Social science - medical marijuana

[Biochemist]

The right to take drugs is really only half the issue. To many, it's stripped under the guise of protecting citizens from drug takers...The simplistic thinking that leads to the "outlaw it, that will make it go away" is the heart of the issue. Legalization would make the price drop, reducing the need for criminal activity to get the next fix (if such a need exists at all). Legalization would reduce the seductive aura that drugs have for young folk...

Interesting points, B-

 

I have been in favor of decriminalization of some drugs for quite a while. The drugs that are fundamenally safe (marijuana and opiates like heroin) are reasonable candidates. I have a greater concern about the drugs that are extraordinarily physically addicitive (cocaine) or can cause permanent damage (hallucinogens).

 

I even got a letter published in the Wall Street Journal in the early '80s advocating legalization of heroin and marijuana. I have never used either one, but the social benefits of legalization are several fold. Aside from reducing the seduction to young folks, it would also decrease burglary in most cities since the majority of burglary in large cities is to get cash to support drug habits. It would decrease the rate of HIV and hepatitis in the blood pool. It would remove billions of dollars from the pockets of criminals, particularly organized crime. It might even decrement the other social vices that feed off of the environments where drugs use is rampant, e.g., prostitution.

 

But the drugs that truly are dangerous remain problematic to me.

[bumab]

I have a greater concern about the drugs that are extraordinarily physically addicitive (cocaine) or can cause permanent damage (hallucinogens)....

 

But the drugs that truly are dangerous remain problematic to me.

 

Good point- I was mainly thinking of marijuana and opiates as well.

[Turtle]

___As I understand it, marijuana is only habit forming, not addicting. For a good read on the concept of victimless crime I recommend the book Ain't Nobody's Bussiness If You Do; The author escapes my memory at the moment.

___Besides the glaucoma, pain, & nausea mentioned, marijuana is found effective in some with clinical depression, anxiety disorders, as well as bolemics. The marijuana based drug Marinol is also finding effective use in the treatment of autism.

___If you please, according to his journals, George Washington grew marijuana not only for the textile applications (rope etc.), but for medicinal purposes as well. :hyper:

 

Addendum:Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do : The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country by Peter McWilliams

[bumab]

You are correct T., it's not physically addictive. Many drugs aren't, actually.

[Fishteacher73]

Caffine and sugar are though...........

[Biochemist]

Caffine and sugar are though...........

Caffeine is. Sugar is not. Typically we characterize the severity of addiction by the physiological risk (morbidity and mortality) of the withdrawal syndrome. Caffeine is truly addictive, for example, but the withdrawal is typically a mild headache at worst, so most folks don't really consider it an addiction per se. I beleive Marijuana has a mild withdrawal syndrome, but the half-life of THC is so long that the withdrawal is often barely noticeable.

 

Tutrle's point about the habit-forming nature is more relevant. Many items are habit forming in the complete absense of addition. I think cheesecake and rare beef are habit forming.

[Fishteacher73]

AS per caffine, I have personally watched a serious withdrawal episode w/ my mother... Shakes and sweats, she was laid out for about three days.

[Turtle]

___I'm not sure if the current ruling is part of the Ed Rosenthal cases or not. Ed has written about growing herb & promoted its use since the early seventys. The federal government has/is/did prosecute him in California in spite of the State laws Ed worked within there.

___

[C1ay]

___I'm not sure if the current ruling is part of the Ed Rosenthal cases or not. Ed has written about growing herb & promoted its use since the early seventys. The federal government has/is/did prosecute him in California in spite of the State laws Ed worked within there.

___

No. This case was Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich). All of the respondents in this case, Angel McClary Raich, Diane Monson, John Doe Number One, and John Doe Number Two were prescribed cannabis under California's Compassionate Use Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11362.5. Here are the Petitioner's and Respondent's briefs and here is the ruling.

[nkt]

That ruling is both counter to common sense and is unfair.

 

To say that there is "an interstate commerce affected" by someone growing all of six plants for medical, personal use, is so tenuous. This ruling means that anything at all can be regulated by the Federal government, since there needs to be no obvious effect or reliance on interstate commerce according to this ruling.

 

It is worth noting that this was a split decision, 5 to 4, as well.

 

One of the cases quoted is a ruling against a farmer who grew grain at home for his own consumption, and that was ruled to be covered by interstate commerce. If that is covered, when the grain has been in the state since forever, only due to the tiny effect on the truck loads of grain that get shipped or not in or out of the state! I suspect that if the 4 people who had sued for relief had carefully enquired as to what, precisely, the Federal govt. could *not* regulate with this clause, they probably would have got one of the five to swing to them.

 

Note that I am not even mentioning the actual marijuana issue - that tends to scare the more conservative judges into knee-jerk reactions.

 

Personally, I've seen plenty of use, including one good friend who was as near to an addict as anyone could ever be, and, in the end, we all kind of forced him to cut back, since he was starting to seem stoned all the time, after several joints a day... But there was no harm done. If he had been drinking that hard, he would have been dead, or without a liver.

 

I cannot see how hash can be a Schedule 1 drug, either, and I would have mentioned that in my application to the court. The fact that it is used medically for years around the world, and has been de-criminalised in several countries shows that it is in the wrong cat. Let's face it, if hash is so "bad" as to be Schedule 1, where do they put crank or crack cocaine?

 

Of the five levels, 1 is the highest, and there are three criteria for this cat.

Schedule I drugs are categorized as such because of their high potential forabuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence ofany accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment.

 

The USA is one of only a few countries that still do not accept that 'mary-jane' has a medical use. Yet morphine is probably on Schedule 2, despite being far, far more dangerous and potent, not to mention addictive.

 

Anyway... I'm not over there, and this is just my 2p worth. :hyper:

[C1ay]

It is worth noting that this was a split decision, 5 to 4, as well.

It was 6 - 3. Stevens, J., Delivered The Opinion Of The Court, In Which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, And Breyer, Jj., Joined. Scalia And O’Connor, J., Filed A Dissenting Opinion, In Which Rehnquist, C. J., And Thomas, J., Joined.

[Biochemist]

Note that I am not even mentioning the actual marijuana issue - that tends to scare the more conservative judges into knee-jerk reactions.

It was 6 - 3. Stevens, J., Delivered The Opinion Of The Court, In Which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, And Breyer, Jj., Joined. Scalia And O’Connor, J., Filed A Dissenting Opinion, In Which Rehnquist, C. J., And Thomas, J., Joined.

Do note that the conservatives all voted against the majority that California had the right to make its own decisions. It was the liberal judges that gave the feds the right to extend enforcement.

[nkt]

It was 6 - 3. Stevens, J., Delivered The Opinion Of The Court, In Which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, And Breyer, Jj., Joined. Scalia And O’Connor, J., Filed A Dissenting Opinion, In Which Rehnquist, C. J., And Thomas, J., Joined.

 

Sorry, you lost me.

 

Stevens, J., Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, And Breyer, Jj on one side is 5.

 

Scalia, O’Connor, J., Rehnquist, C. J., And Thomas, J. makes 4 on the other, no?

[Biochemist]

Sorry, you lost me.

 

Stevens, J., Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, And Breyer, Jj on one side is 5.

 

Scalia, O’Connor, J., Rehnquist, C. J., And Thomas, J. makes 4 on the other, no?

Although it is not clear from C1ay's post, Scalia filed a separate opinion concurring with the majority (i.e., he agreed with the conclusion for different reasons). The other three had two separate dissenting opinions.

[C1ay]

Sorry, you lost me.

 

Stevens, J., Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, And Breyer, Jj on one side is 5.

 

Scalia, O’Connor, J., Rehnquist, C. J., And Thomas, J. makes 4 on the other, no?

Sorry my cut and paste left out that Scalia filed a concurring opinion, somehow I joined this with the dissent. The vote was:

 

Concur:

Stevens, J., Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Jj and Scalia

 

Dissent:

O’Connor, J., Rehnquist, C. J., And Thomas, J.

[C1ay]

Do note that the conservatives all voted against the majority that California had the right to make its own decisions. It was the liberal judges that gave the feds the right to extend enforcement.

Are you calling Scalia a conservative or a liberal here? It looks like his vote bridges the conservative/liberal split in the vote.

[Biochemist]

Are you calling Scalia a conservative or a liberal here? It looks like his vote bridges the conservative/liberal split in the vote.

Scalia is certainly a conservative (Scalia/Rehnquist/Thomas are). But Scalia offered a separate concurring opinion, joining with the majority. I did not read it, but it means he did not agree with the justification offered by the majority, just the conslusion.