Posted on 01/03/2005 9:57:34 AM PST by CHARLITE
There are two fairly well-defined positions that have emerged regarding 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.
The first of these sees marijuana's limited legalization as, in almost all cases, the effort of so-called "stoners" (in contemporary parlance people who pretty much can't live without getting high on marijuana on a daily basis) to find a way to circumvent existing laws that criminalize the use of wacky weed so that they (the stoners), with the consent of their croakers (q.v., below), can stay high all the time with impunity. Those who oppose passing laws which legalize the use of marijuana in "medically" sanctioned cases are seen by those who favor such laws' passage as inflexible obstructionists (scare quotes intended to emphasize the rather cynical view taken by opponents of legalization to the validity of the term "medical").
The term "croaker" is Beat-Generation slang for "doctor." I first encountered it in the writings of William S. Burroughs. Its meaning has since the 1950s been narrowed somewhat to denote a physician who stretches prescription medication guidelines to insure that his or her patients do not have to endure existential pain beyond what contemporary drug mediation can guarantee is acceptable. Under the proposed new laws, I can't imagine marijuana becoming anything — at least in California — but a substance any croaker would readily prescribe for patients with the same sort of substance cravings Burroughs and his cronies flaunted 50 years ago, and for which their croakers provided relief by prescribing opiates when heroin (Burroughs' drug of choice) was in short supply.
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. All of this is to say that, where the use of marijuana is concerned, the currently-enumerated "medical" conditions are designed to protect a sub-class of American citizens from coping with their lives in traditionally accepted (read "pharmacologically unmediated") ways.
In fact, if such legislation is allowed by the Supreme Court to stand, it will become not much more than an excuse for a bunch of pot-smokers of every ilk to do what abusers of the Americans With Disabilities Act and their attorneys have done: find ways to twist and subvert and otherwise undermine legislation designed to provide succor to a class of American citizens who are legitimately entitled to government-sanctioned relief from their afflictions so that the legislation in question becomes the instrument, in this case, for a bunch of stoners "getting over" at the expense of American taxpayers, who will minimally be presented with the bill for legal fees in the lawsuits that result from potheads' bringing actions against the state if they are denied, for any reason whatsoever, funded access to the drug which has been the foundation of their lifestyles for, in many cases, the past several decades.
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.
Let me backtrack a bit. Hundreds of substances — from the caffeine in coffee to the nicotine in cigarettes to the alcohol in "adult" beverages — that many of us routinely ingest are psychotropic. Add to these innumerable prescription drugs, from antidepressants to allergy medications to painkillers to stimulants, and you'll begin to get an idea of the range of "acceptable" psychotropic substances tens of millions of Americans consume on a daily basis. And I haven't even mentioned so-called "street" drugs, from ecstasy to cocaine to heroin to marijuana, that millions more Americans use on a more-or-less regular basis.
What no legislation, and no public policy that I'm aware of, has ever taken into account is the biochemistry of drug use. While physicians routinely prescribe drugs that have jarring effects on human brain chemistry, they also routinely fail to acknowledge or to advise their patients that such drugs, although often suppressing symptoms of everything from allergies to depression, at the same time alter brain chemistry in such a way that the humans taking the drugs become more and more dependent on them and that their bodies and psyches are consequently less and less able to mount natural responses to their conditions. In other words, the greater the degree to which you rely on any sort of psychotropic drug to mediate between you and the events of your life, the less "human" you become.
THC, the psychotropic ingredient in marijuana, substitutes for the brain chemical anandamide, which plays a role in such important functions as memory, mood, appetite, and pain perception (just in case you were wondering why stoners can't seem to concentrate, can't recall what's happened from one moment to the next, and need to be constantly resupplied with munchies). But while no one is arguing that marijuana might not play some role in mitigating certain types of pain, becoming an habitual marijuana user has other significantly damaging side effects, including lethargy, loss of motivation, inability to focus, the aforementioned memory lapses, and, after prolonged use, difficulty in experiencing pleasure, among numerous others.
Legislation which broadens the scope of acceptability of our use of psychotropic substances — no matter whether the substance be marijuana or Paxil, cocaine or Ritalin (Ritalin, for the record, interacts to disrupt brain chemistry in exactly the same way cocaine does) — is legislation that expands institutional authority over what we accept as "human." This is to say that legislation which expands the acceptability and the legality of using psychotropic substances for the purpose of helping us cope with the physical or psychological pain of existence is legislation which contributes, ultimately, to the disaffirmation of our humanity, of our ability to experience fully what it means to be human.
This is not to say that I don't favor, for instance, the use of painkilling prescription drugs to ease the suffering of those who are in the final stages of a terminal illness. The use of painkillers for the purpose of making bearable another human's last days on earth is to me not only an acceptable but even an honorable application of modern pharmacology. Nor do I object to the short-term use of prescription psychotropic substances in times of crisis, such as enabling someone to bear otherwise debilitating pain while recovering from physical or emotional trauma.
Rather, at issue here is the legitimization of what has been regarded as a "street" drug for the purpose of ameliorating the suffering associated (at least anecdotally) with certain medical conditions. (Indeed, the evidence that marijuana is effective in reducing physical pain among its users is totally anecdotal to my knowledge.) 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. It is, finally, for this reason that I would argue against the legalization of marijuana use for medical purposes.
###
Writer Greg Lewis is co-author, with Dr. Charles Gant, of the Warner Books hardcover "End Your Addiction Now." Dr. Lewis is a frequent contributor of political and cultural commentaries to several websites. His next book, "The Politics of Anger: How Marxism's Heirs Are Redefining Liberalism in America Today," is due out in late Spring. Read more of his work at http://www.GregLewis.org
Comments:Glewis9000@aol.com
"Not to mention it grows tons faster than wood"
And unlike wood, cannot be harvested year round, which really screws up production. Small point, I know.
And to place that interpretation of this letter in perspective:
1) It was written 40 years after the U.S. Constitution was ratified.
2) It was written as private correspondence, not in a public forum.
3) It is contrary to 40 years of actual legislative history.
4) It is contrary to what is in the actual Constitution.
5) If it was indeed intended "as a negative and preventive provision", then why isn't there any language to that effect in Article I, Section 10?
Correct. That was on a fundamental point of disagreement on another thread. You aren't supposed to be dragging such things to other threads.
Well, since you're going ahead with it, let me be the first to call your post a lie. Nowhere does Madison say "it was not to be used for the positive purposes of the general government".
Madison wrote: [the "power to regulate commerce among the several States"] was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General government.
Your position is that "rather than" means "but could also be". I say "rather than" means "not". That is the sticking point.
I think you'll find people here are quite able to place the letter in perspective unassisted.
Is loco weed and peyote smoked as much as maryjane? If it is, then outlaw it as well. Just because Momma Nature grows it doesn't mean we need to ingest it or supply it.
It seems the foundation that answer was built on is rather unstable. It doesn't seem to want to stay settled.
I think you'll find people here are quite able to place the letter in perspective unassisted.
I notice that robertpaulsen said "You find that phrase and I'll retract my statement with an apology. Since you cannot, retract yours, liar."30 Yet he didn't retract his statement nor give an apology. And he has the gall to erroneously call you a liar. Oh well he had zero credibility to begin with anyhow -- nothing to lose, IMO.
Mind who gives you information...
License Suspension of Charles Gant, M.D.
The New York State Supreme Court has upheld suspension of the license of Charles Gant, M.D., who practiced "orthomolecular medicine" in Solvay, New York.
Dr. Gant’s book "ADD and ADHD: Complementary Medicine Solutions" (at Amazon.com) summarizes his work into the Orthomolecular Medicine approach to ADHD and provides practical guidelines for treatment. His book "End Your Addiction Now," recently released by Warner Books, empowers recovering people and those who excessively use drugs and alcohol with practical ways of identifying probable and specific neurotransmitter deficiencies through self-administered questionnaires.
The term "croaker" is Beat-Generation slang for "doctor."
Seems like a cracker is talking about croakers.
Is loco weed and peyote smoked as much as maryjane? If it is, then outlaw it as well. Just because Momma Nature grows it doesn't mean we need to ingest it or supply it.
Just because a person can use an object to harm themselves does not mean that the object should be prohibited. Would you prohibit guns, junk food, tobacco, alcohol, steak knives, pencils, cars, dogs, baseball bats, and virtually every object imaginable. Marijuana prohibition is about government control over citizens.
If you think a person in possession of marijuana or any drug for that matter, has harmed by that act of possessing a drug take the person to court and do your best to convince an impartial jury that the defendant harmed you Do that so that you may gain restitution for your loss and suffering that the defendant inflicted on you by his possession of a drug. 99 times out of a hundred a jury wil rule in the defendants favor.
As I said, drug prohibition laws are about government control over people. Worse, you want government agents to act on your behalf to initiate harm against a person that has not harmed you. That's repulsive.
"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him". -- Thomas Jefferson
Government is my friend not you especially when it protects me from drug users/dealers/growers.
It is also my friend when it protects me from terrorists who wish to harm and kill my own.
And Thomas Jefferson is not my God...Jesus Christ is. I get enough of Jefferson quotes every time I visit with left wing colleagues.
Government is my friend not you especially when it protects me from drug users/dealers/growers.
How many drug users/dealers/growers have you taken to court before an impartial jury in attempt to gain restitution for your loss and suffering that the drug user, dealer or grower inflicted upon you by their act of possessing s drug, dealing a drug or growing a drug? I'll truly be shocked if it's even one. Youd be the first.
Apparently you've bought hook, line and sinker into the politicians boogieman scare tactic. You gladly pay him for deceiving you.
It is also my friend when it protects me from terrorists who wish to harm and kill my own.
That's a legitimate purpose and responsibility of government.
is not my God...Jesus Christ is.
Never mind. Go on your way
Really. Just do it.
But, since I prescribe drugs, I do care if phony "studies" and snake-oil testimonials are used to prostitute drug prescribing so they can do it.
This article presents an outstanding review of the fraud that is "medical" marijuana.
If you want it legalized, then get it legalized. If you want to smoke it anyway, then do so.
Just don't add it to the list of phony reasons to get a "doctor's note".
courtesy flag to #56
I'm not sure which one has tortured the other more, robertpaulsen or Madison's letters.
No...you go on your fairy tale way...
What is it with high seekers? Can't you understand that most people do not want drug users living anywhere near them or their kids?
Pain meds? There's plenty of other stuff..you don't need to add pot to the arsenal too.
Is it any weirder than people who think the right to live where you want means having everywhere made someplace they'd want to live?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.