’ll throw your life away if you smoke it just once. Those were all lies.
We went off to college, tried pot once or twice, thought “what’s the big deal?” and now have successful careers and families. On the other side we’ve seen the utter failure of the drug war and how the draconian drug laws have eviscerated the constitution and how the US has the highest absolute and relative prison population of any modern country thanks to the War on Drugs. The majority of us don’t smoke pot, don’t want to smoke pot, but we don’t care that other people want to smoke pot. We have friends that smoke pot and a lot of them are highly successful in their chosen fields!
So when people complain about the pro-legalization movement using medical marijuana as a foothold for legalization, there’s a generation of people out there saying, “so what?” The government and the abolitionists used racism and lies to outlaw marijuana in the first place. At least the pro-legalization movement is actually trying to help people, like cancer patients, along the way.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 2:07 pmRoger says:
How is this news? Marijuana users like Raich were never arrested.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 2:12 pmd-berg says:
I’ve been raised with that. But as I grew older, I started to have more and more doubts. It’s cool if you let one guilty man go free. But if you make it a policy and let 100 guilty go free, you really start to notice changes in the neighborhood. At some point, you’ve got to draw a line.
Just a quibble. As I mentioned above, I think all MJ will be legalized, not just medical, and sooner rather then later — and I have no problem with that.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 2:33 pmDavid Nieporent says:
Yes, it is. You’ve invented a complete straw army. Medical marijuana is not touted as “more powerful than Vicodin” or anything like that, but as a drug that suppresses nausea and reduces the swelling that causes pain in glaucoma patients. It also is not addictive in the way that narcotics are.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 2:35 pmGuest12345 says:
I’d more or less have to agree. Combining legalization with such broad welfare programs pretty much puts the nail in the coffin for this country. The anchor effect of the irresponsible users will completely dwarf the ability of the responsible and abstainers to move the country forward economically.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 2:38 pmwhit says:
“whit, be careful with that service weapon while on oxycodone. I hear some prosecutors take the narcotic drug user in possession of a firearm thing far too literally for anyone’s good.”
Oren, i’m on disability until i heal up. there is NO way i am going to come to work ever with oxycodone in my system. that would be stupid. i had major surgery on my shoulder. should be at least 6 more weeks of rehab. surgery was in august
but i appreciate the thought
Quote
October 19, 2009, 2:47 pmMCM says:
So while punishing the innocent is undesirable, I guess it pales in comparison to decreasing property values.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 2:51 pmwhit says:
i just realized you might have been referring to carrying concealed OFF duty while on oxy. wouldn’t do that either.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 2:52 pmWeekly Web Watch 10/12/09 – 10/18/09 « EXECUTIVE WATCH says:
[...] The Justice Department issued guidelines (.pdf) to prosecutors instructing them to deprioritize the investigation and prosecution of medical marijuana dispensaries. Jonathan Adler explains that this is a valid exercise of power and thus, like, totally legit, man. [...]
dll111 says:
My father is an oncologist. In the 70s, he used to “advise” people with stomach pains, nausea, vomiting, and lack of appetite resulting from cancer treatment (by the way, I don’t think you would prescribe Vicodin to someone with severe stomach pains) that he’d seen potsold at the beach or at the university, if you know what I mean. He couldn’t prescribe it, obviously, but he said it was the best medicine for those specific problems. He even has an old newspaper article where he’s interviewed about it.
Now they have various “legitimate” drugs made out of synthetic THC that you can prescribe. My father says, anecdotally of course, that most people report that they feel better after smoking pot than taking the prescription drug form. Just like some people prefer Vicodin over Percoset.
Also, doctors weren’t prescribing pot for cancer in the 1800s because it doesn’t cure cancer, it helps lessen the pain and effects of modern cancer treatment. The beginnings of chemotherapy didn’t even occur until after WWII and pot was made illegal in the US in the 1930s. In the 1800s and before the invention of aspirin, however, pot was widely used as a painkiller.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 2:58 pmRandy says:
David: ” Medical marijuana is not touted as “more powerful than Vicodin” or anything like that, but as a drug that suppresses nausea and reduces the swelling that causes pain in glaucoma patients. It also is not addictive in the way that narcotics are.”
And it’s probably cheaper. The real opponents are the evil drug companies, who know a serious competitor when they see it.
Guest: “Combining legalization with such broad welfare programs pretty much puts the nail in the coffin for this country.”
I was perfectly hetero-straight until I had my first toke. Now I’m gay and carefree!
Quote
October 19, 2009, 2:59 pmLarryA says:
That’s a lot of loopholes if a prosecutor wants to go after someone. Depending on the discretion of prosecutors or law enforcement is always extremely risky. And extremely temporary.
Do you really think gated communities and private schools are drug free?
I don’t use, and won’t. I don’t particularly want people getting high. But I also don’t want my door kicked down and my dogs killed in a wrong-address SWAT raid. It also pisses me off that it costs billions a year to unsuccessfully keep a small portion of the population from getting high. And the fact that people suffer because the WoD restricts pain and nausea medication is obscene. Add to that massive corruption and violence spawned worldwide. The problem with the war on drugs is that the cure is worse than the disease.
Any step back (and this is a baby step) is a good one. And Obama could have fulfilled this campaign promise six months ago.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 2:59 pmChrisTS says:
whit:
I don’t think we have much of an argument. I disagree that determinations of health benefits relative to harms is ‘subjective,’ but I’m beginning to think I read moer into that word than many inted when using it. I also think that saying an X which contains Y has the same value as Y stretches things.
But, I doubt these are significant concerns. Do be careful with the Oxy. My [former] idiot GP prescribed it for me because he could not accept that I really had rheumatoid arthritis. Luckily, I was terrified of it and found myself a rheumatologist.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 3:02 pmWww.composition4u.info » “Obama Administration: New Medical Marijuana Guidelines Are Issued” and related posts - 101th Edition says:
[...] A Step Toward Sanity on Medical Marijuana - The Volokh Conspiracy [...]
first history says:
The City of Los Angeles has had a devil of a time trying to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries. During what was supposed to be a moratorium hundreds of dispensaries have popped up and have filed for hardship exemptions. In fact, today the City’s moratorium was enjoined by a judge from enforcement as violating state law.
The LA Times has an interesting interactive map that shows the location of legal and gray area dispensaries (those filing hardship exemptions).
Quote
October 19, 2009, 3:08 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Thank you PC — Go away Ryan Waxx
Quote
October 19, 2009, 3:23 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Oh — and as far as the libertarian maxim of sic utere... - I’m surprised nobody is going on and on about all the “externalities” of marijuana use...
Quote
October 19, 2009, 3:27 pmSuperSkeptic says:
They’re all here now people — I don’t know what you’re waiting for. We’ll just stop arresting them in their own homes and neighborhoods and kicking them out of schools
Quote
October 19, 2009, 3:30 pmChrisTS says:
jeesh. I agree with SuperSkeptic.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 3:32 pmOren says:
Yup, that’s what I meant.
Some of the LEOs I know get a little sentimental when separated from their piece for any amount of time. I don’t blame them, either.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 3:33 pmSuperSkeptic says:
Hey, thanks Chris! I hope to stay reasonable enough to maintain your support for a long time! ;)
Quote
October 19, 2009, 3:42 pmRandy says:
super: “They’re all here now people – I don’t know what you’re waiting for:
You betcha. It always amuses me to find people who seem to think that drug abuse is mostly in urban areas, and black and other people of color. Oh no, their darling little blond Suzie would never do drugs! (Or get have sex).
I grew up in a very affluent lily white suburb of a major city in the 70s, and drugs of all kinds were available. Few abused them, however. There were a few drunks and potheads, but mostly everyone was okay with occasional use. However, starting in the 80s, (after I graduated high school), I started hearing from friends and relatives about the growing underground drug problem. I just went to my 30th high school reunion, and found friends who had moved out of town precisely because of the rampant drug abuse — primarily by the rich kids who moved in in recent decades. One friend tells me that the school and the police cover it all up. When a teenager dies, it’s always an ‘accident’, but they never mention that it was an overdose.
So, go ahead, build your gated communities, but the drugs still get in, and there is a good chance that drugs are more available in the ‘best’ neighborhoods than in others. It will always be right under your nose.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 4:04 pmChrisTS says:
You are most welcome. Will it spoil it if I say I was thinking mostly of the Go away Ryan Waxx?
:-)
Quote
October 19, 2009, 4:11 pmSuperSkeptic says:
I took the liberty to peruse the oral argument transcript from Raich, in light of Randy Barnett’s post, this post, and the post regarding Justice Stevens.
Besides Mr. Clement’s repeated incantation of Wickard Wickard Wickard, this particular exchange struck me, at pg. 17 line 14:
Justice Stevens: So you’re saying that this statute could never have an unconstitutional application?
Mr. Clement: Under the Commerce Clause, I — that’s exactly right, that would be our position. ...
Quote
October 19, 2009, 4:18 pmSuperSkeptic says:
haha — that was the most unreasonable thing I said! I can’t win, I’ll tell ya
Quote
October 19, 2009, 4:20 pmTexEd says:
This is an issue where the dopers have built a fake concept and everyone has signed on. In a country where fake IDs, drivers’ licenses and even passports are pretty easy to get who would have a problem with a medical slip for weed? In San Francisco, everyone who buys marijuana is buying “medical marijuana;” it’s just a subterfuge to legalize marijuana.
The next interesting debate on marijuana sales will be regarding the collection and remission of sales taxes. It’ll be argues that “medical marijuana” should be exempt. But, now, public employees (the beneficiaries of California taxes) know there is a great revenue source that’s avoiding taxation. Once medical sales are “legalized,” look for much more vigorous enforcement of sales tax laws on marijuana sales.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 4:21 pmjccamp says:
Arthur Kirkland -
“If the Obama administration begins to dismantle the War On Drugs, it should be congratulated.”
At the risk of being struck by lightning, possibly having my head explode, something like that, I agree with you.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 4:31 pmShelbyC says:
Well, don’t forget it’s pretty easy to get illegal mj anywhere in the country anyway, and having a fake perscription is illegal. So the law-abiding get access to the medicine they need, and the not-so-law abiding substitute one illegal activity for another. Where’s the damage?
Quote
October 19, 2009, 4:43 pmShelbyC says:
Well, when you’re the innocent guy sitting in the can you notice a few changes too.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 4:47 pmd-berg says:
No, no, no. Not just sales tax — there will be an excise tax on it. Just look to tobacco for an example.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 4:58 pmArt Eclectic says:
That’s hilarious. You ARE talking about alcohol use, right? If not, you’re just another hypocrite bloviating about nanny-state rules only when they apply to something you agree with. Let’s talk about making alcohol illegal and see where the conversation goes.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 5:07 pmThe Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » A Step Toward Sanity on … » Archive, Step, Toward, Sanity, Blog, Conspiracy » My 420 Friends WeedPress says:
[...] the original here: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » A Step Toward Sanity on … Related [...]
Leo Marvin says:
Ryan Waxx,
A NORML supporter is a hippie-hating jackass with a loved one in chemotherapy. I hope you don’t have to learn that the hard way.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 5:29 pmsecond history says:
Tex Ed sez:
But, now, public employees (the beneficiaries of California taxes).....
Not to change the subject, but California residents benefit from California taxes. They benefit from the roads and freeways, law enforcement, court systems, fire fighting, education systems, and utility systems funded by taxes. Sure there are some programs that maybe the state shouldn’t fund, but the California budget is straitjacketed by initiatives approved by the voters so very little can be done except around the margins.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 5:34 pmsecond history says:
Sorry, meant TexEd .....
Quote
October 19, 2009, 5:40 pmGuest12345 says:
Good for you I suppose, not sure what your being gay has to do with it though.
How long after Obamacare goes into effect do you think it will be before the medical marijuana crowd starts asking for their new universal coverage to start buying their weed?
I personally don’t care what lifestyle and quality of life people choose to have. My problem is when they start feeling that their level of effort — say that might get them a lean-to and all the grubs they can eat — entitles them to living in a six bedroom home and prime rib for dinner every night.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 5:45 pmGuest12345 says:
The issue for me is combining “social justice” with willful self destruction. If someone wants to drink their liver into a rotting sack of goo, that is entirely their right. The problem comes when Nancy Pelosi/Max Baucus/Barack Obama want to put that drunkard into the hospital and replace the liver and then send me the bill. Ultimately it comes down to this statement: If you don’t want me to tell you how to live your life, don’t send me the bill.
BTW, If you actually took the time to read the words I wrote, you’d notice that the dividing line I drew was between the irresponsible user and the responsible user.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 5:57 pmRandy says:
Guest: “Good for you I suppose, not sure what your being gay has to do with it though.”
Um, it was a joke....
Quote
October 19, 2009, 6:34 pm“Obama Administration: New Medical Marijuana Guidelines Are Issued” and related posts - KuASha Organization says:
[...] A Step Toward Sanity on Medical Marijuana - The Volokh Conspiracy [...]
ChrisTS says:
ShelbyC:
Wow. You are on fire. Dare I say it? SSSMOKINN!
Quote
October 19, 2009, 7:15 pmChrisTS says:
Or, a recovered hippie with glaucoma, or...
Quote
October 19, 2009, 7:16 pmSonicfrog says:
Someone wrote:
Because that would require them to take a chance and do something than, you know, would have an immediate impact. Just about everything they’ve done this year is spread out over years, often with the main tenants of the law not coming on line for four years. The “Stimulus” bill? Most of the spending doesn’t ramp up for a couple of years yet. Health Care Reform... 2014. Cap and Trade... sorry, the Waxman-Markey climate change bill? As it was proposed, most of the effects would not be felt until 2012. 2012? Hey, isn’t that also when the world is going to end? Coincidence? I think not!
Quote
October 19, 2009, 7:25 pmAnthony says:
Why wait for Obamacare? It’s perfectly possible to ask Medicare to cover the costs right now, and I wouldn’t be surprised if someone has tried to do so. What matters is when health insurers actually start paying for it, not when people start asking health insurers to pay. It’s not the worst thing you could ask Medicare to pay for, some ‘complimentary and alternative medicine’ is rather toxic (and also not covered by Medicare).
Quote
October 19, 2009, 7:34 pmKirk Lazarus says:
Freudian slip?
The OP seems look good news for liberty but poor news for the rule of law.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 8:02 pmDave N says:
I have stated that I would give up the law and farm marijuana for a living if the trade-off was the complete and total eradication of methamphetamine.
That doesn’t mean I believe marijuana is a “gateway” drug. I don’t. I mean that if we are going to fight illegal drugs, meth is a more worthy target than pot.
As for marijuana, I am, at heart, a federalist. Let each state decide for itself how it wants to handle marijuana (whether to legalize it or not, decriminalize it or not, or leave the current laws in place or not).
The Administration’s position is a baby step in the right direction.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 8:15 pmEH says:
Oren:
Some of the LEOs I know get a little sentimental when separated from their piece for any amount of time.
In certain contexts this would be considered a sign of addiction.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 8:39 pmOren says:
Already happened in Oakland. Actually, the dispensaries were very keen on being taxed — something you almost never hear.
Indica, Indicia. Man, that’s bad.
All lawyers should promptly remove “Indica” from any of their spell checker dictionaries!
Quote
October 19, 2009, 8:57 pmOren says:
Only in contexts that have no clue how to use the word properly.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 8:58 pmArthurKirkland says:
(1) Moderate alcohol consumption is, according to the most persuasive science currently available, more healthful than abstinence. People who consume moderate amounts of alcohol — one or two servings daily — have been observed to live longer and more healthful lives than those who abstain. (Overconsumption is brutal, corroding many of the body’s systems in ways associated with disease and early mortality.)
(2) Prohibition did not work.
(3) The same types of prudes, killjoys and statists who supported Prohibition are today’s enablers of the War On Drugs.
(4) Democrats can be faulted for lacking the courage to stand on principle against the demagoguery of drug warriors, but the bulk of blame (and hypocrisy) belongs to the aggressive demagogues, who are primarily Republicans and conservatives.
(5) Someone who supports criminalization of marijuana can properly be called many things, but a strong believer in liberty is not among them.
(6) Gated communities are an illusory defense with respect to drug-related (and many other) problems. People in higher-income and well-connected populations are prosecuted less frequently, but they consume their share of controlled substances. Three teenagers residing on my street have died from heroin overdoses in a 12-year period. They have plenty of money — bumming money from their parents is far more profitable than work in my neighborhood — plenty of time and, unfortunately, immature judgment and sloppy habits — a bad mix in a context in which the desired dose is apparently relatively close to a fatal dose.
(7) People who would deny sufferers comfort because of hollow moralism should hope, earnestly, that no just god exists.
(8) Anyone who believes marijuana is dangerous probably spent an inadequate volume of college-age time making friends, smoking dope, drinking beer and enjoying private time with sweeties. And is probably still steamed about it, and therefore uses the War on Drugs as a mechanism for spite.
(9) The difference between the current Department of Justice (which seeks to defuse the problems caused by criminalization of marijuana) and the predecessor (which confected a prosecution for sale of water pipes, and argued for a longer sentence because the defendant had made fun of silly drug laws and their enforcers) is important.
(10) If we are going to outlaw the masses’ opiates, let’s not pick and choose among them.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 9:08 pmAlbion Tourgee says:
We have a bunch of laws that have been proven ineffective to stop drugs — you can go get any drug you want in any American city within a few hours, however harmful it may be. The only widely-used intoxicant that’s illegal is the addictive, brain deadening alcohol which is responsible for more health and legal problems than the rest combined. Yet, so-called conservatives or libertarians want to keep enforcing these ineffective laws, which mainly just make criminals rich, due to raising prices by preventing supply and increasing risk. Our prohibitions laws have only prevented sensible drug abuse prevention. Read Drug Crazy (www.libertary.com/books/drug-crazy) for an in depth description of just how bad it’s been. “Libertarian” who wants to put people in jail for smoking pot, and allow alcoholics to ruin so many lives around them? Phoo.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 9:18 pmRicardo says:
I know some people here like to hate on Barney Frank but he has actually taken the lead on this issue and tried to introduce a bill that would do exactly what Adler thinks should be done: remove federal penalties for possessing, selling and distributing marijuana intrastate in those states where such possession, sale and distribution is legal according to state law. A completely sensible bill that seems to have almost no chance of passing. Such are political realities.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 9:59 pmgeokstr says:
As one who, unlike Bill, did his share of inhaling in my younger years back in the 1960-70s, I am on the fence on this issue, and lean towards legalization. But I must disagree with this “hippie-hating” person you claim is a supporter of NORML. I’m sure there are now some like that, but NORML was founded in 1970, decades before the “medical benefits” were widely promoted as the reason for legalization. The original “supporters”, and likely most of the current ones, were stoners.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 10:05 pmWww.composition4u.info » "Obama Administration: New Medical Marijuana Guidelines Are Issued" and related posts says:
[...] A Step Toward Sanity on Medical Marijuana - The Volokh Conspiracy [...]
Randy says:
Arthur: “(8) Anyone who believes marijuana is dangerous probably spent an inadequate volume of college-age time making friends, smoking dope, drinking beer and enjoying private time with sweeties. And is probably still steamed about it, and therefore uses the War on Drugs as a mechanism for spite.”
Man, ain’t this the truth! And it applies to all those people who never got laid when they were young, and are getting less sex as they get older. They are always the first ones to rail against sex and gays and so on.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 10:15 pm“Obama Administration: New Medical Marijuana Guidelines Are Issued” and related posts | Movie Listings Central says:
[...] A Step Toward Sanity on Medical Marijuana - The Volokh Conspiracy [...]
Toby says:
A nice benefit of the War on Drugs is that when Ryan retreats to the walled suburbs, he will be able to hire experienced militia from the ranks of gangs that exist because of the black market in drugs. We all know that they have had no ill effects on urban life.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 10:34 pmRicardo says:
Ryan, you seem to have a very specific person you are commenting on when talking about what pro-medical marijuana advocates actually say. I’ve followed the debate for a long time and have indeed heard the argument that prescription drugs are expensive and if marijauana does the trick at a much lower price, there’s no legitimate reason to force someone to buy expensive, patented prescription drugs. I’ve also never seen anyone who I would regard as a serious person claim that marijuana is a wonder drug better than all the synthetic drugs we have developed.
Can you please point out who exactly you are referring to when you talk of “the legalization movement”?
Quote
October 19, 2009, 11:04 pmChrisTS says:
Arthur K:
That.
Or, failing that, let’s pick on the ones that are both genuinely dangerous and absent any good purpose.
I just do not get the whole ‘MJ is evil meme’. Is this, as Arthur jokingly suggests, simply a hangover [shoot me] from the Culture Wars?
Quote
October 19, 2009, 11:11 pmfirst history says:
Gallup: U.S. Support for Legalizing Marijuana Reaches New High
Quote
October 19, 2009, 11:20 pmjccamp says:
Chris —
First, I think the whole “War on Drugs” things has been a disastrous failure in every sense. We need to reconsider the entire concept of criminalizing drug possession and drug use — as opposed to illegal drug sales, another subject completely — which seemingly does little besides creating huge profit motivations for those so inclined via the illegality. Having said that, I don’t think we should ignore the well documented harmful effects of marijuana use. Smoking marijuana is far more harmful than, say, smoking cigarettes (which are legal, I know) from the tar and other pollutants. Although, I admit, that an average user would probably smoke a lot more cigarettes in a day than he/she might smoke marijuana. Regular marijuana use can also cause damage and mutations to human DNA, resulting in, say, a higher risk of some forms of cancer. Marijuana is certainly less dangerous as used than the typical street drugs like heroin, coke, speed, etc, but it is not without its own nasty side effects. It may even be more benign than alcohol, as typically consumed. I don’t really know enough to have an opinion about that. Personally, I say legalize it, but there are risks involved in regular use.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 11:30 pmRandy says:
Chris TS: “I just do not get the whole ‘MJ is evil meme’. Is this, as Arthur jokingly suggests, simply a hangover [shoot me] from the Culture Wars?”
If I remember correctly, it was Randolph Hearst who owned large timber interests and paper plants to provide paper for his newspapers. When hemp growers showed that the the fibers made an excellent substitute for regular newspaper, and had the advantage of being renewable, he started the whole MJ is evil meme, even though hemp contains almost no active ingredients. So in the 30s, he started a war against pot and linked for decades pot and hemp, even though they are only marginally related. He succeeded because hemp was illegal to even grow in the states until recently. He published fabricated stories about the evils of pot, stories which have entered the public realm since then.
Blame Hearst for the beginning of the hysteria.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 11:36 pmChrisTS says:
jccamp:
Of course, there is almost nothing we might ingest — far less inhale — that has no deleterious side effects. But, like you, I think the drug war with respect to MJ is and has been insane.
Randy:
Wow. I will have to look into this.
Quote
October 19, 2009, 11:46 pmjccamp says:
Here’s the real story...
link
Quote
October 19, 2009, 11:57 pmwhit says:
“(8) Anyone who believes marijuana is dangerous probably spent an inadequate volume of college-age time making friends, smoking dope, drinking beer and enjoying private time with sweeties. And is probably still steamed about it, and therefore uses the War on Drugs as a mechanism for spite.”
to quote south park... “there’s a time and a place for drugs. it’s called “college”.”
Quote
October 20, 2009, 12:36 amFub says:
Not the beginning. California outlawed cannabis long before Hearst pimped Harry Anslinger.
See Dale Gieringer, The Origins of Cannabis Prohibition in California. [PDF]
The lede:
Quote
October 20, 2009, 12:41 amLeo Marvin says:
I’m sure that’s right. I was just making the point that enough people hostile to stoners have learned the value of medical marijuana the hard way, to legitimize the whole enterprise for anyone inclined to oppose it on moral/cultural grounds.
Quote
October 20, 2009, 1:52 amRFWoodstock says:
Valid medicinal value, it’s a victimless crime, the War on Drugs WAY too costly, too many arrests for simple possession, tax it and use the money to pay for health insurance and to reduce the deficit…Need I say more?
Woodstock Universe supports legalization of Marijuana for a number of reasons. Check them out and vote in our poll “Should marijuana be legalized?” at http://woodstockuniverse.com
Current poll results: 96% for legalization and 4% opposed…add your vote. Poll runs through October.
Peace, love, music, one world,
RFWoodstock
Quote
October 20, 2009, 9:32 amJohn says:
It is subversive of the rule of law for a president or AG to refuse to enforce the law just because they don’t like it (liberals even claim they shouldn’t do this if the president things the law or part of it is unconstitutional), and especailly egregious to announce that unenforcement will be administration policy. If Obama and the democrats don’t like how the law applies to MJ, they certainly have the votes to change it, and THAT is the correct way to do it.
Quote
October 20, 2009, 9:53 amRicardo says:
Prosecutorial discretion has been around for a pretty long time. Presidents and governors also used to use the pardon power much more than they do now. The idea that prosecutors should enforce every law to the letter no matter how ridiculous or unjust the result is a relatively new one that, fortunately, doesn’t seem to be shared by a majority of the population.
Quote
October 20, 2009, 10:17 amBonze Saunders says:
Not necessarily: Dr. Donald Tashkin (MD, UCLA Prof.) has been studying the issue of pulmonary harm from marijuana smoking for decades, and has concluded that smoking marijuana causes neither cancer nor COPD. It increases the risk of chronic bronchitis.
Quote
October 20, 2009, 11:05 amjccamp says:
Bonze —
I assume there’s a difference of opinion on the subject, possibly due to a dearth of people unwilling to admit to regular use and submit to health exams and surveys. My point was that marijuana is not harmless, albeit far more benign than most other unlawful drugs, mainly because marijuana can’t be linked to classic addiction or overdose fatalities. Some links:
Harvard law school link possibly from a student and not the law school itself
National Institute on Drug Abuse (perhaps not the most balanced look)
A New Zealand study which seemingly contradicts Dr Tashkin’s study.
and finally, the same Tashkin study did find that marijuana smokers suffered from poor lung function and lung disease at a far earlier age than cigarette smokers here
Surprisingly, Wikipedia has a pretty comprehensive cite on the medical effects of marijuana use with over one hundred different footnotes.
Quote
October 20, 2009, 11:58 amFederalism Cuts Both Ways « Submitted to a Candid World says:
[...] Obama administration’s new policy of abstention, as part of Justice’s responsibility to set priorities in law enforcement, is a model of federalism: while the federal government can retain an interest in the spillover [...]
yankee says:
Liberals make no such claim. Liberals objected to the Bush Administration’s policy of declaring a law unconstitutional and making it Administration policy to violate it. There’s a world of difference between declining to enforce a law against third parties (in certain circumstances) and making it
Quote
October 20, 2009, 12:05 pmBladedoc says:
There is no “therapeutic range” able to be stated for THC or narcotics that does not overlap with the judgment/reflex effects. Just because you are using the drug under a prescription doesn’t mean it magically loses it’s effects on perception. And no, you shouldn’t be driving on Percocet/Vicodin/Morphine/Oxycodone/Methadone etc. either.
Quote
October 20, 2009, 12:22 pmRyan Waxx says:
You mean, other than the fact that if they don’t need it for medical purposes, then the entire movement is a lie?
Why, nothing at all.
Quote
October 20, 2009, 1:03 pmRyan Waxx says:
There you go again, with the “pot as wunderdrug that no one realized how powerful it was until the pot generation came into political power, by SHEER COINCIDENCE” crap. And meanwhile other commenters are desperately trying to pretend people like you, with claims like yours don’t exist.
Reading is fundamental!
Quote
October 20, 2009, 1:10 pmShelbyC says:
Still not following. I don’t need it for medicinal purposes, I don’t use it, but I support legalization for both medical and recreational use. But if folks are unwilling to legalize it for recreational use, I still support legalization for medical use so the folks who need it can get it.
Am I full of crap? Or are people who feel like I do but smoke full of crap? Why?
Quote
October 20, 2009, 1:30 pmPaging Willie Nelson… « Around The Sphere says:
[...] UPDATE: Jonathan Adler [...]
Ryan Waxx says:
Perhaps I should have spelled things out more simply for you. If you are trying to legalize Medical Marijuana, and your motivations for doing so are “to get high”, then you are lying. I’m not sure how you could possibly misunderstand that.
Last I checked, lying to your doctor that you are in pain so you can get medication, then getting high off that medication, was not only a lie, but a crime as well. Lying to the voters that you just want sick people to feel better, then passing a bill by cynically exploiting their compassion all so you can get high is also a lie.
If you want legalization, ask for that. If you don’t get it at first, ask again. That’s the way democracy works. But don’t be a slimeball and expect respect for your courage to be a liar.
Quote
October 20, 2009, 1:40 pmInsignificant Dallasite says:
Sure, that would be great. And if the policy was no federal prosecutions for activities that are legal under state law where no interstate transport is involved, someone might actually be fooled into thinking that this was more about federalism and less intrusive government rather than what it really is–a gift for washed up hippies and radicals and a carrot for those who value “cool” over substance in a President.
Quote
October 20, 2009, 2:43 pmChrisTS says:
Ryan Waxx:
No one person passes a bill. Lying to anyone is, yes, lying {‘a lie’}. Aside from these points, you are simply assuming that everyone who says marijuana should be legal for medical use is, in fact, really seeking to have marijuana available for their own recreational use. And that is unfounded.
Plenty of us have no interest in smoking marijuana and believe it should be legal for medical purposes. Some believe it simply should be legal for any use, but have no personal desire to use it.
I do not think the government should make it illegal to smoke this or that. I believe it is cruel to deny mj to those whom it could help and irrational to do so out of fear that someone else will use it for fun.
But, I don’t want to smoke that or any other substance and would not do so unless a doctor convinced me it could help me.
Quote
October 20, 2009, 3:17 pmLeo Marvin says:
1. Yes, reading is fundamental, so respond to what I actually said. Or don’t. I don’t care. Just don’t argue with your own straw men and pretend it has anything to do with me.
2. I’m reconsidering what I previously hoped for.
Quote
October 20, 2009, 4:52 pmChrisTS says:
Leo:
Re #2: That would mean some other person would have to suffer for RW to learn the lesson.
Quote
October 20, 2009, 5:27 pmLeo Marvin says:
Chris, yes, if I really meant it, that’s what it would mean. But I didn’t, so it doesn’t. It was just my polite way of suggesting he self-copulate.
(BTW, where do you get the emoticons?)
Quote
October 20, 2009, 6:47 pmShelbyC says:
Just do a smiley: colon, dash, right paren, and it should come up as an emoticon :-)
Quote
October 20, 2009, 6:58 pmLeo Marvin says:
Thanks, Shelby! :)
Quote
October 20, 2009, 7:49 pmChrisTS says:
Leo and Shelby:
I can only do the smileys and frownies*. Others seem to know how to do winks and other more subtle emoticons.
* colon-dash-front parenthesis.
Quote
October 20, 2009, 8:00 pmChrisTS says:
Ah! So you have reason to believe he is an hermaphrodite?
I suppose they have less need of recreational drugs.
Quote
October 20, 2009, 8:02 pmRandy says:
Apparently, Ryan just can’t abide by the fact that some people might want to smoke MJ just to get high. Getting high is, according to several commentators here, the path to Total Destruction of the Our Civilization. Unlike drinking beer, or having sex, or even running, each of which have their own highs. In fact, prayer and meditation release the same chemicals in the brain to give us a high as athletes get when they run or jump, or when musicians play their instruments, or whatever.
So, the only thing I can conclude is that when people do something that they enjoy and the derive pleasure from it, it’s a ‘high’, and no good can come of it. So they must do what they can to stop others from having their pleasure.
I guess that’s how they get high.
Quote
October 20, 2009, 8:58 pmChrisTS says:
Randy:
Nicely done.
Quote
October 20, 2009, 10:19 pmFub says:
I agree. There also seems to be a large contingent who believe that only “washed up hippies” or other straw men support legalization.
What fascinates me about that is that it is the same BS I heard when I worked on the first California initiative almost 40 years ago. I still support complete legalization (ie: removal of all criminal and civil penalties) for users and producers of all drugs, but requiring truth in labeling as to actual contents. During those same years I’ve led a productive life earning a living, making investments, doing tons of relatively thankless volunteer work, attaining professional degree, licensing and the like. Everyone I know who has seriously worked on such law changes has done much the same. They just believe that drug prohibition is corrosive to a good society.
I almost concluded that most prohibitionists just don’t live on the same planet as the rest of us. But you’ve convinced me otherwise: they just have a weird way of getting high, by yammering about figments of their imaginations.
Quote
October 20, 2009, 10:25 pmChrisTS says:
Hmm. Persuasive and, yet... I still think RW is from another planet (possibly populated largely by hermaphrodites, but I’m waiting on confirmation from Leo on that).
Quote
October 20, 2009, 10:32 pmRandy says:
“But you’ve convinced me otherwise: they just have a weird way of getting high, by yammering about figments of their imaginations.”
(blush). Thank! I think that they truly believe that they are trying to uphold ‘morals’ and ‘standards’. They just have a very different idea of them than we do.
Quote
October 20, 2009, 11:15 pmRicardo says:
Wouldn’t it be a similar coincidence that the active ingredient in marijuana — delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol — was approved for medical use by the FDA after randomized control trials confirmed that, in fact, it is safe and effective for managing nausea related to AIDS “wasting syndrome” and chemotherapy? Problem is, some people with nausea have trouble swallowing pills and keeping them down.
Quote
October 20, 2009, 11:25 pmAnatid says:
Every human — even identical twins — has a unique body chemistry. There are certain trends, often with wide variation between individuals and populations. One person might respond well to a drug but experience severe side effects, while another experiences no side effect, while another might not respond at all. This is why it is important to have as many different treatment options as possible for every given condition so that each person can find the right balance in consultation with his doctor. This is especially important because of the shotgun crudeness of many medications, and genetically-customized drugs are still years and decades of research away.
What other options exist for nausea control and appetite stimulation?
Some existing drugs have been partially effective at controlling nausea, but cannot be taken daily for long periods of time. There are drugs in existence that stimulate appetite, but no doctor would prescribe them to a chronic case. They’re for terminal patients only, whose illness (usually cancer and AIDS) will kill them before the horrible side effects of the comfort-bringing drugs do.
Ghrelin and orexin are now in clinical trials, although the enrollment criteria are strict. Development of a useful drug is still years away, and the hormones may not prove efficacious at all in the Phase II trials.
Meanwhile, what are the options? A drug that will destroy the patient’s liver? An experimental hormone, not yet available even on the grey market? Or a drug with comparatively few side effects that offers greater relief than any of the others, that the patient cannot acquire and use legally?
Not to mention, THC is one of hundreds of exocannabinoid-class molecules. Each molecule blend, each dimer and isomer, will have different properties. Some will offer little or no high at all, but be excellent for reducing intraocular pressure for glaucoma patients. Another might be best for cranial vasoconstriction to offer migraine relief but have an unfortunate side effect of visual hallucinations. There’s no way to isolate each specific one unless research is legalized.
Taking the whole plant extract, of course, is most effective overall because the blend of phytocannabinoids affects your system more widely and more gently than a pure molecule extract would. It’s similar to why coffee, with its blend of xanthine-class molecules, is a more pleasant pick-me-up than pure caffeine pills of similar dosage. The use of plant extracts as opposed to pure molecule compounds has fallen out of use in America, thanks to some political maneuvering by the AMA in the first half of the 20th century, but is alive and pharmacologically sound in many countries in Europe and Asia today.
Inhalation is a preferred method of administration of this drug because it has both a rapid onset and a relatively short period of therapeutic activity. Smoking any organic matter will, of course, produce carcinogens. Oral consumption requires being able to hold down a pill, up to an hour of waiting time, and then the side-effects for a good five or six hours. The technique of vaporization is popular amongst actual medical users, as it aerosolizes the active molecules without producing any carcinogenic smoke.
Chronic and heavy marijuana use has also been associated with loss of short-term memory. But then, sleep deprivation and stress are both far more damaging to short-term memory, both of which a suffering and inadequately-treated patient is likely to experience.
When you get down to it, it’s really a question of whether you think people should, in consultation with their doctors and after having been informed of the potential risks and benefits, be able to decide for themselves what to put into their bodies.
Quote
October 21, 2009, 4:03 amuberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post...
This post was mentioned on Twitter by charyl: From conservative “Volokh.com” A Step Toward Sanity on Medical Marijuana http://bit.ly/LZk2V NOTE: campaign promise kept #p2...
Ryan Waxx says:
Congratulations, although you failed to show how pot is unique in its power to relieve pain, you DID manage to break out the “f-yourself“‘s, crude sexual orientation insults, etc. Hermaphrodites? Hey, I though it was the conservatives who were supposed to have the sexual hangups.
So, lets sum up:
* We have some commenters who think that the super-unique property of weed is that you can smoke it. Apparently there is no other delivery system on earth that will do... and at the same time this miracle delivery system, that is so incredibly necessary for cancer patients... somehow no pharma company out there realized the desperate, desperate need for this incredibly difficult to create delivery system... this “smoking” system that no one heard about until the miracle of pot.
* We have some commenters hoping a loved one of mine gets cancer so I too can magically overcome the laws of biological reactions to realize that pot is the only one true drug for relief... and other commenters who claim that I personally made the first group up, that no one claims pot is uniquely effective, and when I point them out, the second group covers their eyes, going “la, la, la, can’t hear you!”. Yeah, real mature.
* We have some commenters claiming that the real reason is actually the fact that you can grow it yourself — and that somehow this really is the real reason, despite the silly people mentioned above... but then cannot explain why if that was the real reason, that almost no one is growing it themselves. Unless you are postulating that streetwalkers in LA aren’t hawking fake prescriptions, they’re really selling farmland?
* Anatid is the only person in this entire thread who’s actually attempted to make a case that medical MJ has a unique place... but you have to ignore the fact that his argument consists of waving his hand and saying “well, everyone’s different! That explains it!”
Um, thanks.
His theory is reasonable and logical, but it simply does not match what actually happens when pot is legalized. Far from being one of many available options to be used when the others do not work, we find that the number of people “discovering” the need for it far outstrips the total number of people with cancer. Funny how that works.
Which leaves the commenters three options: They can either sit around guessing about my genitals, or they can grow the hell up and stop pretending that they’re fooling anyone when they demand “medical” marijuana. Alternatively, they could keep lying and making up new excuses each time they’re questioned... but what happens when you’re figured out? Maybe your deceit will come back to haunt you. Maybe you deserve it.
Quote
October 21, 2009, 5:08 pmLeo Marvin says:
That’ll teach you to wait for something from a pot-generation hippie.
Quote
October 21, 2009, 5:10 pmChrisTS says:
Ah, but the [real] question is whether you [really] support legal medical use of mj or whether you [really] just nefariously claim to do so that you can [really] supply your own evil habits.
Quote
October 21, 2009, 8:50 pmChrisTS says:
RW:
Noo. That is your supposition. I think Anatid responded to this quite effectively. Short version: individuals are not all alike; it is good to have a variety of treatments for any given symptom/problem.
Quote
October 21, 2009, 8:55 pmChrisTS says:
what actually happens when pot is legalized.
How would we know what ‘actually happens’ when medical mj is legalized?
Quote
October 21, 2009, 8:57 pmChrisTS says:
Ryan:
You are quite correct that we have gotten a bit silly.
I certainly was not reflecting on your genitalia –of which I know nothing and want to know nothing. I was making a joke to Leo based on what I thought was a funny idea: ‘self-copulating.’ (I’m not new to this idea. I just always find it amusing, and Leo and I like to joke together.)
However, at the end of the day, you might stop and think about not only how people are responding to your comments but also why they are responding as they do.
You rail and carry on, ignoring or dismissing every reasonable response that is made to you. Yes, mj does have unique properties insofar as it works for some chemo patients while synthetic drugs and/or other delivery mechanisms do not. Yes, it does seem to be uniquely effective in treating the pain of glaucoma.
But you simply poo-poo all this, even when clearly informed people such as Anatid provide you with good evidence and explanations. Your posts are increasingly hyperbolic and rude.
So, surprise, people have stopped responding to you as a serious, rational interlocutor. I’m sorry if we have offended you. You might stop and reflect as to whether you were the first to give offense through fanatical, unreasoned treatment of the views of others.
Quote
October 21, 2009, 9:15 pmFub says:
Actually it performs the key function necessary for treating glaucoma: it reduces intraocular pressure. Pain relief is simply a side effect of treating the primary damaging effect of the disease. Increased intraocular pressure is how glaucoma destroys eyesight.
Bob Randall, the first patient ever to receive a federal license to use cannabis to treat his glaucoma, thereby retained his eyesight until his death in 2001.
I had the privilege of meeting Bob in the 1990s. He smoked more cannabis than any 10 recreational users I’ve ever heard of. He was a brilliant inspirational speaker and role model. His mental acuity and quick recall of facts and theories was greater than that of any lawyer I’ve ever met. He dressed like a chamber of commerce representative. His mere existence shattered the folk myths about marijuana, mental acuity and motivation. His story is here.
Quote
October 21, 2009, 10:46 pmLeo Marvin says:
RW,
I’m going to be less polite about this than Chris was. You’re a bigot and a jackass, and you have no idea what you’re talking about. How do I know that, aside from being a legalization supporter who doesn’t drink, smoke pot or take any other mind-altering drugs?
Because after watching too many people I cared about with cancer and AIDS lose the will to live when they thought the cure was worse than the disease, I finally have a very close relative who’s alive thanks to chemotherapy he can tolerate only by smoking pot. Pot he got at the urging and with the help of his oncologist at a major cancer hospital, which unfortunately isn’t in a legalized medical marijuana state. But the doctors and staff take the legal risk of helping patients get it anyway, because they know that for some of them it’s all that works.
Because if you did even a little research before shooting your mouth off, you’d know that as long as 20 years ago, i.e., long before medical marijuana was legal anywhere in this country, almost half of surveyed oncologists had already recommended it as an anti-emetic to at least one patient, again, the legal risks notwithstanding (you can find your own links).
But you know these highly trained professionals only do that because they’re drug addled hippies, right? You idiot. I’d love to see you trot that argument out on any cancer ward. I’ve met some good, movement-conservative, cancer patient family members who’d have trouble restraining an excessive display of their Second Amendment rights. Meanwhile, us librul pot-generation hippies would just sing Kumbayah, give you a flower and tell you to go f*** yourself.
Quote
October 22, 2009, 1:05 amKirk Lazarus says:
Pot messes many people up. Sure messed me up. Now I’m an anarcho-libertarian who supports legalization, but I don’t believe a word of this pot as panacea stuff.
Quote
October 26, 2009, 11:10 pmMediaMentions says:
After much consideration, I have to say that I’m still in favour of medical marijuana, and so is most of the media: http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/showlink.aspx?bookmarkid=249B32Z3J531&preview=article&linkid=05feeacd-74fd-43b6-813c-e3f20b2b9071&pdaffid=ZVFwBG5jk4Kvl9OaBJc5%2bg%3d%3d
Now we just have to wait and see what comes of it.
Sincerely,
MediaMentions
Quote
October 30, 2009, 7:42 pmMarissa Dyan says:
That’s because Vicodin is not just something that impacts the life of the individual who is doing drugs. There is a cost to that person’s family for starters. And there is also the cost to society — when that individual hits a couple of pedestrians when they are under the influence of the opiate. Or the insurance costs that go up every time we have to pay for someone’s drug rehab. No, no. This is NOT a time to take a “live and live approach” to anything!
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:59 am