News and recovery-oriented commentary about current controversies, emerging trends and research findings related to drug and alcohol addiction, treatment and recovery.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Medical marijuana victory
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a California case on the matter.
6 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Heres the thing. Does this guy really need to be driving around with 1/3 oz of the chronic? Only if he is going on vacation, coming home from the clinic or getting high with friends. Every time I read about this medical marijuana stuff I cant help but think what BS it is. Not that medical marijuana is BS but the fact that we continue to pretend that thats what this is really about. Lets call it like it is. This is about decriminalization of marijuana.So, we need to deal with the implications of that. I lived in California and I saw who was prescribed weed. I'm tired of this stupid game its a waste of time and resources.
I agree. There are clearly some people in the medical marijuana movement that are very earnest, but my impression is that many of them are either libertarian and are philosophically driven, or they like weed.
Given this, I'd also rather that the discussion focus on changing it's legal status.
Who is growing this "medicine"? I'm sure they are not using any for recreational purposes, (sarcastic, because that would be illegal. Where is the money going? Are taxes being paid on it? What is the dosing schedule like, do the doctors prescribe a Med schedule? Who regulates the purity? Is weed an OTC med like benadryl or tylenol? If so, why need a script at all?
I don't understand the basis of your argument. Medical marijuana is just that: a doctor PRESCRIBED drug for use by those who have a legitimate need. Benzos are prescribed, as are abused pain relievers, but we don't BAN medicine because it can be addictive or abused. That would be outrageous. 1) of course people are philosophically driven - we all are; our morals and values dictate our thinking (ideally, anyway). I find your cynical attitude just that - it makes me suspect bitterness and resentment due to an "it's not legal for ME" underlying your stand. But that could just be me being CYNICAL and passing judgment - and I work hard to NOT do that these days. It doesn't affect me at all, personally, and it's not MY business. If pot relieves suffering, great. MY addiction and alcoholism are NOT at issue here. And what is the downside of decriminalization anyway? Prohibition didn't work, so why do we still fight this? Illegal drugs = crime.
Furthermore, I find the argument about the seizure interesting. The property, medically authorized marijuana, was taken by the police because the man could not at the time of seizure prove that it was LEGALLY his. Upon his providing that proof, charges were dropped BUT his PROPERTY, his prescription, was NOT returned. Were it, say, a flat-screen TV in the back of a Gremlin that was seized, upon proving the TV was in fact HIS property, would the police not have to return HIS property, the TV?? Just offering a discussion about search and seizure... and an appropriation of PERSONAL PROPERTY.
I'm not knee jerk about legalization and while I question the motives of a lot of advocates, I'm not too concerned about the passage of medical marijuana in Michigan. I've got concerns about legalization and have discussed them in previous posts (lower age of first use, commercialization, etc.) but I also don't believe that anyone should go to jail for personal use. I tend to end up thinking that it should be illegal, but punishable by fines only. I also like Mark Kleiman idea of allowing anyone to own 3 plants and criminalize sale of it. This would kill the potential of commercialization.
I also agree that we do not and should not criminalize addictive medicines. But we have a process for the approval and regulation of those drugs. I know that we will never be able to remove politics this process, but it's hard to imagine pot receiving FDA approval even if this controversy did not exist. It's method of administration (smoking), the existence of alternative medications and the existence of marinol and savitex.
I haven't heard too much about the effectiveness of savitex. I hope that it's better than marinol and we can put the whole controversy to rest.
6 comments:
Heres the thing. Does this guy really need to be driving around with 1/3 oz of the chronic? Only if he is going on vacation, coming home from the clinic or getting high with friends. Every time I read about this medical marijuana stuff I cant help but think what BS it is. Not that medical marijuana is BS but the fact that we continue to pretend that thats what this is really about. Lets call it like it is. This is about decriminalization of marijuana.So, we need to deal with the implications of that. I lived in California and I saw who was prescribed weed. I'm tired of this stupid game its a waste of time and resources.
I agree. There are clearly some people in the medical marijuana movement that are very earnest, but my impression is that many of them are either libertarian and are philosophically driven, or they like weed.
Given this, I'd also rather that the discussion focus on changing it's legal status.
Who is growing this "medicine"? I'm sure they are not using any for recreational purposes, (sarcastic, because that would be illegal. Where is the money going? Are taxes being paid on it? What is the dosing schedule like, do the doctors prescribe a Med schedule? Who regulates the purity? Is weed an OTC med like benadryl or tylenol? If so, why need a script at all?
I don't understand the basis of your argument. Medical marijuana is just that: a doctor PRESCRIBED drug for use by those who have a legitimate need. Benzos are prescribed, as are abused pain relievers, but we don't BAN medicine because it can be addictive or abused. That would be outrageous. 1) of course people are philosophically driven - we all are; our morals and values dictate our thinking (ideally, anyway). I find your cynical attitude just that - it makes me suspect bitterness and resentment due to an "it's not legal for ME" underlying your stand. But that could just be me being CYNICAL and passing judgment - and I work hard to NOT do that these days. It doesn't affect me at all, personally, and it's not MY business. If pot relieves suffering, great. MY addiction and alcoholism are NOT at issue here. And what is the downside of decriminalization anyway? Prohibition didn't work, so why do we still fight this? Illegal drugs = crime.
Furthermore, I find the argument about the seizure interesting. The property, medically authorized marijuana, was taken by the police because the man could not at the time of seizure prove that it was LEGALLY his. Upon his providing that proof, charges were dropped BUT his PROPERTY, his prescription, was NOT returned. Were it, say, a flat-screen TV in the back of a Gremlin that was seized, upon proving the TV was in fact HIS property, would the police not have to return HIS property, the TV?? Just offering a discussion about search and seizure... and an appropriation of PERSONAL PROPERTY.
I'm not knee jerk about legalization and while I question the motives of a lot of advocates, I'm not too concerned about the passage of medical marijuana in Michigan. I've got concerns about legalization and have discussed them in previous posts (lower age of first use, commercialization, etc.) but I also don't believe that anyone should go to jail for personal use. I tend to end up thinking that it should be illegal, but punishable by fines only. I also like Mark Kleiman idea of allowing anyone to own 3 plants and criminalize sale of it. This would kill the potential of commercialization.
I also agree that we do not and should not criminalize addictive medicines. But we have a process for the approval and regulation of those drugs. I know that we will never be able to remove politics this process, but it's hard to imagine pot receiving FDA approval even if this controversy did not exist. It's method of administration (smoking), the existence of alternative medications and the existence of marinol and savitex.
I haven't heard too much about the effectiveness of savitex. I hope that it's better than marinol and we can put the whole controversy to rest.
Post a Comment