So far, the responses to the Holder memo (that puts in writing the administration policy of not interfering with state medical marijuana operations unless they feel like it) has gotten a lot of favorable press â€” so much so that it’s likely to help apply pressure on the feds to actually make good their… pledge to prioritize. So despite the lack of teeth in the memo, it has served up a powerful result.
But what about the outrageous ones? OK, you know you love these…
1st up: former Baltimore County drug czar and recovering addict Mike Gimbel in the Baltimore Sun (save us from recovering addicts who want to arrest everyone else for their weaknesses): Medical marijuana is an excuse to get high. Yeah, you know this’ll be good…
This is how we handle all potential new drugs in this country, and if the FDA gives its approval, we get our prescriptions filled at a licensed pharmacy. However, this has never been done with marijuana because we all know the results would be negative since the drug is far more dangerous than anyone wants to admit and its medical use is at best minimal.
No, the FDA is really a government arm of the pharmaceutical industry and not set up to handle drugs like marijuana. Every drug that the FDA has approved is more dangerous than marijuana (you know, side effects like death), and despite the government’s unwillingness to deal with it, the science on marijuana’s medical value fills volumes.
Instead, baby boomer lobbyists have convinced several states to set up independent “marijuana dispensaries” to sell marijuana directly to the public, with a doctor’s prescription. No other drug is dispensed this way. Can you imagine an OxyContin dispensary in your neighborhood?
Yes, I can. They’re called Walgreens, and CVS, and Duane Reade, and Costco. They’re all over the place. How else do you sell prescription drugs, but directly to the public with a doctor’s prescription?
Let’s remember that the two drugs that kill more Americans are the two legal drugs: tobacco and alcohol. Making marijuana legal would only lead to the same results.
And that makes sense… how? Are you saying that things kill you because they’re legal? That somehow legalizing marijuana would suddenly make it lethal when it isn’t now? This is like saying “Let’s remember that the two transportation methods that kill more Americans are two legal ones: cars and motorcycles. Making walking legal would only lead to the same results.”
The major difference is when you smoke pot, the goal is to get “stoned or high,” unlike alcohol and tobacco, where you can use a small amount without creating impairment.
First, what’s wrong with getting high? Everybody looks to do that, whether it’s from eating chocolate, having sex, or going to a prayer meeting. Second, you can have a small amount of pot without creating impairment. Third, if getting high was an undesirable side-effect of drinking, why aren’t there more sales of O’Doul’s and sparkling grape juice?
If we are honest with ourselves, we all know that the higher you get after smoking marijuana, the more impaired you get. So if there is a medical use, let’s put it through the proper channels, but if the real goal is to legalize marijuana, we need to think about the consequences.
Um, yes, the higher you get, the more impaired you get. What does that have to do with this argument?
For outrageous, but less funny, you’ll need to read Charles Lane’s post in the Washington Post: Medical marijuana is an insult to our intelligence
He essentially calls Angel Raich a hypochondriac pothead, which did not set well with her considering she has to go in for brain surgery next Wednesday (the tumor is very close to her brain stem).
And Lane throws stuff around without any real connection to reality…
What other substances should we handle this way? Cocaine? Laetrile? Didn’t President Obama just sign a bill authorizing the FDA to regulate the nicotine content of tobacco? And I thought he promised to “restore science to its rightful place.” […] The “medical marijuana” movement may not be a threat to our civilization, but it is an insult to our intelligence.
Considering Lane does believe that there are some uses for medical marijuana and that decriminalization is a discussion worth having, the inflammatory nature of this article was just an opportunity to be nasty.
If he was looking to stir up the pot, he certainly succeeded â€” the comments section is boiling over.
Update: Lane changed his post to drop out some of the more inflammatory statements.