Medical Marijuana In Montana

[Luigi]

"If marijuana really is less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco...."

I don't know if mairjuana is less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco or not - conflicting reports have been and will be published. But I see two conflicting trends at play simultaneously.

For the last forty years or so, the nation has been putting restrictions on smoking - what year did the Surgeon General ban advertising of cigarettes on television - 1968? I'd take that as the starting point for the restrictions-on-tobacco movement. Then it went to the "I mind very much if you smoke" campaign (not government sponsored). Recently, we've seen a spate of restrictions enacted - no smoking in restaurants, no smoking in bars, city-wide smoking bans, etc. Similarly, Mothers Against Drunk Driving started a non-government campaign to restrict alcohol consumption, and governments have imposed penalties not only on the drinker per se but also on the bartender that sells the drink that makes the drinker drunk and then commit vehicular manslaughter or whatever.

So for the last 40 years, and at an increasing rate in the last 10 years, the government has been restricting tobacco and alcohol. But for the last 40 years, NORML and others have been working to ease restrictions on marijuana.

Something here just does not compute.

Is the larger question simply which mind-altering substance is most popular with most of the population? Being a democracy, we can pick our poison - not individually, but as a majority?

[Guest jim/john]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1307578995' post='2251470']
Would you agree with decriminalizing cannabis ([i]marijuana[/i]) and legalizing it for legitimate purposes ([i]such as medical purposes[/i])?

Because I think its clear that pot heads, while they can be a bit of a nuisance, are not criminals. Also that in some instances cannabis can be beneficial.
[/quote]
yes i would agree

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1307633344' post='2251651']
So for the last 40 years, and at an increasing rate in the last 10 years, the government has been restricting tobacco and alcohol. But for the last 40 years, NORML and others have been working to ease restrictions on marijuana.

Something here just does not compute.

Is the larger question simply which mind-altering substance is most popular with most of the population? Being a democracy, we can pick our poison - not individually, but as a majority?
[/quote]

I don't think it's merely which mind-altering substance is most popular at any given time. That seems to be simplifying the argument way too much, and I would wanna bet that caffeine is probably the most widely-used psycho-active in the United States, and probably the whole danged world. Now is caffeine dangerous? The Mormons don't consume it, and like pretty much any substance it does have different health effects and arguments could be made on both sides. In any case there goes your "popular theory." (And just as an aside from pop culture and stuff it seems weed was way more popular back in the 60's or 70's but I don't have stats handy.) I can only imagine the righteous indignation of your average American if he/she were denied his/her morning pick me up.

And even if you want to say "BUT YOU CAN'T COMPARE CAFFEINE TO MIRHUANA ZURGLEGAFEL" I guess that's a discussion that could be had. Caffeine certainly doesn't have the stigma that marijuana has and while it's unfortunate, that stigma inhibits a lot of honest discussion that could take place. Moving past the stigma is hard, especially when the issue approaches personal waters (I'm sorry about your brother, I know it may have been years ago, but may God rest his soul), but it can be done, and I think seeing all the negative effects prohibition has had, I think it's all too necessary.

[Luigi]

"I would wanna bet that caffeine is probably the most widely-used psycho-active in the United States, and probably the whole danged world. .... In any case there goes your "popular theory." ... I can only imagine the righteous indignation of your average American if he/she were denied his/her morning pick me up."

I hear what you're saying, but I think you're proving my point - caffeine is the most popular drug in the nation, so/therefore/that's why it is legal - it's a popular [of-the-people] decision. At some point in the future, if enough folks start to think it's dangerous, or unbecoming, or contributes to road rage, or generates self-inflicted ADHD, or any other negative attribute, I can envision the Surgeon General requiring cans of Folgers to carry a warning about its health effects, movie-makers deciding not to include coffee-drinking scenes in movies, Mothers Against Coffee Consumption, a campaign titled I Mind Very Much If You Brew, restaurants segregating coffee drinkers into coffee and non-coffee sections, then not offering coffee at all, and so forth.

It comes down to "Dope is hip, smoke is not." And this nation runs on what's hip, never mind the fact that tobacco has been legal in this country since the First People gave Sir Walter Raleigh his first pipeful 400 years ago.

Another interesting point is that, in regard to marijuana, people very frequently repeat, "Prohibition didn't stop alcohol consumption - the drive to keep marijuana illegal will be just another failed Prohibition." And yet, the same people have no qualms about attempting a Prohibition against smoking. If Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and Prohibition won't work for marijuana, how is Prohibition supposed to work for tobacco?

I don't get it.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1307684279' post='2251917']I hear what you're saying, but I think you're proving my point - caffeine is the most popular drug in the nation, so/therefore/that's why it is legal - it's a popular [of-the-people] decision. At some point in the future, if enough folks start to think it's dangerous, or unbecoming, or contributes to road rage, or generates self-inflicted ADHD, or any other negative attribute, I can envision the Surgeon General requiring cans of Folgers to carry a warning about its health effects, movie-makers deciding not to include coffee-drinking scenes in movies, Mothers Against Coffee Consumption, a campaign titled I Mind Very Much If You Brew, restaurants segregating coffee drinkers into coffee and non-coffee sections, then not offering coffee at all, and so forth.

It comes down to "Dope is hip, smoke is not." And this nation runs on what's hip, never mind the fact that tobacco has been legal in this country since the First People gave Sir Walter Raleigh his first pipeful 400 years ago.

Another interesting point is that, in regard to marijuana, people very frequently repeat, "Prohibition didn't stop alcohol consumption - the drive to keep marijuana illegal will be just another failed Prohibition." And yet, the same people have no qualms about attempting a Prohibition against smoking. If Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and Prohibition won't work for marijuana, how is Prohibition supposed to work for tobacco?

I don't get it.
[/quote]
We haven't prohibited tobacco, we've regulated it. If marijuana were legalized you could still have regulations (e.g., you could limit its use to homes or specially zoned smoking cafes).

If people were getting thrown in jail for possessing alcohol and tobacco, the public attitude would be very different. The public will tolerate regulation (to a certain extent), but with marijuana we have a system of criminalization, not regulation.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Era Might

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1307684279' post='2251917']
I hear what you're saying, but I think you're proving my point - caffeine is the most popular drug in the nation, so/therefore/that's why it is legal - it's a popular [of-the-people] decision. At some point in the future, if enough folks start to think it's dangerous, or unbecoming, or contributes to road rage, or generates self-inflicted ADHD, or any other negative attribute, I can envision the Surgeon General requiring cans of Folgers to carry a warning about its health effects, movie-makers deciding not to include coffee-drinking scenes in movies, Mothers Against Coffee Consumption, a campaign titled I Mind Very Much If You Brew, restaurants segregating coffee drinkers into coffee and non-coffee sections, then not offering coffee at all, and so forth. [/quote]

I really cannot envision that happening , perhaps a flaw in my imagination skills. I think there would have to be a lot of propaganda and stigmatization of coffee-drinkers as a bunch of belligerent addict thugs before that attitude holds firm, but I see your point. I'm not saying popularity isn't a factor but I don't think it's the primary cause for legalization/illegalization.

There's also a few not-so-popular drugs that are not regulated that perhaps slipped under the DEA's radar, but don't yet carry the same stigma that weed does.

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1307684279' post='2251917'] Another interesting point is that, in regard to marijuana, people very frequently repeat, "Prohibition didn't stop alcohol consumption - the drive to keep marijuana illegal will be just another failed Prohibition." And yet, the same people have no qualms about attempting a Prohibition against smoking. If Prohibition didn't work for alcohol, and Prohibition won't work for marijuana, how is Prohibition supposed to work for tobacco?

I don't get it.
[/quote]
Are people who oppose marijuana prohibition really the [b]same[/b] people who are OK with tobacco prohibition? I don't see that as the case. Also as Era said regulation =/= prohibition. I'm all for legalizing and regulating marijuana because whereas people should have the right to inhale marijuana smoke, I think people should also have the right to [b]not [/b]breathe it in. I don't see the inconsistency . I don't wanna breathe in tobacco smoke (or any smoke for that matter, it makes me nauseous) but so long as smokers keep their smoke outta my lungs I'm cool with them inhaling tobacco.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Sylvanna Imbris' timestamp='1307585124' post='2251503']
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg/380px-Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_%28mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence%29.svg.png[/img]

[/quote]

This chart that was posted from Wiki seems as reliable as anything else posted on Wiki. It was probably put up there by some 13 year old kid to argue with his parents about certain substances safety. Taken at face value it seems pretty well done. I guess that those people who inhale solvents, known as huffers, the ones who spray paint and other solvent born materials into bags and then huff the solvent gas for an immediate high are safer than a tobacco user? This is insanity, huffers live at best a few years, there is almost always irreversible brain damage from this practise, there are many thousands of old smokers who smoked since they were kids, I doubt there are any huffers who have lived a decade using solvents to get high. The effects of Anabolic Steroids came to the attention of the media in a big way in to 90's when Lyle Alzado died from Anabolic steroids use. he developed a brain tumor, these steroids also cause sterility among many other side effects and the damage is quickly evident. Alzado admitted using steroids from 76 through his careers end in 1985, thats 9 years folks, and it was all downhill from that point. he had tremors, went down in weight and size to the point he looked as if he was held for years in a concentration camp and was bald and haggard looking. Lsd is safer than cigarettes too? I have heard of people dying from its use, I also know of two cases where people have taken a "trip" they never returned from, I would feel safer smoking for 68 years like my grandpa and dying in bed of a heart attack at 83 years old.

ed

Edited June 11, 2011 by Ed Normile

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1307807086' post='2252360']
This chart that was posted from Wiki seems as reliable as anything else posted on Wiki. It was probably put up there by some 13 year old kid to argue with his parents about certain substances safety. Taken at face value it seems pretty well done. I guess that those people who inhale solvents, known as huffers, the ones who spray paint and other solvent born materials into bags and then huff the solvent gas for an immediate high are safer than a tobacco user? This is insanity, huffers live at best a few years, there is almost always irreversible brain damage from this practise, there are many thousands of old smokers who smoked since they were kids, I doubt there are any huffers who have lived a decade using solvents to get high. The effects of Anabolic Steroids came to the attention of the media in a big way in to 90's when Lyle Alzado died from Anabolic steroids use. he developed a brain tumor, these steroids also cause sterility among many other side effects and the damage is quickly evident. Alzado admitted using steroids from 76 through his careers end in 1985, thats 9 years folks, and it was all downhill from that point. he had tremors, went down in weight and size to the point he looked as if he was held for years in a concentration camp and was bald and haggard looking. Lsd is safer than cigarettes too? I have heard of people dying from its use, I also know of two cases where people have taken a "trip" they never returned from, I would feel safer smoking for 68 years like my grandpa and dying in bed of a heart attack at 83 years old.

ed
[/quote]

Certainly the graph can be criticized, but it's probably better to look at the methods they used to collect the data rather than use anecdotes to fire off against it. We all know that somewhere there's a 90 year old sucking down nicotine and has been since he entered the service in WWII, but there's also been studies done that show a causal relationship between smoking and cancer/heart attack etc, and so for every elderly nicotine puffer you have scores more who have gone to an early grave because of it. Steroids, I'm not so sure about. I only know enough about those to know I would never ever mess with them and wouldn't want any loved ones to either. And yes, huffing puts your brain in a rather scary position and I'm a little puzzled as to why it seems so low on the physical harm axis, but some things seem to be right in place so I won't be so willing to chuck the graph away entirely.

Also, if you have heard of people dying from LSD, it's probably because of stupid things the person did whilst taking the drug rather than the drug itself, as you would have to ingest an insane amount of LSD to have a fatal overdose, and as far as I know there's never been one recorded. With alcohol they probably look at the physical harm it does alone rather than the stupid decisions people make whilst drunk. I can imagine if this graph took into account all the drunk driving accidents that "physical harm" for alcohol would be off the charts and far surpass heroin, but I don't think they did. It's true that an LSD trip can come back years and years later, but aside from how psychologically terrifying that might be, I don't know that it's physically harmful. GHB on the other hand, aka the date rape drug, is also rated low on physical harm but that's just the effects of the drug alone and not the cruel things people use it for. Obviously if a guy slips it into a woman's drink so that he can rape her, surely GHB leads to physical harm. So I think you may be looking at the graph the wrong way. It illustrates the drugs physical harm alone and eliminates other variables that come in with real-world use (i.e. the stupid things people do when high/drunk).

[benidict]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1307486805' post='2251014']
oh yeah, that's a great idea. let's add to the number of impaired drivers already on the roads
[/quote]Not really. Most people who smoke, sit at home and watch t.v. Im a Cop. Id rather see Pot legalized and Alchohol banned. Do you perchance drink alchohol and enjoy it? Thats pretty nasty stuff to, with a far worse track record when it comes to crime and spousal abuse than Marijuana. Not to mention all the drunk driving deaths. Heres another one. There are other prescribed medications which impair driving which are totally legal. Ban them too?

[benidict]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1307492422' post='2251075']
How many people die from marijuana overdose?
[/quote]I dont have the stats, complications from smoking too much marijuana? Or an allergic reaction? Possibly a very small percentage. Most folks just go to sleep. hopefully without a lit cigarette in hand......Alchohol overdoses though? And deaths resulting from Alchohol and pain killers? pretty high I would think.

[Sylvanna Imbris]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1307807086' post='2252360']
This chart that was posted from Wiki seems as reliable as anything else posted on Wiki. It was probably put up there by some 13 year old kid to argue with his parents about certain substances safety.
[/quote]

Sorry about the wiki image. I looked up the original article but didn't post their figure since technically that isn't legal. A single-use digital copy of the article costs about $30, so I think they'd get mad if I just posted their figure for free since it is the bulk of their work!
My problem with the whole debate is my own ignorance. I don't know the relative dangers of different illegal drugs, so I did some research...but I still don't know very much.
I think if we knew exactly how safe or dangerous marijuana is we wouldn't need to debate.

[InPersonaChriste]

Meh opium is sometimes still used as treatment.

[kamiller42]

It is kind of crazy that a magazine like Cracked provides some of the best rebuttal to the most popular and dumbest legalization arguments and in a language potheads can understand, i.e. with casual use of foul language.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-marijuana-arguments-that-arent-helping/

[url="http://www.redstate.com/jeremyintucson/2011/05/18/why-im-against-medical-marijuana-or-azs-prop203/"]For the more sober crowd[/url]....

[Era Might]

Here's an editorial on the historical significance of the medical marijuana movement in America:

[quote]These are momentous times for the medical marijuana movement. It’s been 15 years since California legalized medical marijuana, becoming the first state to do so. Since then, 16 more states have legalized, plus the District of Columbia. But medical marijuana remains illegal under federal law, and this threat hangs over state medical marijuana programs.

Marijuana prohibition usually gets compared to the futile efforts at alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. But alcohol prohibition failed because it prohibited a substance that was common and normal. Marijuana is not common and normal in American society, and never has been. That’s why it became a symbol of nonconformity (e.g., among hippies). The movement to legalize marijuana has only gained ground because individual states have normalized marijuana as medicine.

The best analogy for the marijuana situation is not Prohibition, but Abolition. Abolition did not begin with the Emancipation Proclamation. Abolition began when individual states defied what had been normal and became free states. This lead an Illinois politician named Abraham Lincoln to warn in 1858 that “this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free.” The states forced the federal government’s hand over slavery. And over the last 15 years, the states have been forcing the federal government’s hand over marijuana.

In April, Washington Governor Chris Gregoire vetoed parts of a bill that would have allowed the state to license and regulate its medical marijuana dispensaries. Gregoire feared that the bill would put state workers at risk of federal arrest and prosecution. In May, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer filed a lawsuit in federal court to get a ruling on the state’s medical marijuana program, putting the program in doubt. In June, federal and state authorities in Oregon, where medical marijuana is legal but dispensaries are not, issued a joint warning to dispensaries that the sale of medical marijuana remains illegal and will not be tolerated. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has promised to clarify the federal government’s position on state medical marijuana programs.

What is clear is that medical marijuana is not going away. Even if certain state governors back down from the federal government, medical marijuana is a growing state movement. To become a national movement, however, and a broader movement to legalize marijuana, it has to take advantage of its place in history. So long as the movement was about potheads, it did not have much support. When it became about patients, it gained legitimacy and won state support. But when it becomes about patriots, and the primacy of the states over the federal government, and the defense of liberty against the tyranny of any government, then it can gain real national support. Then politicians will be falling over themselves to join the movement. Then the government will think up ways to milk the cash cow rather than slaughter it.

Walt Whitman gave us a warning:

[b]"To the states, or any one of them, or any city of The States,
[i]Resist much, obey little;[/i]
Once unquestioning obedience, once fully enslaved
Once fully enslaved, no nation, state, city, of this earth, ever afterward resumes its liberty."[/b]

The history of the medical marijuana movement is becoming part of the history of state resistance. But the movement will only succeed to the extent that it can draw on that historical energy.

http://blog.420petition.com/activism/medical-marijuana-a-patriotic-cause/[/quote]

Edited July 8, 2011 by Era Might

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Era Might' timestamp='1310136933' post='2264441']
Here's an editorial on the historical significance of the medical marijuana movement in America:
[/quote]
It was the abolitionists, and not the slave states, that were fighting for states' rights? Quite a twist of events.

The alignment between the medical marijuana crowd and slavery proponents is closer than the abolitionists.
"It's a state's right issue."
"Who are you to tell me what I can do on my land?"
"Slavery is 'instead of an evil, a good—a positive good.'"
"Slavery is economically beneficial."

Some of those arguments echo the pro-homosexual marriage crowd. But, that's for another thread...