The Case Against Medical Marijuana

OPINION EDITORIALS.COM ^ | JANUARY 3, 2004 | GREG LEWIS

[Restorer]

the issue, under consideration by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, of whether the use of marijuana should be legalized for the treatment of certain medical conditions.

That is not the issue!

The issue is whether federal laws prohibiting marijuana use for this purpose trump state laws allowing it.

I oppose the passage of state laws allowing this use, but I also don't think the feds should trump states' rights in this case.

[Lunatic Fringe]

I watched a show on the History Channel the other night about how marijuana became illegal in this country.

In my opinion, it never should have been outlawed in the first place.

[dead]

Further, the issue involves adding yet one more psychotropic substance to the list of such substances that can be legally used to reduce our humanness, our ability to build the natural strength to respond to the events and conditions of our lives without biochemical mediation.

I’ve seen no proposals that would make marijuana use compulsory.

[Mears]

Stoners can't concentrate?

Stoners can't recall what they say from one moment to the next?

Stoners have the munchies all the time?

That entire description sounds like me and I've never even used marijuana.

[jan in Colorado]

Ping to discuss later. LOL

[eleni121]

The fact that you would believe the bunk on the History Channel undermines any sound argument for legalization of marijuana.

[rhombus]

That entire description sounds like me and I've never even used marijuana.

EXACTLY! Stuff and nonsense... this is a classic libertarian and states rights issue. Follow the damn money here, who benefits from keeping this plant illegal?

[BCrago66]

I personally don't care whether someone in California takes pot, and it runs contrary to spirit of liberty which used to animate this country for anyone else to care about it.

As for the current Supreme Court case, if the court holds for the government, it will come close to a reversal of Lopez and Morrison. If growing and consuming your own pot in your own garden falls under the power of the Commerce Clause, then there are almost no limits to federal Congressional power.

[satchmodog9]

bump

[rhombus]

then there are almost no limits to federal Congressional power

There is no limit...just ask them. :-)

[Pylot]

Sounds more like a case of the authors over inflated opinion of his opinions!

[MEGoody]

"I watched a show on the History Channel",

And we all know that the History Channel never presents a biased view of anything.

[tacticalogic]

But these arguments beg the real question, which has to focus on the consequences for human brain chemistry and, subsequently, human behavior, of the overuse of psychotropic substances. A psychotropic substance is one which, when ingested and absorbed into the bloodstream, interacts directly with brain chemistry to alter moods and behavior. Psychotropic substances can dramatically change the way we feel and the way we respond to our environments. Psychotropic substances are all potentially addictive, and marijuana is most assuredly a psychotropic substance.

Funny, I was under the impression that the real question had to focus on the limits of the federal government's authority to regulate commerce. Methinks the author may be engaging in a little question begging of his own.

[Mears]

It has always boggled my mind with the brouhaha over marijuana.

Think of the money saved law enforcement if they just legalised the stuff.

The people that want it will get it,legal or not,and the people who don't want it aren't going to run out and start using it just because it's legal.

Alcohol is a very dangerous substance when abused, IMHO ,and I sure don't want that illegal.It didn't work years ago and it wouldn't work now.

[TigersEye]

(Indeed, the evidence that marijuana is effective in reducing physical pain among its users is totally anecdotal to my knowledge.)

Uh, duhhhh. What machine is there that measures pain reduction from aspirin, opiates or any other pain killer? The author's a dunce.

[tacticalogic]

As for the current Supreme Court case, if the court holds for the government, it will come close to a reversal of Lopez and Morrison.

The government's lawywers are arguing that there cannot be an "as applied challenge" to Commerce Clause legislation. IOW - they're arguing that there is no such thing as a misapplication of the Commerce Clause. If that argument prevails, it will not "come close" to a reversal of Lopez and Morrison, it will dictate it.

[WildTurkey]

"On the other side of this issue are those who favor the blanket legalization of medical marijuana. The "medical" umbrella seems to be providing, for people who would ultimately remove any restrictions whatsoever on smoking grass, something of an entry-level platform from which they might leverage across-the-board approval of the use of boo to ameliorate pretty much any condition that might create stress in any human who tends to respond to "stressful" situations by freaking out. "

Soros* calls it the "camels' nose under the tent" for total drug legalization.

*Soros: Number One funder of drug legalization initiatives and beat Bush organizations.

[TigersEye]

Soros* calls it the "camels' nose under the tent" for total drug legalization.

Soros is usually wrong.

*Soros: Number One funder of drug legalization initiatives and beat Bush organizations.

See?