Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Case Against Medical Marijuana
OPINION EDITORIALS.COM ^ | JANUARY 3, 2004 | GREG LEWIS

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


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: damage; decision; doctors; healthcare; legalizing; marijuana; medicalcosts; medicalmarijauna; painkiller; pleasure; prolongeduse; purposes; reasons; scotus; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840841-844 next last
To: robertpaulsen
Actually, a single sentence, containing what is a clear reference to some broader power

What made you change your mind? Last time you referenced that statement you said it was a "vague reference".

821 posted on 01/18/2005 9:14:49 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 818 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Let's just put "unhealthy animals" in the "outlaws of commerce" category, shall we?

If you can tell me what it was that made the other articles they'd dealt with "outlaws of commerce", and in what context they were being dealt with, maybe we can.

822 posted on 01/18/2005 9:20:59 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 820 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"On what basis do you assert that this opinion rendered in 1913 by others, be considered their opinion in 1787?"

Whoa!

Hey, if you can use a private letter written in 1829 as indicative of considered opinion in 1787, why can't I use a USSC opinion written in 1913 as indicative of considered opinion in 1787?

Statute of limitations run out?

823 posted on 01/18/2005 9:21:24 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 819 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"If the facility of interstate transportation can be taken away from the demoralization of lotteries, the debasement of obscene literature, the contagion of diseased cattle or persons, the impurity of food and drugs, the like facility can be taken away from the systematic enticement to, and the enslavement in prostitution and debauchery of women, and, more insistently, of girls."
-- Justice Day, Hammer v Dagenhart

There's five. Look them up yourself.

824 posted on 01/18/2005 9:31:47 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 822 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Unhealthy animals are those other contrivances?

What are the specifics of the case? Unhealthy animals could well be the object of a "contrivance" that resulted if a state was allowing sick cattle to be shipped interstate that it wouldn't allow to be sold within it's own borders.

825 posted on 01/18/2005 9:32:54 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 820 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"What made you change your mind? Last time you referenced that statement you said it was a "vague reference"."

I told you before. Stop it with the "gotcha" games.

The power is indeed vague. But it is clear that it is broad.

Not to you, of course, who thinks that it's limited to removing injustices and prohibiting diseased cattle.

826 posted on 01/18/2005 9:35:44 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 821 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Hey, if you can use a private letter written in 1829 as indicative of considered opinion in 1787, why can't I use a USSC opinion written in 1913 as indicative of considered opinion in 1787?

If you can find a USSC opinion rendered in 1913 by one of the Founders, you're welcome to use it. It's their intent we're looking for.

827 posted on 01/18/2005 9:37:05 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 823 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I told you before. Stop it with the "gotcha" games.

Not a "gotcha game". You say one thing, then you say something else. On what basis do you make these decisions that is so fluid? Are you trying to discern the intent of the Founders, or are you searcing for emanations and penumbras to justify a political agenda? Your methodology doesn't seem to match your objective.

The power is indeed vague. But it is clear that it is broad.

And what leads you to believe that the breadth is in reference to the purposes in may be applied to, rather than the range of remedies available in pursuit of the stated purpose?

828 posted on 01/18/2005 9:44:30 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 826 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Stop. Please. You're embarrassing both of us.

Madison was referring to the future imposition of duties on imports and exports.

"Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquillity."
-- Federalist #42

829 posted on 01/18/2005 9:57:23 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 825 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; tacticalogic
Actually, a single sentence, containing what is a clear reference to some broader power (ie., "This power ... may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations"). Yeah, "no limitations" sounds a lot to me like "some broader power".

You only gave a partial quote. The full sentence is:

"This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution."

Marshall goes on to name some limitations prescribed:

"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress."

830 posted on 01/18/2005 10:00:29 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 818 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Stop. Please. You're embarrassing both of us.

What are the specifics of the case? What case was this that you think it evidence of the Founder's intent to grant the power to RCATSS for the "positive purposes of the General Government"?

831 posted on 01/18/2005 10:02:06 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 829 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"If you can find a USSC opinion rendered in 1913 by one of the Founders"

I gave you one in an 1824 case which expanded the power of the Commerce Clause beyond your piddling restriction.

A long, long, long time ago.

I also gave you one in 1829 which mentioned the "Dormant Commerce Clause", a direct reference to the states resolving injustice among themselves without Congressional action.

Totally contrary to your interpretation of Madison's letter. Give it up.

832 posted on 01/18/2005 10:04:06 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 827 | View Replies]

To: Ken H; robertpaulsen

Selective omission is not the hallmark of someone looking for original intent. It is, however indicative of someone searching for "penumbras and emanations". Robertpaulsen's methods don't seem consistent with an objective of determining original intent.


833 posted on 01/18/2005 10:06:13 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 830 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"rather than the range of remedies available in pursuit of the stated purpose? "

Because there is no such "stated purpose" in his quote. I looked for it. It's not there. There's no restriction.

If you found one in Marshall's words somewhere, quote it.

You know, this is pretty hypocritical coming from someone who uses a quote from Clarence Thomas and applies it across the board to a number of commerce clause cases of all shapes and sizes, despite the fact that his quote came from one specific unrelated case.

But Marshall's quote can't, huh?

834 posted on 01/18/2005 10:13:50 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 828 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I gave you one in an 1824 case which expanded the power of the Commerce Clause beyond your piddling restriction.

Which case was that? What were they doing that wasn't an exercise in correcting an injustice among the states, that they expanded the power to encompass?

I also gave you one in 1829 which mentioned the "Dormant Commerce Clause", a direct reference to the states resolving injustice among themselves without Congressional action.

You still can't provide any evidence that the Founders intended the power to RCATSS to be used for the "positive purposes of the General Government" that doesn't require substantial assumptions about facts not in evidence. All you've done is pile a few inferences on top of each other to arrive at a conclusion, and you've had to do it with inferences that no one else finds rational.

835 posted on 01/18/2005 10:18:20 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 832 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; tacticalogic
I also gave you one in 1829 which mentioned the "Dormant Commerce Clause", a direct reference to the states resolving injustice among themselves without Congressional action.

That is not what the 1829 decision said. Did you even read the opinion?

Willson v. Blackbird Creek Marsh Co.

But the measure authorized by this act [passed by the State of Delaware] stops a navigable creek, and must be supposed to abridge the rights of those who have been accustomed to use it. But this abridgement, unless it comes in conflict with the Constitution or a law of the United States, is an affair between the government of Delaware and its citizens, of which this Court can take no cognizance.

The counsel for the plaintiffs in error insist that it comes in conflict with the power of the United States "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states." If Congress had passed any act which bore upon the case, any act in execution of the power to regulate commerce, the object of which was to control state legislation over those small navigable creeks into which the tide flows, and which abound throughout the lower country of the middle and southern states; we should feel not much difficulty in saying that a state law coming in conflict with such act would be void. But Congress has passed no such act.

The repugnancy of the law of Delaware to the Constitution is placed entirely on its repugnancy to the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states; a power which has not been so exercised as to affect the question.

We do not think that the act empowering the Black Bird Creek Marsh Company to place a dam across the creek, can, under all the circumstances of the case, be considered as repugnant to the power to regulate commerce in its dormant state, or as being in conflict with any law passed on the subject.[end excerpt]

Marshall did not use the Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine as it is being explained by you. Read the opinion, he says that unless Congress has acted, the Court has no basis for consideration of the power to RCATSS in its decision.

836 posted on 01/18/2005 10:26:57 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 832 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; robertpaulsen
Robertpaulsen's methods don't seem consistent with an objective of determining original intent.

They aren't even consistent with the English language. His whole case hinges on "rather than" not being exclusive of what follows.

He ignores the evidence of biblical translators:

[kjv] Receive my instruction, and not silver;

[web] Receive my instruction rather than silver;

[niv] Choose my instruction instead of silver

837 posted on 01/18/2005 10:37:30 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 833 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
rp: I gave you one in an 1824 case which expanded the power of the Commerce Clause beyond your piddling restriction.

tacticalogic: Which case was that? What were they doing that wasn't an exercise in correcting an injustice among the states, that they expanded the power to encompass?

He is misstating Gibbons, in which Marshall placed limits on the Commerce Clause:

"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress."

838 posted on 01/18/2005 10:51:19 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 835 | View Replies]

To: Ken H; robertpaulsen

I think he's hopeless. If he doesn't understand why he can't hold up an opinion written by the USSC in 1913 and say "See, here't the original intent of the Founders.", then he's obviously talking about an entirely different concept of "original intent" than everyone else.


839 posted on 01/18/2005 10:55:07 AM PST by tacticalogic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 837 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

He just can't accept that both Madison and Marshall contradict his view, and is willing to ignore authoritative English language sources in an attempt to make Madison's words fit with his position.


840 posted on 01/18/2005 11:23:32 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 839 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 781-800801-820821-840841-844 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson