Skip to comments.Support States' Rights - OK Medical Pot
Posted on 06/26/2006 8:22:44 AM PDT by bassmaner
If ever a piece of legislation should pass readily through the U.S. House of Representatives, it is a measure sponsored by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., that would prevent the Department of Justice from using tax dollars to prosecute medical-marijuana patients in states that have legalized medical marijuana. Because it is a good bill, expect it to fail.
Polls show that some three out of four Americans support allowing doctors to prescribe medical marijuana for patients who need it. Members must know that constituents within their districts use marijuana to control pain and nausea -- their families would like to live without the fear of prosecution. As Time Magazine reported last year, research shows that the drug has salutary "analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects."
Republicans should be drawn to the states' rights angle of the bill, while Democrats should go for the personal stories of constituents who have found relief, thanks to medical marijuana.
Yet when the House last voted on the measure in 2005, it tanked in a 264-162 vote. As the House is scheduled to consider the measure this week, few expect the measure to pass. "I wish I could tell you it's going to pass," Marijuana Policy Project spokesman Bruce Mirken conceded by phone last week. "I can't realistically expect that."
Over the last decade, two big hurdles existed: Republicans and Democrats. Last year, a mere 15 Repubs voted for the measure -- down from 19 GOP members who supported it in 2004. On the other side of the aisle, Democrats are moving toward the light. In 1998, the Clinton Justice Department filed suit against California medical-marijuana clubs. Last year, however, an impressive 145 Dems voted for Hinchey-Rohrabacher.
Martin Chilcutt of Kalamazoo, Mich., has written to his local GOP congressman, Rep. Fred Upton. A veteran who believes he got cancer because of his military service, Chilcutt told me that his Veterans Administration hospital doctors supported his use of medical marijuana when he had cancer.
Upton's office told me that Upton believes Marinol, the legal synthetic drug that includes the active ingredient in marijuana, should do the trick.
I asked Chilcutt if he had tried the drug. "I don't like Marinol at all," Chilcutt replied. It takes too long to work, it is hard to calibrate the dose you need, and "it made me feel weird." He prefers marijuana because it works instantly -- "You can control the amount you're using, and you get instant feedback."
Upton also fears sending the wrong message to kids about marijuana. But federal law has long allowed the sick access to needed pain control with drugs more powerful than marijuana. Only bad politics can account for the fact that marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substances Act, and thus deemed more harmful than cocaine and morphine -- drugs that can kill users who overdose.
Alex Holstein, a former GOP operative and conservative activist, is lobbying Republicans on behalf of the Marijuana Policy Project. He believes that regardless of their position on medical marijuana, Repubs in the California delegation should support Hinchey-Rohrabacher because state voters approved Proposition 215 -- and Republicans should stand up for states' rights and the will of California voters.
As it is, President Bush should direct the Justice Department to lay off medical-marijuana users -- because it is the right thing to do for sick people.
It's not as if the administration doesn't know how to sit on its hands and not enforce existing law. Last week, The Washington Post reported that under Bush, the number of employers prosecuted for hiring illegal aliens plummeted from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003.
If the Bushies can look the other way when well-heeled employers break the law, they can look the other way when sick people try to relieve unnecessary pain.
That's a laugh, when has the government been know to 'do the right thing'? It's all about money, the Almighty Dollar. If MJ were legal, then people could grow it in their backyards, without the government getting it's share (tax). Alcohol sales would plummet, along with the tax revenue it generates.
I used it in the past (15 years ago) and so I know from experience that is it far less harmful than alcohol when used in moderation
You forgot to ping paulsen. He hates pot. He'll spend pages and pages debating semantics with you. Did I mention that he hates pot?
''Polls show that some three out of four Americans support allowing doctors to prescribe medical marijuana for patients who need it.''
... while a tyrannical, dogmatic minority of thugs [led by Bush] continues to persecute the sick, dying, and lame.
Bush to America - ''Screw the Will of the People.''
WE abolutely need to legalize illegal drugs because they are doing the jobs Americans wont!!!!
Even recreational marijuana use should be allowed. Any argument to keep marijuana illegal can be applied to alcohol (times 10).
Stopping marijuana smoking is more important than going after the New York Times' treason. [/sarcasm]
To be fair, our side does has some pretty choice names for the Administration when we discuss illegal immigration.
At least she didn't say 'Chimpy McHitlerburton' ... :^)
That's not why. The reason why is that civil seizures of property associated with marijuana arrests is a massive windfall for law enforcement that is, as a bonus, largely ungoverned by detailed legislative oversight. If you took marijuana out of that picture, you'd scale back civil seizure income to about 1/10 of what it is now since, according to DEA figures, there are about 30 million marijuana "addicts", and about a million combined heroin/cocaine addicts.
It is in their genes to do that. You can sometimes mess with them by feeding it back to them carefully. I got ripped off by an illegal alien and when discussing it with my ultra-liberal acquaintances I say "I guess that's just the bushies charging me to support their open border policy." They go for the bait and jump right in, then it slowly dawns on them that they have wandered into a conundrum and after 3 or 4 sentences start stuttering. Heh.
It is, on available statistics, far less harmful than alcohol even when used in immoderation. No amount of marijuana will, for example, despite the best efforts of the Calif. Hwy Patrol, and others, to demonstrate otherwise, significantly impair the safety of a driver. In fact, in many of the tests they ran, the marijuana users were safer than non-users, because they became more deliberate and more in-the-moment than the control drivers--the upside of lowered short-term memory. You might ask yourself why alcohol is, according to the CHP, impairing above a .02 blood level, but no such measure exists for marijuana--CHP put a lot of expensive effort into establishing just such a number, and failed.
i've always believed that these issuse of "medical marijuana"/states rights have gotten Libertarians off message. This is the same situation for articles touting the benefits of marijuana.
The Libertarian message was, is now, and always should be that ...It is none of the government's DAMNED BUSINESS, what, if any, intoxicants a free adult individual consumes on their own time if they are causing harm to no individual. If they commit a crime, then they are responsible for their behaviour, and should be prosecuted for that crime.
It is high time (pun not intended), that the drug warriers stop prosecuting the substance for the bad behaviour of the individual using it. Prosecute the INDIVIDUAL for his/her crimes, they are no less responsible than the person who has committed crimes while 'under the influence' of alcohol.
Although I agree, I would never advocate driving while under the influence of anything.
I would never advocate driving. It has far more stupifying effect than most recreational drugs.
I love it when druggies get all smart sounding while arguing that dope is a good thing...
Tenth Amendment? You do realize you're talking about Republicans don't you? The party that did more than any other to destroy the Tenth Amendment. Fat chance of that happening....
He fully supports state's rights to do as they please about medical marijuana,,,,and fully supports the DEA's right to do as they please as well. What's a politician about, if not pleasing others?
As opposed to how this clever bit of repartee makes you seem all smart-sounding.
Just like we have the manpower to overfly every house in the nation three or so times a year to be sure that none has a reefer patch, but don't have enough manpower to control the borders.
If THAT isn't goofy enough.....
Nope, it was a complete cheap shot devoid of any discernable wit, intellectual justification, or significant social commentary.
But, all the same, I still find pot-heads amusing.
No, because it failed miserably in 2003, 2004 and 2005, expect it to fail miserably in 2006.
You're suggesting the cancer patient smoke marijuana? Where, in his hospital room? With a supressed immune system due to the chemo, you're not concerned about a fungal or bacterial infection from the marijuana?
How much of a share is the government getting today? Zero, zip, nada.
"Alcohol sales would plummet, along with the tax revenue it generates."
So you're saying people will switch from alcohol to marijuana? Now why would they do that? People are going to take up smoking? They'll throw away the Glenlivet and grab some Acapulco Gold?
So you can take your lame excuse for this massive increase in business for a substance that will have the entire bayboom host arriving on the old-age scene with huge cognitive impaiment and scamming the GovernMental Medicaid Welfare System to pay for their danged Nursing Home and other chronic pot induced disabilities!!!
You don't love freedom, or the State's Rights... you just love your dope-smokin, maggot-infested, FM type friends and the illegal drug trafficing they're doin in my community! I can't even find a parking place at my Post Office that shares a parking lot with the phony "Pot Dr.!" What a farce!!!
The first thing a pot smoker did when I walked onto a job was to tell me how great a day he was having and how much work he had done when in reality he hadn't done s**t and what little he had done was crappy work.
It's when the checkbook came out of my pocket!
Of course, because politicians from both sides of the aisle are gutless cowards on this issue because of Drug Warrior demagogery, especially if they're not in a 'safe' district. Since there's no aggrieved victim class to pander to, the 'Rats won't touch it. And because there's corporate and law enforcement interest in keeping it illegal, the Pubbies won't touch it, either.
Imagine the campaign spots in a close congressional race if 1 of the 2 major party candidates supports this measure ... "my opponent supports making dangerous drugs more available to your children ... I will fight to keep them out of their hands blah blah blah ...". I'd bet you'd just love to write the script for that, rp! :^)
I hope you fired the slug for incompetence.
It's even funnier when they go all patriotic and start talking about the constitution and freedom and liberty and Tenth amendment -- but only for marijuana, not all drugs.
Who says they haven't?
"Hamadeh and associates. Chest, Vol. 94/2, pp.432-433, 1988. "Invasive aspergillosis has become a significant cause of death in immunosuppressed patients". Physicians should be aware of this potentially lethal complication of marijuana use in compromised hosts such as patients with AIDS or malignancies.)"
"Transplantation, Vol. 61, June 27, 1996. (Marijuana smoke transmits aspergillosis, a fungus having up to a 90% fatality rate if contracted by transplant patients. Researchers have strongly warned against the use of marijuana in immuno-compromised patients such as those with AIDS, chronic granulomatous disease, bone marrow transplants and those receiving chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer.)"
"Voth EA, Schwartz RH. Medicinal applications of delta 9 THC and marijuana: a perspective. Annals of Internal Medicine 1997: 126:791-8. (Marijuana is not a panacea. It is an impure weed that introduces immuno compromised patients to bacteria, fungi, and other toxic complications. We recommend sticking with predictable medical therapies and not deviating from FDA approved medicine in exchange for herbal remedies"
Both drug use and performance.
I had no tolerance for drinking or dope, "0"!
Oh! I suppose you live on San Juan ridge in Nevada County, right? Holy smokes!!! I don't care how long you and your family has lived here before this "flatlander" arrived 30 years ago, what I said is still fully and absolutely correct in spite of your smug sophistry!!!
So I guess when posters on this forum say that marijuana has never killed anyone, they didn't count this guy.
As opposed to the sterling record hospitals have of never misfiring meds or creating infections with needles and surgical instruments. What do you say we bring a sense of proportion to our concerns? Oh, excuse me, I forget we were drug warriors.
So I guess when posters on this forum say that marijuana has never killed anyone, they didn't count this guy.
Let me be the first to point out that the patient in question did not die of the effects of cannibus, which is generally the issue we'd be concerned about if we were actually interested in comparable harm, rather than scoring any propaganda opportunity that presents itself, no matter how irrelevant and feeble. If marijuana was legal, the FDA or the Dept of Ag would be supervising its purity at market, and something could have legally been done to prevent the death in question. Your patient is a victim of marijuana laws, not marijuana.
Try this link: http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/2/432
Here's another one. This one lived.
"A 48 year old successful kidney transplant patient who heavily used marijuana immediately following his transplant developed invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA), a fungus transmitted in the smoke of marijuana. Marks et al reported on their use of an experimental antifungal drug to effectively treat this life threatening condition (Transplantation, Vol. 61, 1771-1773, No. 12, June 27, 1996), and noted that IPA "is a devastating complication in the immuno-compromised patient" such as patients with AIDS, chronic granulomatous disease, bone marrow transplants and those receiving chemotherapy for small cell lung cancer. Aspergillosis has up to a 90% fatality rate if contracted by transplant patients."
I find drug-warriors amusing. This would be a symmetric phenomenon, except that my team doesn't have a track record of sweeping thru minority ghettos, putting every kid they can grab off the playground in jail and blighting their futures if they have reefers in their pockets. Unlike the treatment any federal official's kid gets for the exact same offense. What a laugh riot.
Yep, and it's normally not a problem with healthy people. But cancer patients on chemo, AIDS patients, transplants patients, and others with suppressed immune systems are susceptible and may become infected and die.
"If marijuana was legal, the FDA or the Dept of Ag would be supervising its purity at market"
Medical marijuana IS legal and is being recommended in eleven states and neither the FDA or the Dept of Ag is involved in supervising squat.
The thrust of the article in this thread is that the federal government should leave these states alone. To do what, kill immunosuppressed patients?