Medical Marijuana

RenaissanceLady wrote: The one thing you're missing in this discussion is still the one thing which is most telling:

You are not disputing my research that marijuana was only recently made illegal.
You are not disputing my research that those who fought to make marijuana illegal were those whose personal interests were being threatened by hemp and who fought marijuana using the worst racial stereotypes.
You are not disputing my research that the medical establishment at that time were not supportive of marijuana being banned and were critical of being kept in the dark by the secretive measures which our government went about making marijuana illegal.


Why aren't you disputing these things? You keep stating your biggest concern is that those who don't need marijuana might somehow obtain it and that this would allow it to be legalized. Um, OK, take out the word "marijuana" and replace it with "spray paint" or "liquid paper", or "cold medicine" and "cleaning supplies." Actually, there are a whole host of things which can be harmful or fatal if used incorrectly or by someone who shouldn't. Some of these things are more regulated than others.

Show me in just one place, anywhere in this thread or any thread, where I have stated that marijuana should be banned or that it should not be legal as alcohol and tobacco already are. You can't because I never said it. I never said it because I don't believe it to be true. I don't challenge your facts about when or how marijuana was made illegal because they are true. I don't challenge that it never should have been made illegal in the first place because, surprise surprise, I happen to agree with that sentiment.

Now, can we address what I have been saying instead of challenging what I haven't said? I have said, and I maintain it to be true based upon the empirical evidence, that the majority of those who currently possess a "medical" marijuana card have obtained them fraudulently and are using the medical exemption carved out in the drug laws by a compassionate electorate in this state to indulge in the recreational use of marijuana without exposing themselves to the criminal penalties for doing so. All I am seeking here is intellectual honesty. It isn't a few, it isn't some, it's the majority, plain and simple. The legal area carved out of the drug laws to address the small segment of our society that could realize benefit from a medicinal use of marijuana has been exploited by a large number of people seeking a legal avenue to access marijuana for recreational purposes. As MM so poignantly pointed out in his post back on page 5 of the thread, he knows doctors who are "really good at looking hard to find something that will qualify you". Truthfully RL, what would you say about a doctor who was really good at looking hard to qualify someone for Vicodin or Oxycontin?

Please remember, in your arguments regarding generational bias, that the largest segment of our population, the Baby Boomers, came of age during the "Free Love", "Everybody Must Get Stoned", Woodstock, "Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out" era of our history. These "hippies" are now in their 40's, 50's and 60's. Many of them have been "enjoying the herb" for their entire adult life at the risk of criminal penalites. They are much more likely to be suffering chronic pain than someone in their 20's. I myself am in my late 40's. I was in high school during the late 70's and in college in the early 80's. Some of my closest friends to this day were the ones whose last action before going to bed each night was to load their bong, akin to my parents setting up the coffee pot so it was ready first thing in the morning. I, personally, would have no issue with using marijuana to help offset the effects of chemotherapy or to treat a chronic pain issue - but I do think that chronic recreational use, living your life in a perpetually stoned state of mind, is not different in any reasonable manner from living life in a perpetual state of drunkenness.

I'm not calling for a ban of marijuana, I'm not even sure I wouldn't support legalizing it and taxing the heck out of it like alcohol and tobacco products, but I will call Bovine Scat on the premise that the majority of people currently in possession of a "medical" marijuana card are using marijuana for medicinal purposes instead of recreational ones. Too much evidence exists to logically come to that conclusion.

I would say that you are probably correct in that many who possess a medical marijuana card have no "REAL" medical reason to use marijuana. I disagree that the electorate was deceived. I think many feel just as you and I and the 19/3 vote in the poll here, that marijuana is not dangerous and should be decriminalized.
Under that assumption, people are doing exactly what the electorate expected them to do and that is to advance the cause to decriminalize.
You can't turn the clock back.
I have to say....there are some very interesting people out there with medical marijuana cards in their possession. Chances are pretty good that a close friend, family member or neighbor has one. They don't flaunt it. They don't brag.
I just personally believe that it is somewhat disingenuous to complain that the voters were deceived when in fact....they were not. Anyone,who read the law before they voted for or against could see the future. It left doors wide open.

The amendment carved out an exception for those with "debilitating" conditions Becky. It specifically listed such things as seizures, glaucoma, cancer, HIV, cachexia, and multiple sclerosis and it was conditions such as these that the support for the amendment was sought. Do you really think the voters of this state would have allowed the amendment if they were told by those that sought its passage that they were looking to create a loophole in the law so that people could indulge in recreational use without criminal penalty? Seriously?

Yes I do.
It also mentions chronic pain and left no definition of exactly what that might be.
Most card holders fall into that category...I believe.

I think most voters knew exactly what slippery slope they were heading down. I know I did.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point I guess, especially since the majority of voters in Colorado in 2000 were against legalization (65/35 IIRC) and the amendment passed with a 60/40 (IIRC) majority.

Legalize it, regulate it and tax it. Create laws similar to DUI laws for driving under the influence of marijuana. It's ridiculous that it's still illegal.

I applied for my license back in February due to severe back pain and the fact that I hadn't slept in about 3 months. It provided INSTANT relief. I really love the way those who talk about freedom are so willing to take away other peoples choices on a matter they obviously know nothing about. It has always been a stupid prohibition and we, as a nation, have wasted an awful lot of money and lives fighting it.

Have any extra?

I always have extra for legal patients. Providing relief is what I do.

I guess I'm going to have to stick to smoking my spices. ((( lol