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
Do not ever quote something as mine when it is not.
Retract it or I hit abuse. Amazing that the only way people like you can make your point it to lie and distort. That should tell you something right there.
"Which Section and Clause of the Constitution grant the Federal government the power to interfere in State medical mj programs, in your opinion?"
This issue is not one of legal precedent but one of social norms.
Citizens who vote can decide for themselves. So far it appears most voters come down against medical mj or any other kind of mj use.
"The principle of freedom cannot require that he should be free not to be free. It is not freedom to be allowed to alienate his freedom."
-- John Stuart Mill
Hemp gums up any machinery used to process it. Unless we go back to the 17th century it doesn't make any sense to grow it for industrial purposes.
Precisely, and states rights is a tar baby for everyone. That's why the politicians prefer federalizing everything. Allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana sounds good in theory but neither side wants that. The anti-dope people don't want marijuana at all and the pro-dope people don't want restrictions on it. So nothing happens.
"We Repubs are for states rights..."
Nor necesarily and not when states are more repressive and corrupt and bureacratic than at the federal level.
I would say that most Republicans are for economic freedom and moral conservative values...that means no marijuana for so called medical use or any other use.
In the quote (the entire quote can be found in post #33), Madison is simply distinguishing which power was behind the formation of the clause and why. If he wanted to exclude all other powers, he would have said "not".
Just because you interpret "rather than" as "not" in this phrase doesn't give you the right to reword Madison's quote and post it as his. Let people read it for themselves -- wassa matter, scared they may not think the way you do? Or are other Freepers not as smart as you and need your translation?
I agree. And I'm confident it'll be the proper and correct one.
But I said "to place that interpretation of this letter in perspective" -- ie., to place KenH's (wrong) interpretation of this letter in perspective.
Yeah, that's how he got to be a multi-billionaire.
Let's say, "Soros is usually on the wrong side of the issue" instead.
Yeah, how so? How was the History Channel's presentation of the story inaccurate?
No matter how many times I scan these threads, I am still surprised at the number of supposedly 'conservative' Americans who are still entranced by the promise of the State.
You're a pack of God damned socialist boot-lickers, and the pack of you isn't worth the powder to blow you to hell!
Kids - disrespect wrongful authority!
Some guy in Lawrence.
"There’s a conflict between “facial” challenges and “as-applied” challenges that comes up in each case. The normal rule is that you start with an “as-applied” challenge. That means that there a particular person in court who says: “This law is unconstitutional as applied to me.” It could be a civil or criminal defendant."
!!!!!
My sentiments exactly.
I would like to know if robertpaulsen can make his arguments without all the name-calling and verbal abuse?
If you want a giggle, check out his "about page".
The boy has a very, very high opinion of himself.
Based on my experiences watching History Channel shows...in general they are biased towards the left wing. I can give you many examples.
As for the actual drug show which was produced in 2001 BTW - I heard snippets and my impression is that it was a slickly-made overtly non judgmental presentation. The overall tone seems to be...well... we've been doing drugs for thousands of years...let's keep doing them and not be so uptight. The tone is what I object to.
In other words, your opinion is based on your feelings or your emotional reaction to the program. What facts did the History Channel get wrong?
I'm "feeling" right now that you are smoking something Mr. Hemingway....
Did KenH retract his lie? Not yet, that I can see.
I called tacticalogic a liar? In this thread?
And I'm supposed to retract which statement of mine?
Bring in on, buddy-boy.
But I said "to place that interpretation of this letter in perspective" -- ie., to place KenH's (wrong) interpretation of this letter in perspective.
When you find the first person who agrees with your (allegedly correct) interpretation and can give reasonably lucid explaination of the reasoning behind it, let me know.
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.