Question Of The Week, 6/12/05
The Supreme Court recently said NO! to medical marijuana. What do you think, should cancer victims and people with other chronic medical conditions be allowed to use medical marijuana? I'll post my answer in the comment section some time late Sunday or early Monday morning.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
posted by David Schantz | 1:08 AM
9 Comments:
The government was narrow minded about this and only thought about how they can't profit it from it since it's not part of the pharmaceutical (special interest) industry. There are plenty of addictive prescription pain killers out there that they support because they net vast amounts of money. But it's just fine to take away pot which is the pain medication (that's not addictive) of many, and let these poor folks suffer in the process.
Money, greed, power. No human interest. Bleh.
Marijuana is just another controlled substance. Morphine is dangerous to abuse also, but I've seen several people given morphine after a surgery, including two friends of mine who just had babies in the last week.
I never understood our national obsession with marijuana. It seems to be based on the circular logic of “It’s illegal, so it must be bad.” When you look at the damaging effects of more easily available drugs (including over-the counter ones), it just seems silly. I have smoked marijuana with some of the most straight laced people you would ever meet. The middle aged suburban professionals who smoke a little on the weekends are probably the most prevalent pot smokers after students.
The Supreme Court’s stance on it somehow affecting interstate commerce is just a way of ignoring the real question: “If this can keep people, who want to be alive, alive or at least help to ease their suffering, why do we deny them?”
And Sar has one thing right if Pfizer had a patent on this stuff, we’d be seeing commercials by now:
Announcer: One hundred million Americans have already relieved the drudgery of their lives with SmokeEZ.
Grocery Store Manager: I’m a pothead.
Old Woman puts down grandchild: I’m a pothead too.
Sexy, yet conservatively dressed woman with sultry voice: I’m a pothead.
Announcer: Isn’t it about time you became a pothead, with SmokeEZ, prescription smoke delivered THC.”
Ffizer logo, fade to black.
Before we make a decision, I really think that people have to put together all the research, statistics, and evidence that has been compiled about marijuana, or at least a balanced and reasonable amount. Pot has a high, which some other medications don't have much of, and which alone can cause people to want it more, and it still can cause serious injury. I favor a tightly controlled method, where trained and knowledgable doctors will first decide whether the situation is worth the risks, and then administer it. The patient or a close and responsible relative should consent first. Any administration of the drug should be patient-specific. The person who consented should know of the situation, risks, and benefits first. If something happens that the doctor did not tell of, the consenter can file a lawsuit, but THAT'S IT. Either way, I think there should be more funding of research on the drug and recording of statistics are needed.
It is not a question of whether or not people with cancer/medical conditions be allowed to use it.
The SCOTUS has ruled for the Federal Government in a case involving Federal jurisdiction of which the Government does not Constitutionally have.
Personally, I'm against pot. Its not as harmless as its supporters claim.
I've had several friends and relatives that were 'potheads' and half of them are 2 tokes shy of having to have someone get out the garden hose to water them twice a week.
Aside from that, its a 'States Right' issue.
If medical and health benefits are reaped from its consumption/use, then go for it. I'm not sure what role the federal government should play, beyond the typcial FDA oversight and approval. States should be allowed to decide whether or not citizens of that state can use it. Should it become an interstate commerce issue, I see the debate becoming quite muddled. To get around that, each state should proceed to make it clear that only they give their citizens that right. People in other states don't have it (ie speed limits). Hopefully that made sense, the NyQuil is getting to me.
If it would really help I would like to see it made available, but there are some things that worry me about this. From your comments I see that some of us share some of the same concerns. I have a bad back and I get migraine headaches so I have prescriptions for two (heavy duty) pain killers. Some people would abuse drugs like these by taking more than needed, or taking them when there was no need.My insurance makes it possible for me to get my prescriptions filled at a discount rate. If I was into selling drugs on the street I could make quite a profit by selling my medication. I'm afraid some people would do that if they had medical marijuana.I also have a problem with what role the federal government should play in this. My first thought was none, it should be left up to each state. Then I thought of a "but what if".I'm in Missouri and Chris is in Iowa so I'll use those two states to make a point. Just suppose Missouri makes medical marijuana legal but Iowa doesn't.I get a prescription for my back pain,then I go to Iowa to meet Chris in person. While on my way there I get pulled over for speeding or got stopped at a road block check point.Will I go to jail or will the fact that I do have prescription protect me? If there really are any benifits to medical marijuana I think our elected officials have a lot of work to do before it can be made available to the public.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
As a nurse I believe that only in those cases in which doctors prescribe marijuana, it should be allowed to be used and "starter kits" made available through controlled dispension. Of course with that goes the ability of the patient to grow their own for personal consumption to be done strictly in their own homes. Any transportation of marijuana outside of the "starter kit" to home would be considered illegal activity thereby relieving the states of the burden of proof on intent to sell in abuse cases. (If the patient travels, there are drugs that are legal that can travel with them). This would reduce medical expenses for the chronically ill and not undermine the fight against illegal drug use.
I just had to say this: What a civilized discussion. I'm amazed that something which on the surface seems so controversial can be discussed without tempers flaring and people getting all hissy. Long live good and positive discourse!
If abuse... yes it's bad. See http://assistedlivinglittlerockarkansas.com
Post a Comment
<< Home