Pennsylvania is having a debate on medical marijuana in the legislature. Good for them.
The heart-wrenching stories came from both sides.
Huh? Both sides?
How is that possible? Was there a pharmaceutical manufacturer who lost income in California due to medical marijuana and wasn’t able to buy a new car?
I don’t get it. How do you have a heart-wrenching story from opponents of medical marijuana?
Sharon Smith of Mechanicsburg lost her 18-year-old daughter to a heroin overdose in 1998. She said the state should not legislate medical policy decisions.
Ah, I see. Let’s pass by the delicious irony of someone who supports continued laws preventing doctors from practicing medicine claiming that the state “should not legislate medical policy decisions.”
It is really offensive to me that drug prohibitionists seem to be able to recruit parents of dead kids to campaign against medical marijuana. (Steve Steiner of DAMMMAD is the prime example, but there are many others.)
The worst was when the DEA sponsored a Vigil for Lost Promise that was held on the grounds of the DEA headquarters.
What possible relevance does the death of an 18-year-old girl to a heroin overdose have with regulated medical marijuana? None at all.
When a parent loses a child to a drug overdose, how do they get from there to opposing marijuana (which has never had a fatal overdose)? It seems to me that somebody must lead them there.
The real discussion they need to have is: “What was the role that prohibition played in this tragedy?” After all, it happened within the context of prohibition. “Would things have been different if drugs had been legal and regulated?”