Posted on 03/26/2014 9:58:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Our great friend and Boss Emeritus, Michelle Malkin, offers a powerful testimony today in her column on marijuana legalization — and a surprisingly personal perspective. Sure, we all have fun with jokes at Colorado’s experiment with recreational approval, but the access it creates does more than just serve as easy access to intoxication. Michelle found herself in one of the pot shops that have opened to serve demand that comes from more than just fun and games, hoping to find help for her mother-in-law:
It’s 9 a.m. on a weekday, and I’m at the Marisol Therapeutics pot shop. This is serious business. Security is tight. ID checks are frequent. Merchandise is strictly regulated, labeled, wrapped and controlled. The store is clean, bright and safe. The staffers are courteous and professional. Customers of all ages are here.
There’s a middle-aged woman at the counter nearby who could be your school librarian. On the opposite end of the dispensary, a slender young soldier in a wheelchair with close-cropped hair, dressed in his fatigues, consults with a clerk. There’s a gregarious cowboy and an inquisitive pair of baby boomers looking at edibles. A dude in a hoodie walks in with his backpack.
And then there’s my husband and me. …
For the past three months, my mother-in-law, Carole, whom I love with all my heart, has battled metastatic melanoma. After a harrowing week of hospitalization and radiation, she’s at home now. A miraculous new combination of oral cancer drugs seems to have helped enormously with pain and possibly contained the disease’s spread. But Carole’s loss of appetite and nausea persist.
A month ago, with encouragement from all of her doctors here in Colorado, she applied for a state-issued medical marijuana card. It still hasn’t come through. As a clerk at Marisol Therapeutics told us, there’s a huge backlog.
In states where only medicinal use is permitted, Carole would still be out of luck. However, in Colorado, access for recreational use also allows people to get around the permitting process temporarily, although the prices go up for non-medicinal use:
But thanks to Amendment 64, the marijuana drug legalization act approved by voters in 2012, we were able to legally and safely circumvent the bureaucratic holdup. “A lot of people are in your same situation,” the pot shop staffer told us. “We see it all the time, and we’re glad we can help.”
Be sure to read it all. Michelle makes a good point about the entrepreneurial aspects of Colorado’s legalization, as well as the improved ability for citizens to exercise their own choice on both recreational intoxicants and medical treatments. The marijuana is grown on site and/or locally, so it involves no issues that would normally invoke federal jurisdiction.
That leaves the question, though, of whether marijuana actually does provide an effective therapeutic treatment. Unfortunately, this is another area in which the federal government obstructs rather than clarifies, as the Washington Post reported last week:
While 20 states and the District have made medical marijuana legal — in Colorado and Washington state the drug is also legal for recreational use — it remains among the most tightly controlled substances under federal law. For scientists, that means extra steps to obtain, transport and secure the drug — delays they say can slow down their research by months or even years.
The barriers exist despite the fact that the number of people using marijuana legally for medical reasons is estimated at more than 1 million.
Stalled for decades because of the stigma associated with the drug, lack of funding and legal issues, research into marijuana’s potential for treating diseases is drawing renewed interest. Recent studies and anecdotal stories have provided hope that marijuana, or some components of the plant, may have diverse applications, such as treating cancer, HIV and Alzheimer’s disease.
But scientists say they are frustrated that the federal government has not made any efforts to speed the process of research. Over the years, the Drug Enforcement Administration has turned down several petitions to reclassify cannabis, reiterating its position that marijuana has no accepted medical use and remains a dangerous drug. The DEA has said that there is a lack of safety data and that the drug has a high potential for abuse.
It’s a typical bureaucratic catch-22. The government has declared marijuana to be among the most dangerous of controlled substances so few can access it for studies to determine its value, and the federal government uses the lack of established evidence of its value to justify its classification. Meanwhile, several states have had years of experience in medicinal legalization with apparently few ill effects, which is at least indirect evidence that the DEA has misclassified marijuana, but no one wants to take the politically risky step of reducing control over weed. Meanwhile, people like Carole have to live in states like Colorado in order to make their own decisions over access and effectiveness.
I’m not a fan of marijuana, and I do worry about the moral signal that legalizing recreational use sends, but at least so far it hasn’t had any worse impact than alcohol. We should at least study the impact of marijuana so that we can have an informed debate.
The FReepers on this thread are TERRIFIED of being called on their support of the bastardization of the interstate commerce clause.
They don't need any reason whatsoever if the state is an at-will employment state. Unless, perhaps, they cite federal law because they are bound by union contracts (and "violations of federal law" or some such language provides them with some CYA material).
Preventing the discrimination suits, so far. They are bound to come, though.
There will be no (successful) anti-discrimination lawsuits. If so, they would have already happened with the employers that test for tobacco and/or alcohol.
So the state is keeping its hands off of all of the additional money (which is pure profit then) for pot at the price fixed retail establishments?
The states screwed up in the 30's, when they whined and cried to the Fed to do something about marijuana and gave up their 10th amendment power. And we all know, once you give the Fed power, they're not giving it back.
” It’s NOT a “gateway” drug. “
If the only way you could buy Aspirin was from a drug dealer, then Aspirin would be a gateway drug.
Don't kid yourself. Many of those who think or say they are for less government have no problem contradicting themselves on a daily basis.
Especially when it's "for the children".
They are every bit as eager as liberals to have Govt telling everyone what to do - so long as it's their preferred party in power.
Several examples on this thread alone.
You will have to do better than that to avoid the point, while doing just what I pointed out you guys do, promote liberalism by avoiding the issues and letting the left just win by never facing opposition from you.
Immigration is federal, the military is federal, federal employment is federal, and the federal government has to make laws for how it decides on those issues, for instance, abortion on federal lands and in military medicine, gay marriage in the military and in immigration, and in federal employment.
We need candidates who oppose those at all levels, state, federal, in city contracts, in County government, at every level.
Well, yeah, before 1934 you had an American populace buoyed by strong family/social institutions, and guided by strong moral/religious principles. I’d put up a lot of faith and trust in “that” populace to handle scourges.
I would not accord the same to America-2014, with its government-dependent serfs, moral deviants, feral underclass, and self-absorbed dope-craving scum.
Another so-called conservative I have lost all respect for
We're in the last days of America.
Agree. I have lost all respect for so-called conservative pundits
You are absolutely right, and I absolutely agree with you.
I believe that legalizing pot will dramatically increase the number of people who use it, and I think it will follow that many of those people will drive under the influence of the drug.
They should be punished for their misdeeds, of course - but in the meanwhile someone in my family or any one of us here may be killed or maimed by one of them.
Face it - those who are predisposed to smoke weed are not in the highest percentile of those exercising good judgement.
To voluntarily (i.e. by legalizing) expand the number of impaired drivers on the road is not a good thing.
I don't think I'm being inconsistent here...
You’re just being difficult because you disagree with me. That postmodernists are also egalitarian is easy to see. Egalitarians need postmodernism to strip away the metanarratives that keep groups unequal.
I am telling you, I have not heard of a company in CO testing for tobacco, just illicit drugs.
If only there was some pre-existing punishment system for dealing with impaired drivers on other drugs. Then we could develop a model for marijuana based on that.
Oh, well.
People who drive impaired on the road do not respect those laws to begin with; so those same people would obtain marijuana illegally if they really wanted it and drive impaired.
Says who?
Why does everyone have to stop and change directions because you yell "Squirrel!"?
Well, we both learn something new today.
Back in 1990, Colorado enacted a law that prohibits employers from testing for legal activities. Over half the states have similar/the same laws. I know mine does not.
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.