Going Green
Dave Price
Glenn has a great little video piece by Drew Carey on medical marijuana.
One particularly interesting interviewee is Bill Leahy, who runs a printing businss: "I am a hawk, I mean, I'm a right-wing, I volunteered to go to Vietnam, I joined the service, I've always been a Republican. I'm very, for law and order, right and wrong, right to have my guns..." He talks about having Marfan's syndrome, and how cannabis relieves the pain of his disease.
Really, I can't understand how anyone can reasonably oppose medical marijuana, given what we now know about the herb. Forcing people to turn to drug dealers to get the most effective medicine for their condition is just unconscionable. And you can't convince me there isn't a better law enforcement use for our tax dollars than breaking down the doors of medical marijuana clinics.
Sadly, as best I can tell the major Presidential candidates in both parties seem to be on the wrong side of this issue.
UPDATE: Ah, apparently the Dem candidates are significantly better, with most of them agreeing that the raids, at least, should be ended. Giuliani and the other Republican candidates have said the raids would continue under their administrations.
99% of the people with their 'doctors notes' are simply stoners who want to get high. Nothing more.
It's a complete joke. The medical excuse has been exaggerated. It's a huge semi-underground economy. It's about money, nothing more.
I'm all for medical marijuana (done right), especially for chemotherapy patients, whom it clearly DOES help, but the current method of claiming you have depression, a stubbed toe, or tend to crack your knuckles too much, etc, is ridiculous. There are no acceptable guidelines, and that's the problem.
'medical reason' my ass....
The Public's won't support it because their perception of weed users is, and will be for quite some time, Cheech and Chong.
I'm sure that's a problem, but does the objection to some people abusing the prescripti0n process to enjoy weed recreationally outweigh the needs of those who really use it medicinally, given how relatively harmless marijuana is?
A lot of prescripti0n drugs are abused, most with far more serious side effects.
That makes it sound like individuals suffering from cancer are having their doors knocked down. That's not really happening here. The big 'dispensaries' are getting raided.
What next, the Democrats promising to not deport illegal aliens so that people will vote for them?
I just get the feeling that they'll sell out the country in order to stay in power. Their refusal to address social security is the finest example, they wanted the republicans to be defeated so they refused to address the issue. How about doing what's best for the country and thinking about yourself second?
Disclaimer: I'm sure there's plenty of examples of republicans doing the same thing. But the actions (or is it inactions?) of the democrats lately is really upsetting.
This isn't a states rights issue. That's a load of crap.
Dave, I'm not saying it should be illegal. What I'm saying is that the way it's been made available via a medical excuse has been handles completely wrong in california. The federal government DOES need to acknowledge its medicinal value, and until synthetic drugs are developed that do the job without having to breath in smoke, or eat brownies (tough for chemo patients), then it should be available.
It's not a harmless drug, especially for those that smoke it every day for a decade or more.
If the government wants to legalize it, then fine, but the ATF should be given control, it should be licensed, and taxed thru the roof in order to fund the real war on drugs, and to build more prisons for the columbian smugglers, meth lab operators, etc. The key is to turn the drug problem onto itself, that takes money, and weed can provide it with 80% of the sales price being tax.
SO, How do those who support legalization AND government heath-care square the two? How can we have a society that has individual freedoms AND collective responsibility for those choice?
That would explain the munchies issue.
What about the oral spray tincture that the female interviewee was shown using?
The system doesn't work and the idea is poorly concieved and implimented. If people want to see it really used for medical purposes only a way should be researched to make sure those medicinal benefits stay intact while removing the mind-altering effects. Then market that.
The laws on the books in California turn doctors and pharmicists into those drug dealers.
Well, I'll probably be pilloried for this, but I am in favour of decriminalizing the majority of drugs. LSD, Pot, Meth, whatever. Make it all legal and slap a tax on it.
The point us that we should return to a state of personal responsibility. Our laws should reflect an identity of punishment for failure to control yourself, not for possesion.
Lookit here: We punish folks for driving while intoxicated, not for drinking. Extend the same laws to drugs. Jail and fine those who drive under the influence, not for possesing the drug to start with.
Our entire outlook upon drugs is no different than that of the Taliban towards women. They want women clothed from head to foot, cap-a-pie, as it were, to prevent the men from lusting after the women. That completely removes the sense of personal responsibility from the equation. It says that men are by nature weal, and unable to control themselves when in the presence of a woman. That's bullsh!t and anyone with more than 2 brain cells understands that.
However, we treat drugs in the same manner. We tell adults that they may NOT have them because they cannot be trusted to act responsibly. And yet, we allow those same folks to vote, to buy guns, to have children, etc. In short, our government, our society is hypocritical.
We need to drop the laws that preclude us from posessing drugs of all sorts and types and, instead, enforce the laws that hold folks responsible for their actions.
Other's mileage may, of course, vary.
respects,
I can get behind a lot of legalizations, but that one should be out of the question, it's far more easy to abuse other people with than say marijuana or opium.
And:
"but how is this government going to pass or repeal laws that control behavior that may increase heath risks AND at the same time insure everyone regardless of those risks"
The government currently buys a bunch of sugar and fat for the morbidly obese and then supplies them with medicaid for their diabetes and hypertension. And as a witness to this daily, to me it is a sickening spectacle.
You cannot square individual responsibility with gov't healthcare. 1+1 will never equal 3.
And for what it's worth, I agree (mostly) with TimK too.
I honestly wonder how old you are, and if you've seen with your own eyes the effects of meth on people. Do you assume that drinking wine with dinner and snorting a line of meth are in the same category?
Until the human brain is rewired, your plan will not work, unless it combines the death penalty with it.. Such as: get strung out on meth and commit a crime, and you are executed promptly (and cheaply). THAT will eventually work, but only after lots of people have been harmed and lots of people put to death.
Why isn't meth legal in the Netherlands, or ANYWHERE else? Ever given that a thought? Perhaps you should.
"Our entire outlook upon drugs is no different than that of the Taliban towards women."
That made me laugh.
"That completely removes the sense of personal responsibility from the equation."
You're assuming all people are responsible, they're not. There's plenty of completely sober scumbags in this world who are a big problem for society, without drugs and alcohol being involved.
Go to your local black ghetto and talk to some old timers, ask them to tell you what life was like before crack cocaine appeared.
"We tell adults that they may NOT have them because they cannot be trusted to act responsibly."
That's a good thing, because nobody who is addicted to meth acts responsibly, and I challenge you to prove otherwise, I also challenge you to prove meth is not HIGHLY addictive.
"And yet, we allow those same folks to vote, to buy guns, to have children, etc."
Drugs are not involved. Fundamental chemical changes to the brain are not involved. You're comparing apples to oranges.
"We need to drop the laws that preclude us from possessing drugs of all sorts and types and, instead, enforce the laws that hold folks responsible for their actions."
Sorry, bad logic, once again. Let me give you an alternate example of your argument that ought to show why it's flawed: we need to drop the laws that preclude 'unelected terror sponsoring muslims who have called for our destruction' from possession of 'nuclear weapons' and, instead, enforce our policy that hold them responsible for their actions"
Those that do not learn from history.......
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.