Greetings.
This Tuesday, November 4th, as Americans head to the polls, initiatives to legalize cannabis for medicinal purposes will be on the ballot in three states: Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. While minor distinctions may exist between the three states' bills, at issue is essentially whether or not Americans in these states will vote to continue keeping cannabis legally inaccessible for medicinal purposes or vote to make it available.
For today's entry, I want to focus on my home state of Florida and its Amendment 2 that is up for decision. Essentially, this amendment, if it receives sixty percent or more of the vote, would require the state to set up a medical marijuana dispensary system under regulation from state agencies.
Not every one is happy about this possibility. One web site in particular, dontletfloridagotopot.com, has come out with some rather outlandish justification for why Florida voters should vote against Amendment 2. Chief among their concerns is the possibility of minors getting access to marijuana outside of parental notification.
Specifically, the website claims,
"The amendment allows a teenager to get a recommendation for medical marijuana without the consent of a parent."
This statement is completey misleading. While the actual amendment does not specifically regulate how a minor could be given a recommendation for marijuana, it should be noted that the language of the bill is constructed this way on purpose. This is mainly so that the state of Florida can write the rules regarding minors at a later time, should the amendment pass. States across the union that have passed marijuana legalization bills have, in many cases, HEAVILY regulated use by minors once their respective measures cleared with a vote. California is a great example (http://www.canorml.org/medical-marijuana/patients-guide-to-california-law).
Another deceptive claim is that Amendment 2 is dangerous because "no prescription is required to obtain medical marijuana." Factually, it is true that no prescription is currently required to obtain medical marijuana. However, the reason for this is because it is currently illegal under federal law, due to cannabis still being a Schedule I drug, for physicians to write an actual prescription for it. Thus, under current conditions, a physician's recommendation is the only legal way to obtain medical marijuana in states where it is legal. Thus, to use lack of "prescription language," so to speak, as an argument against marijuana legalization is disingenuous.
The website operators also complain about the likelihood of doctors issuing recommendations for marijuana to patients in order to treat illnesses that are commonly addressed with existing legal medications. My response to this is: so what? If a trained and certified physician believes that marijuana can be legally added to a patient's treatment plan, then why shouldn't it, especially if it has been proven to help with the particular ailment?
Other objections are as follows:
Marijuana is addictive!
The website claims that "1 in 6 kids who try marijuana will become addicted to it." Not only is that statistic inaccurate but, ironically enough, the very source referenced as proof by the website itself actually REFUTES the statement (rather than back it up). The actual figure of children who become addicted as a result of marijuana use is closer to 9%, not 17% (http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh24-4/201-208.pdf).
It is also worth noting that this figure is well below the 15% of (legal) alcohol addicts and below the 11% of those addicted to stimulants other than cocaine, such as caffeine (also referenced in the same study).
Esssentially, the above study backs up what other honest researchers have said for years: that marijuana is FAR less addictive than many other substances that can be found on store shelves across America.
Marijuana causes mental illness.
For this objection, the website relies on a study of Swedish military conscripts from 1969-1970 in backing up their claims. While it acknowledges the increased risk of schizophrenia in its participants who used cannabis, the study also states repeatedly that actual causation cannot be determined strictly based on cannabis use and can also be attributed to usage of other drugs (i.e. - amphetamines) as well as factors such as personality, etc.
Long story short, the results of this (much older) study hardly give us reason to believe that cancer patients worldwide will soon find themselves in rooms with padded walls as a result of their marijuana-based pain treatment.
Marijuana is marketed to children, causes impairment while driving, and will keep rehab centers open...
...are just a few of the other seemingly breathless claims made by the anti-potters. And they are ridiculous. That is unless of course, these individuals are ready to argue for a categorical ban on alcohol, tobacco, fatty foods, chemical-laden foods, prescription medications, and other products that are also "marketed to children," "cause impairment while driving," and "keep rehab centers open." Legal marijuana (medical or otherwise) would logically call for regulations similar to those imposed upon literally HUNDREDS of legal products currently on the market.
On a separate note, as far as the website's claims regarding children are concerned, one can't help but wonder where personal responsibility and parental accountability factor into their thinking. In other words, do the website administrators really believe that parents are so unable to regulate what sort of advertising schemes and controlled substances their children are exposed to that more laws against them are needed? Are they convinced that people today really are unable to think for themselves to the degree that government has to place more bans on inanimate objects and substances? If that is the case, then I submit that we have MUCH larger problems than a simple bill that would legalize a plant.
Amendment 2 and bills like it should be passed overwhelmingly if for no other reason than because, as I have argued repeatedly, our government has no constitutional authority to ban any substance, object, or other nonviolent behavior. Thus, what is at stake on November 4th is not limited to "marijuana" or "no marijuana." Rather, it is a choice between individual liberty and a further encroachment of government upon our right to determine how we nonviolently choose to live our lives. And it is not a choice that should be made lightly. If government can outlaw marijuana today, then there literally is no limit to what they might choose to ban, with the right amount of persuasion, in the future.
Please choose wisely, Florida.
Live Free!
-Warren Brisbane
No comments:
Post a Comment