Medical Marijuana & the Enemies of Democracy

Shortly after I arrived in South Dakota, the people of this state voted for a lottery. Or at least, that is what they thought they were voting for. Lots of states have scratch card lotteries. It's a pretty harmless way to raise revenue. What we in fact legalized was "video lottery", gaming machines and casinos in every town bit enough to have a watering hole. Video lottery is evil. It is addictive, and fills the pockets of the gaming industry and the state government by emptying the pockets of those who can least afford it. Once instituted, it is all but impossible to get rid of because so many people have a vested interest in keeping it going.

That is a perversion of democracy. It is another terrible effect of the initiative process. People can easily be deceived about what they are voting for.

The same thing is happening with Medical Marijuana. I am in favor of legalizing marijuana as a treatment to alleviate the effects of chemotherapy and perhaps for other medical conditions. My father suffered from prostate cancer, and I think that marijuana might have helped him bear the effects of his treatment.

I am not in favor of general legalization. Here, by way of confession, I admit that I have some experience with this controlled substance. I was young once and not so good as I should have been.

So I know what I am talking about when I say that marijuana is a very dangerous drug. Used frequently, it alters the user's mood and perceptions pretty much all the time. It doesn't, however, alter his or her ability to function for most practical purposes. That is why it is so pernicious. To put it mildly, frequent marijuana use does not make a person more productive. Worse still, it insulates the user from awareness of the real world around him, while disguising precisely that effect.

Marijuana use is common enough. But it is nowhere near as common as legal drugs such as alcohol. True legalization would lead to a great increase in marijuana use, especially among the poor and disadvantaged. That would be a social catastrophe.

And that is what is happening in states that have legalized medical marijuana use by initiative. In Colorado and California, medical marijuana laws have amounted to de facto legalization. It quickly became easy for anyone, regardless of medical need, to get a "prescription" to buy the drug. Networks of growers and clinics sprung up to supply the demand.

This is not what the voters in those states thought they were voting for. But of course, once you get the ball rolling, huge vested interests arise to keep it rolling. California is now considering open legalization as a source of revenue. It would be that! It would not, I think, contribute to the economic recovery of that economically and politically retarded state. Millions more stoned citizens might not contribute their fair share to any possible recovery.

Medical marijuana laws passed by initiative have been perversions of democracy. People thought they were voting for a medical treatment. They were in fact voting for legalized recreational pharmacy. Anyone who cares about the republican form of government should be appalled.

I would note also that legislators who are hostile to marijuana have played their part by refusing to pass sensible laws by which the distribution of marijuana to patients who really need it could be monitored and controlled as are other dangerous drugs. By refusing to do so, their worst fears are being realized.

Comments

[denbee]

Ken, what I choose to smoke, ingest or take as a suppository in the confines of my home, away from the children, while not harming any one else, should not be the concern of neither you or my government. Fifty years of the drug wars has created a police state in America and a mentality to match. The enforcement cartels are as self-serving as the drug cartels, and just as dangerous. Almost a million citizens are criminalized each year for marijuana use. We seem hell bent on ruining the lives and futures of hundreds of thousands of young people just to protect them from a substance that is safer than alcohol. Ken, I have had a relationship with mj for over 40 years now. She came home with me after serving two years in Vietnam and has been a friend ever since. I am a responsible citizen. Married for 30 years, Father to a wonderful teenage girl, employed with the same company for 38 years, never missed a day of work, blah, blah. Your stereotype just does not seem to fit me. I know doctors, accountants, lawyers and other professionals who would rather relax at the end of the day with a little cannabis rather than booze. Such is life Ken. Some people will always do what you believe is wrong. In the face of the marijuana laws that were inacted through lies, fraud, and Government mass fear, I and 25 million others say go to hell, we have had enough of your "reefer madness" mentality. Legalize it, regulate it, tax it.

[Stan Gibilisco]

Denbee, I agree about marijuana -- to a point. I say decriminalize it. When I went to the University of Minnesota, I got into pot smoking in 1976. It was illegal in Minnesota at the time (like driving 55 mph in a 45-mph zone) but not criminal (like driving 120 mph in a 45-mph zone).

Unfortunately, what people ingest in their own homes can have a profound impact on others outside. Who would suggest that we ought to legalize methamphetamine, for example? You might ingest that in the privacy of your bedroom, and then go out to the nearest shopping mall and operate under the assumption that you're the Universal Cosmic Justice Enforcer. Even alcohol is bad enough -- an anomaly, because now that we're used to it, we can never make it illegal.

I do think that this business of throwing people in prison for growing hemp in their basements, or smoking it in their living rooms, hurts society a good deal and should be done away with.

Interestingly, now that they're trying to legalize pot in California, we could see an interesting test case that could spread through other issues. Suppose that California gets away with this? They'd in effect trump federal law, right? Then, one might say, why can't South Dakota get away with a law that makes Obamacare invalid within its borders?

[RPM]

Legalizing marijuana does not increase drug use. Every state that has enacted medical marijuana has seen a decrease in drug use http://www.mpp.org/assets/pdfs/general/TeenUseReport_0608.pdf

You keep saying "perversions to democracy" as if somehow your perception of democracy trumps all others. Doesn't democracy allow people to decide to do what they want with their body? Direct democracy does have it's downsides, but it's democracy at its core. I thought that was the point of a free society. How can you call the grassroots effort to acquire 32,000 petition signatures to get this on the ballot in november an "enemy" to democracy. That's probably the most backwards statement I've ever heard. It's not an enemy to democracy, it's an enemy to your personal worldview. But don't confuse your worldview with democracy.

What about the 6,000 deaths in 2008 at the hands of the mexican drug cartels because they profit tens of millions due to our policy of prohibition? Kids find it easier to get marijuana over alcohol, because the market is not regulated. I'm just 20 years old, but back in high school it was always easier to get marijuana. You don't have to show their ID to get marijuana, you pay a drug dealer who doesn't care how old they are. The fact of the matter is, marijuana is infinitely safer than any other regulated drug on the market. And our society would be MUCH better off if we had people smoking cannabis rather than recreationally drinking. No drunk driving, no domestic violence cases, no overdose. Every study has shown that the "disadvantaged" smoke marijuana at the same rate as every other class of society. Everyone is doing it. Legislating morality consistently proves to be counterproductive. We need to embrace reality.

[Weedlover714]

amen to the last line "we need to embrace reality"