Posted on 06/26/2006 8:22:44 AM PDT by bassmaner
If ever a piece of legislation should pass readily through the U.S. House of Representatives, it is a measure sponsored by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., that would prevent the Department of Justice from using tax dollars to prosecute medical-marijuana patients in states that have legalized medical marijuana. Because it is a good bill, expect it to fail.
Polls show that some three out of four Americans support allowing doctors to prescribe medical marijuana for patients who need it. Members must know that constituents within their districts use marijuana to control pain and nausea -- their families would like to live without the fear of prosecution. As Time Magazine reported last year, research shows that the drug has salutary "analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects."
Republicans should be drawn to the states' rights angle of the bill, while Democrats should go for the personal stories of constituents who have found relief, thanks to medical marijuana.
Yet when the House last voted on the measure in 2005, it tanked in a 264-162 vote. As the House is scheduled to consider the measure this week, few expect the measure to pass. "I wish I could tell you it's going to pass," Marijuana Policy Project spokesman Bruce Mirken conceded by phone last week. "I can't realistically expect that."
Over the last decade, two big hurdles existed: Republicans and Democrats. Last year, a mere 15 Repubs voted for the measure -- down from 19 GOP members who supported it in 2004. On the other side of the aisle, Democrats are moving toward the light. In 1998, the Clinton Justice Department filed suit against California medical-marijuana clubs. Last year, however, an impressive 145 Dems voted for Hinchey-Rohrabacher.
Martin Chilcutt of Kalamazoo, Mich., has written to his local GOP congressman, Rep. Fred Upton. A veteran who believes he got cancer because of his military service, Chilcutt told me that his Veterans Administration hospital doctors supported his use of medical marijuana when he had cancer.
Upton's office told me that Upton believes Marinol, the legal synthetic drug that includes the active ingredient in marijuana, should do the trick.
I asked Chilcutt if he had tried the drug. "I don't like Marinol at all," Chilcutt replied. It takes too long to work, it is hard to calibrate the dose you need, and "it made me feel weird." He prefers marijuana because it works instantly -- "You can control the amount you're using, and you get instant feedback."
Upton also fears sending the wrong message to kids about marijuana. But federal law has long allowed the sick access to needed pain control with drugs more powerful than marijuana. Only bad politics can account for the fact that marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substances Act, and thus deemed more harmful than cocaine and morphine -- drugs that can kill users who overdose.
Alex Holstein, a former GOP operative and conservative activist, is lobbying Republicans on behalf of the Marijuana Policy Project. He believes that regardless of their position on medical marijuana, Repubs in the California delegation should support Hinchey-Rohrabacher because state voters approved Proposition 215 -- and Republicans should stand up for states' rights and the will of California voters.
As it is, President Bush should direct the Justice Department to lay off medical-marijuana users -- because it is the right thing to do for sick people.
It's not as if the administration doesn't know how to sit on its hands and not enforce existing law. Last week, The Washington Post reported that under Bush, the number of employers prosecuted for hiring illegal aliens plummeted from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003.
If the Bushies can look the other way when well-heeled employers break the law, they can look the other way when sick people try to relieve unnecessary pain.
Pacemakers are legal. Marijuana is not. Right away your analogy is flawed.
I'm not aware that medical marijuana is restricted to those who are dying. Hell, it's not even restricted to those who are sick.
In addition, unlike you, I'm not comfortable with the attitude of, "Hey, they're gonna die anyways" when giving unapproved medicine to patients.
"You said that medical marijuana is killing people.
I said homegrown, smoked medical marijuana is killing immunosuppressed patients, yes. I thought I was pretty specific. Let's be careful. Next time I'll simply deny your statement and let you figure it out yourself.
"Surely you can come up with a better example than this
Well, you asked for proof. I gave you proof. Now you want more proof. Why should I do that -- so you can ask for even more? Nah, I don't think so.
I see. May I take it that you therefore agree with me that if marijuana was legalized, my analogy would hold, because the harm from incidental fungal infection could be clinically addressed?
What you "proved" in a non-control sort of way, is that fungus caused the patient's death.
Uh huh. You mean, for example, like aloe vera juice? Why aren't you on your high horse about people just recklessly consuming aloe vera on their own, given that doctors prescribe it for 2nd and 3rd degree burns?
Smoked marijuana, however, has no accepted medical use in the U.S.
I see. So dozens of states haven't passed medical marijuana laws, allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana and, due to it's lack of known medical utility, said doctors have refused to prescribe it, and the AMA has forbidden its use because there's no clinical evidence of its value. Interesting.
In that case, if these hearings aren't part of the congressional mandate of the DEA, why was it necessary for John Lawn to, as widely quoted by the DEA, in court, reverse Young's ruling? If these hearings weren't intended by the congress to carry some sort of weight, why do we bother with them? The legality of the DEA's actions are, in fact, questionable, and that's why they're being questioned in court.
Sure a few would, but how many smoker do that with tobacco? Americans are lazy, if MJ were legal, folks would just buy a pack at the 7-11, and that can be taxed.
Here's another example you can use: because medical marijuana can come from unknown sources, and people are occasionally killed in marijuana raids, all those deaths are also deaths from medical marijuana. It's an epidemic, I tell you.
On the nose! How often do smokers catch these diseases you point to Mr. Paulsen? The difference between Tobacco and marijuana, well there you go, one is legal. I guess if Marijuana were regulated like tobacco then the incidence of these fungal diseases might be even less than it currently is.
And what did the cultures of the dust bunnies under his bed reveal? The exact same "morphology" --(and what the hell does that mean in this context anyway? Since when do fungi of the same species have distinct "morphologies"?)-- as the as the dust that settled on the marijuana?
Of course not. They would gladly pay $200/oz. at the federal store for ditchweed.
Ooooh, that's a mighty big "if".
So, until it's made legal, let's agree that the way medical marijuana is currently being "recommended" is dangerous and should be stopped.
You just killed your half dozen plus post rant about the fungus among us.
I doubt legal marijuana cigarettes will carry that high a price tag, or be sold exclusively a new federal pot stores, (coming to a corner near you).
How about we just agree to legalize it?
You mean like we pay $200/oz. for whiskey at our state run liquor stores here in Oregon? More data from drug warrior fantasy land.
50,000 people die each year on our roads--so, likewise, lets agree that the way getting a driver's license and buying a car is currently being "recommended" is dangerous and should be stopped.
Well, we can, as soon as the 'maggot-infested, dope-smoking, fm type' pot smokers change.
I think Canadians pay around $200/oz. to the Canadian government for their garbage medical marijuana.
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.