Another issue is the one we talked about when the session opened, which is religious liberty. I note with deep amusement the irony of Al Jazeera's coverage of this question. It's good to know that the folks in Qatar are deeply concerned about Georgia passing 'anti-gay' legislation.
The coalition’s purpose: “to oppose discrimination of any kind,” said Chance, now a spokesman for the group. “In fact, the first thing you think of when you think of the South is racial discrimination."Is that right? Maybe you should consider moving to a place with better mental associations for you. Qatar, say.
It's amazing how far this has gone in a year. At this point we aren't even talking about a recognition that civilization would simply cease to exist without heterosexual relationships, nor that loving marriage between the parents is the objectively best thing for the children of such unions. At this point, what we're talking about is that we might suffer an economic boycott if we don't force everyone to participate in the celebration. What is the loss of liberty beside the loss of profit?
What was this country for again? It seems like someone wrote something down, way back when, that had to do with the whole reason governments were instituted among men. Maybe it was profit. I forget.
11 comments:
It's mostly because the Tree of Liberty is drying up. It needs blood.
One problem with "medicinal pot" is common with herbs as medicine: dosage control. The dose varies from herb plant to herb plant. It's exacerbated with marijuana because what's available today isn't your grandfather's grass. Breeding programs work.
Too, if delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) really is a useful medicine, despite its known deleterious side effects--especially on the brains of children--it's easy enough to distill it from the plant and get a reliably repeatable dose, and so a more predictable set of side effect characteristics.
There's no need to legalize marijuana per se to get the active medicinal ingredient. In this regard, the plant could be handled in much the same way the opium poppy is for morphine production.
Eric Hines
Eric,
I'm going to preface this with a mildly shocking statement. Libertarian though I tend to be, I have exactly zero dog in the medical marijuana legalization fight. I have never tried marijuana, I don't have any particular desire to do so, and in the event I get seated on a jury where someone is on trial for possession or attempt to distribute marijuana, I am likely to convict if the prosecution proves their guilt to me beyond a reasonable doubt (as opposed to practicing jury nullification because I believe the law to be unjust, that is). So I'm no absolutist in pushing for legalization.
That said, I find your statements largely misleading. There is no large body of work demonstrating a deleterious effect of THC. There's a lot of anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But there is no medical study even suggesting such a thing. Frankly, the harm from smoking marijuana is likely mostly from tar and carbon monoxide inhalation (a fact that most medical marijuana users like to gloss over in their casting of its use as completely harmless). But what is being discussed with regards to cannabis oil is precisely what you're talking about. Handling the plant in the same way opium poppy is to render morphine. No one is talking about home growing marijuana plants to render their own oil. Though I am sure there are advocates for doing so, the majority of cannabis oil use is from pharmaceutically manufactured medication. Not "what I made in the back yard".
The problem is that both the Federal government and some State governments (including Georgia) have classified marijuana (and its derivative products) as a class 1 drug. The classification makes any use of such drugs illegal because they "have high abuse potential, no medical use, and severe safety concerns". The problem is that the classification itself rules out any possibility of exploring medical uses of the drug, because it officially "has no medical use". Now, you are free to believe that it also has high abuse potential and severe safety concerns as you will. I for one, do not, but as I said, I have no experience with it.
For me, I buy into the philosophical argument that the government has no right to control what an individual chooses to put into their own body. The government does not own you or your body, and as such lacks the right to tell you what you may or may not consume (this includes for me such things as red meat, salt, transfats, sugary sodas, and indeed any drug whatsoever). If you should choose to inject Drano into your veins, I fail to see where the government (at any level) has a right to say you may not. The fact that it is reportedly pleasurable to consume a particular substance does not lead me to believe that the basic lack of rights over the body of another are somehow nullified. But I have heard the counter arguments "but drugs destroy lives". Undoubtedly. I make no claims otherwise. But where does the government have a right to not let you destroy your life? We tried this in the 1920s with the prohibition of alcohol, and I don't recall it working as intended. "But drug use brings crime!" The same argument was made with alcohol and yet the prohibition of it lead to even more crime. "But there are social costs that the rest of us must bear when someone uses drugs." I totally agree, and it is for that reason that I currently will support the government in prosecuting illegal use of drugs.
Living in California, here. If you want "medicinal" pot in your high schools , in LARGE quantity, legalize it. That is where it will be, because that is where the seller's margin of profit lies. And many healthy kids will have "prescriptions." They give them to anybody.
"Medicinal" pot is a lie, just like "the cake is a lie." We all know it.
Valerie
Not internally consistent you say? Hogwash. In an ideal world, sure, the government should have no say in what I, you, or anyone chooses to do with our own body. But in that ideal world I, you, or anyone who chooses to destroy their lives with drugs or alcohol loses their support net from the government. After all, if you are the one who chose to destroy your life, then you are solely responsible for the consequences of doing so. But we do not live in that ideal world. So because we do not, the ideals must stay a dream. I do support legalization, mostly because of the fact that the crime associated with drug use is enhanced by its illegality, not suppressed by it (as was true during Prohibition). My major concern is to start down the path to a more limited government by taking the ability to punish citizens for making bad choices out of their hands, and dealing with the social consequences as best we can for now (treatment not incarceration). As for "but people will be killed on the roads/at work/in public because of drug use", that happens now with alcohol, and we punish users who break the law as actually being guilty of a worse crime than those who break that law sober. I see no reason to change this practice with regards to other drugs. If you drive while intoxicated with heroin, then you are clearly guilty of driving under the influence. If we want to make the penalties harsher for doing so under heavier drugs (like heroin) because they're more debilitating, that's fine with me as well.
Aha! A fellow traveler, marijuana-free. MikeD, I thought I was the only sentient being left who had never tried the stuff. (Scotch in college was another matter; gin martinis later on..., is a topic better left alone.)
I recall hearing on some radio show a few years ago, that good research on the benefits/harms of mj had never been done specifically because of the federal classification. Seems to me that there's been more research, approval, and abuse of prescription-only pain-killing drugs than marijuana.
I've not got a dog in this fight (despite living in Colorado), but I do find it somewhat difficult to reconcile acclaimed desire for individual liberty (including the freedom to make "bad" choices) in most other things with absolute prohibition by law of others' marijuana use.
(Of course, we could also debate whether regulation of pharmaceuticals is or should be done under federal auspices at all....)
THC may have damage effects, but marijuana's effects on the citizen free will of children and adolescents is well documented from an independent point of view. Independent of paid "scientists" beholden to a contract, a corporation, or a pharmaceutical line of research.
Biological herbs and healing is more than just the active ingredient. It has to do with how the blood and water reacts to certain substances.
As for medicinal use of herbs, that is a subject better left to other natural substances, like frankincense or peppermint. Distilled down to essential oils, they are much more potent and effective in healing.
The effects of marijuana, largely targets the mind/neural patterns, not necessarily the body's self healing systems.
For me, I buy into the philosophical argument that the government has no right to control what an individual chooses to put into their own body. The government does not own you or your body, and as such lacks the right to tell you what you may or may not consume (this includes for me such things as red meat, salt, transfats, sugary sodas, and indeed any drug whatsoever). If you should choose to inject Drano into your veins, I fail to see where the government (at any level) has a right to say you may not.
From a liberty point of view, that is a point. However, those sheep and livestock who ingested marijuana to allow the State to control them, still have a vote and their census is tallied to promote political power. And political power is what allows tyrannical actions, along with military force and psychological warfare.
If people want to go on welfare or use certain drugs on their systems, they should be free to do so. Once their citizenship powers are negated. That is a fair trade all in all, for the "freedom" to do whatever they want. But I doubt that's actually how people under the influence of marijuana think.
A fellow traveler, marijuana-free. MikeD, I thought I was the only sentient being left who had never tried the stuff....
That makes three of us, at least. It's never even interested me.
I suspect there are more of us out here than you'd be otherwise led to believe.
Three of us could be an Organization; turn up a few more and we may have a Movement [with apologies to Arlo].
;-)
Post a Comment