The Bravery of Bill Richardson:
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson wants to be President, but that will not stop him from signing a bill legalizing medical marijuana in limited circumstances. "So what if it's risky? It's the right thing to do," Richardson told the press. Then again, New Mexico will be the twelfth state to approve medical marijuana, so maybe the move will actually help Richardson's campaign. (Link via TalkLeft)
I would like a Richardson vs Ron Paul race, but I know it isnt going to happen. More likely we will be stuck with something abominable like Hillary v McCain or Giuliani v Obama. *puke*
I am pleased with the development, but I am hardly viewing it as a profile in political courage.
It just strikes me as strange that people would have strong opposition to even medical use. Can someone who knows the issue better fill us in?
It's like opposition to the "threat to the mother's health" exception in abortion bans. I have seen people argue (in comments on this very site) that such an exception has so much potential for abuse that it renders the ban meaningless. If someone wants an abortion, and a health exception is available, she can just find a sympathetic or bribable doctor to say her health is at risk. So, if marijuana is legally available to those who need it for medical reasons, healthy people will be able to get it legally through shady doctors.
At least, that's what I imagine the reasoning is. That, or "Marijuana is EVIL, no exceptions."
This line of reasoning is foolish. The state's action would be like moving the drug from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3 on the controlled substance act (which is technically federal govt). Are you going to argue that the government can't control things such as Opiates and Anabolic Steroids? Yes there is abuse and people breaking the law with phony prescriptions, but it is no where as dire as some people paint the picture.
The evidence is in.
Government can write laws.
It can control nothing without the co-operation of the people.
In any case Addiction Is A Genetic Disease. You don't catch it from drugs.
Click my name for a fun question you can ask Bill Richardson.
Perhaps replace 'medical marijuana' with 'abortion' and see if it makes a difference.
Conan) There is no medical use. No study has proven that medical marijuana is the most effective treatment for a given disease. The FDA and Congress have explicitly found that such a use does not exist. The "evidence" otherwise is basically people arguing that getting high reduces pain. Sure, and so would cocaine and heroine. Shall we legalize them too?
The government won't allow anyone most researchers to get marijuana to use in such studies.
The FDA and Congress have explicitly found that such a use does not exist.
On a completely unscientific basis. If Congress said that pi=3.0, would you want to cross a bridge designed using that rule?
At any rate, medical marijuana is a painkiller and nausea treatment. This means the patient is the best judge of whether it's working. Marijuana is also the only known painkiller with no known lethal dose. Too much Tylenol will kill you, even though it's utterly inadequate to deal with the pain of cancer. (Aside from marijuana, extreme pain is usually treated with opiates, which are dangerous both for overdose deaths and for addiction.) Too much marijuana might make you high. Are you so terrified of someone getting high on pot that you'd rather have them become addicted to an opiate?
That is hardly necessary. Different bodies react in different ways to the same chemical. If it works better for some people (and it does), that ought to be enough to not criminally prosecute those people for possession.
The "evidence" otherwise is basically people arguing that getting high reduces pain. Sure, and so would cocaine and heroine. Shall we legalize them too?
Cocaine is a Schedule II drug that is approved for certain medical use. Heroin is Schedule I but its sister chemical, morphine, is approved for medical use.
Most of the claims about marijuana really aren't controversial to anyone with any life experience. Marijuana as an appetite stimulant for AIDS and cancer patients? Impossible!
It's also not really relevant; medical marijuana might have a small benefit, but would cause immense harm in the war on drugs. Which, libertarians aside, most of us support.
And my objection stands - Richardson knows it's illegal, and he is signing it anyway.
It's also not really relevant; medical marijuana might have a small benefit, but would cause immense harm in the war on drugs. Which, libertarians aside, most of us support.
</blockquote>
What immense harm would medical marijuana have on the "war on drugs?"
If marijuana were easier and cheaper to obtain, there's every reason to believe the war on drugs would become more successful. Not only would marijuana's relative lack of scarcity make it a less attractive criminal enterprise, but valuable law enforcement resources might rationally be spent fighting drugs that are actually dangerous.
No one is suggesting we legalize marijuana. This would only be for a few people who would be given prescriptions. Unless there was widespread abuse, recreational marijuana would be no easier to get.
At the same time, it would fatallay undermine the war on drugs. Right now, any possession of marijuana is illegal. If a cop finds it, he arrests you. If he smells it, he goes into your house, and arrests you. If some people have permission to possess the stuff, it complicates all of this. The war on drugs includes marijuana, by the way. In case you forgot.
The program was eventually killed by congress after it was overwhelmed by AIDS patients, but there are still a few grand-fathered in who receive the drug today.
jvarisco: your screen name doesn't seem familiar, so I'm not sure how often you visit this site. That being said, you may notice that the opinions of commenters here (and on this particular issue generally) are pretty one-sided. And the reason surely is not that everyone here agrees on everything, as the threads on guns, the US atty firings, Israel, etc. will reveal. So, why do you think there's virtual concensus on this one particular issue? I'll venture my own guess: because the commenters here are generally very bright and well-educated. I know of no bright, well-informed people who actually believe there really is a "war on drugs," let alone support such an absurd concept.
If you believe that there is an actual war on drugs, and not a selective persecution of certain substances for nefarious reasons, then you're not paying attention. I do not mean to insult you. You just happen to be out of your league on this one.
Of course, the IOM study, the most recent one i am aware of conducted by the U.S. government, had the caveat that certain currently available prescription drugs could also help, but the point raised by many chemo and AIDS wasting patients is that taking a pill (for pain relief, whatever) does absolutely no good if you instantly throw it back up. Coincidentally, anti-nausea is one of the main reasons pot is taken medically by the very sick. You simply can't throw up the THC inhaled from a joint. This means the medicine stays in your system and you get the desired result.
In addition, the pot is often used to stimulate appetite and as an anti-nasuea drug, so you smoke the pot - you lose your naseua and can hold down food. Food=energy. course, if you are not throwing up you can take your other meds. Many people arent using pot as a stand alone effort against their disease's...its the pot that often times let them take their prescribed meds and which keeps the person alive. To deny sick and dying Americans this option for relief is not simply inhumane, its barbaric.
When I said most people, I was referring to the voters in this country. So, whatever problems one may have the with war on drugs, suggesting we should abandon it is not politically feasible. Thus pointless to even make, in this context. I don't think we are adequately prosecuting the war on drugs. None of that means we should give up, or stay as lax as we are.
Ship Erect) The police shouldn't arrest someone they know is possessing an illegal substance? Marijuana is no different from meth, or a radiation bomb, or anything else. The sentence may be less, but the offense is the same; none of these substances may be possessed in any amount in this country.
Tell ya what: I'll come back to this thread in a few hours. If no one puts in the effort to write a response to your last post, or if someone seconds your remarks, then I will glady provide a reasoned retort.
Otherwise, if you're seriously interested in this topic, I suggest you do a bit of research on marijuana and the nation's "drug war," of which there is a ton on the 'net.
Which, coincidentally, many of the opiate based pain medications also seem to be too strong, or addictive.
As far as Pfizer and the FDA, you need to wake up to the program man. Who do you think sits in the upper echelon's of FDA regulatory bodies? I know at least one former pharmacutical company lobbyist who does. And i dare say what financial incentive big pharma would have against allowing people to grow their own medicine.
And "most people" support medical marijuana for the sick and dying. How do you think 11 states voted it in? (actually, if i rememeber correctly, 10 states voted for it in a general election, one legislature passed it on their own- these figures could be slightly off). Regardless, national polls consistently show majority support for medical marijuana for certain conditions. Even AARP conducted a poll showing the same. (not exactly known as a fringe lefty group).
The point is, people have voted on it and they have passed laws legalizing its use. The federal governemnt is behind the curve and their ridiculous attempts to stifle medical marijuana by raiding dispensaries in states where it is legal only makes them look more fascist, out of touch and misguided in the war on some drugs than they were only a decade ago. If you can rationally justify putting a wheelchair bound cancer patient in jail for smoking a joint because said person is in agonizing pain as said person's body is being eaten from the inside out by cancer, and you can sleep at night, there is nothing i can offer to change your mind as your course is set. May the fires of hell burn for you forever hotter, For all eternity. Amen.
Note that this law does not allow people to grow their own medicine. And such laws are even worse; how exactly would you regulate home-grown marijuana? It would be practically impossible and thus prone to massive abuse. Which would undermine the war on drugs. There is a reason presciptions are heavily regulated, and it's not just pharmaceutical company greed. How about modifying marijuana plants so they don't get people high? Thus they would not be abused for recreational purposes. But I think the true purpose behind these laws is decriminalizing all marijuana, and that's a problem.
I don't have the polls, but I know at least one state rejected medical marijuana in the latest election. But that's immaterial; federal law pre-empts state law in this case. Richardson is allowing people to break the law.
I agree there are major problems in the war on drugs. But I think they stem from too little enforcement, not too much.