cannabisnews.com: Medical Marijuana User Decries Drug War 





Medical Marijuana User Decries Drug War 
Posted by CN Staff on August 12, 2002 at 14:03:14 PT
By Bill Dunn
Source: Capital Times
Gary Storck of Madison uses marijuana to relieve the chronic pain of Noonan syndrome, which he was born with 47 years ago. He's had heart surgery three times, has never driven a car due to extremely limited vision and is on medical disability. He's a member of several groups that advocate for reform of drug laws. 
"I've come to the conclusion, like a lot of other people, that the drug war is causing way more harm than it's preventing," Storck says. "It's unjust. It targets minorities, it targets a lot of good people." Asked why even liberal lawmakers won't support reform, Storck says: "Politicians are putting their own careers ahead of quality of life for people who need medical marijuana. Regarding the drug war, I think most of them understand it's wrong but they want to get re-elected more than they want to do the right thing. Because of that, good people are being thrown in jail with hardened criminals, and that changes somebody forever." Storck responded to other questions on the issue:  Q. Excluding medical reasons, why do people smoke marijuana? A. People use marijuana for a variety of reasons. They may use it to enhance experiences like going to a concert, watching a movie, going for a walk, having sex, eating food, etc. Some find it enhances creativity - helping people write and create art, for example. Still others may use it for spiritual purposes. It has been used for religious purposes for thousands of years. Some may just use it to unwind after work or socially at parties, like other people might have a beer or a cocktail. Others do it for no other reason than it's fun.  Q. What are its effects? A. Effects vary with the strength, the dosage and the frequency of use. People using it medicinally or otherwise regularly usually develop a tolerance to the more psychoactive effects. Some patients may only need a few puffs to attain the desired effect, less than what would get a recreational user high. Also, a medical user's desired effect might be a recreational user's side effect, i.e., getting the munchies. Here's what the Erowid Vault on the Web says: The primary effects sought recreationally are euphoria, relaxation and changes in perception.  Q. How addictive, physically or psychologically, is it? A. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, it's less addictive than caffeine. While it may be psychologically addictive to some, there's no evidence it causes physical dependence. People who quit usually don't experience anything more than they would if they quit coffee. Certainly, it is nothing like the effects experienced by people trying to quit cigarettes, or heroin, cocaine or many common prescription medications like Valium, Paxil, Prozac, Oxycontin, Vicodin and Xanax. Sleep problems for a few days and perhaps some irritability is about all I have ever heard anyone report. Q. One argument against legalization says even if it's not so bad, it's a gateway drug that leads to stronger stuff. True? Why? A. The gateway theory has been thoroughly debunked. Former drug czar Barry McCaffrey commissioned a $1 million study by the Institute of Medicine, released in 1999. The report found, "There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs." It's also been mistaken for a gateway drug because it's the most widely used illicit drug and the first one most people encounter. In fact, drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana. In the early 1970s it often cost $10 to $15 an ounce. Today it can cost that much or more a gram (28 grams in 1 ounce). The price of hard drugs like heroin and cocaine continues to fall and the purity rises. You do the math. Prohibition, by making marijuana more costly and hard drugs cheaper, is actually driving users into the arms of hard-drug dealers. It seems to me prohibition is the gateway drug. Q. Why is it illegal? A. A great writer and former NORML director, Richard Cowan, says the best two-word explanation of continued prohibition is "bad journalism." The media still ignore major reforms occurring all over the world, like in Europe, where many nations no longer arrest drug users.  Q. Should it be regulated like alcohol for adult use? A. Most definitely, and like alcohol, in terms of age limits, driving and other common sense concerns. Since 1976 the Netherlands has regulated possession and sale of small amounts, and the experience shows it works. Regulation means that society has control rather than abdicating it to an illegal market. It means you have to be an adult to possess it legally and that no more children will die in robberies of young dealers that have sadly become a nearly annual event here. It means no more citizens or law officers will be killed or hurt in botched drug raids. An initiative on the ballot in Nevada this November would legalize possession of up to three ounces of cannabis. It's gotten broad support from law enforcement, so it's not just reform advocates who support legalization. Q. Might the country be better off if, say, Attorney General John Ashcroft would light up occasionally? A. It would be better if people like Ashcroft showed some tolerance and compassion rather than relying on their own rigid beliefs as a guide on how they set public policy.  Q. What do you say to teens about marijuana? A. Don't use marijuana, alcohol, cigarettes or any drugs. But if you choose to experiment, the most dangerous thing about marijuana is that it is illegal. Other substances commonly used by teens like alcohol, tobacco and inhalants all have potentially fatal consequences. We need to provide teens with the facts about the relative harms of all substances they might experiment with and trust them to take responsibility for their actions, while discouraging any substance use or abuse through education. Lying to kids or making it sound more sinister than it is does not work.  Q. What would be the advantages of legalization? A. If society adopted a regulated market, which treated substance use and abuse as a public health problem, society would be more peaceful and safer. Medical users would have safe and legal access to their medicine. Right now it's easier for kids to get pot than patients who need it as medicine. Children would have less access, like they do now to alcohol and tobacco. Without the more than 700,000 marijuana arrests a year, police would be seen as friends, serving and protecting.  Q. Any disadvantages? A. A lot of people in the prison-industrial complex might lose their jobs. Agencies that rely on the proceeds from seizing people's personal property would have to rely on other funding. Politicians who demonize pot smokers for political gain would have to find new targets. But society as a whole would be better off.Source: Capital Times, The (WI)Author: Bill DunnPublished: August 12, 2002Copyright: 2002 The Capital TimesContact: tctvoice madison.comWebsite: http://www.captimes.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/Is My Medicine Legal Yet?http://www.immly.org/Man Says Pot Relieves Effects of Eye Diseasehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13223.shtmlMedical Marijuana Should Be Legalized http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8220.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #10 posted by Gary Storck on August 13, 2002 at 16:16:04 PT
Thanks!
Thanks to everyone for the kind words. I'm just glad to be alive and able to speak out against prohibition, and for people who find cannabis helpful on their journey down the road of life.Almost 5 years ago I was in a fight for my life when I developed a post-surgical infection. I was hospitalized 2 weeks and there were a lot of days I didn't think I'd make it out alive. But I hung on, and my old friend cannabis, which had preserved my eyesight from a lifetime of glaucoma, was there again to help ease the pain and help me regain my health during a long recuperation. So given this extra time, I once again became an activist, and I took it from there. I can't believe this war goes on, but I am more hopeful than ever that we will soon win. How can we not, with so many good folks on our side?
Is My Medicine Legal YET?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Dan B on August 13, 2002 at 08:21:30 PT
Duh, I are artikulated!
I meant to write "like," not "leik." So much for the bit about being articulate, eh? Doesn't sound like such a compliment from a guy who can't type! : )Anyway, great answers, Gary.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Dan B on August 13, 2002 at 08:17:01 PT:
Fantastic, Gary
Great work, Gary. It is refreshing to see a well-thought-out, straightforward Q&A on the effects of the drug war. I especially like your answer to the "gateway drug" question. Well stated.I've said this before, and I'll say it again: with articulate people liek you on our side, how can we possibly lose?Thanks for the breath of fresh air.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by kaptinemo on August 13, 2002 at 05:10:58 PT:
It also helps to be fielded some intelligent
questions. A rarity for most newspaper reporters, who tend to go for thre giggle factor right away in hopes of keeping the sheeple's interest. The only time where it looks like the reporter tried to get cutesy-poo:Q. Might the country be better off if, say, Attorney General John Ashcroft would light up occasionally?Gary's reply gently returned the reporter's mind from the expected stereotypical 'shuck and jive' he was hoping for and back onto the very serious business this is:It would be better if people like Ashcroft showed some tolerance and compassion rather than relying on their own rigid beliefs as a guide on how they set public policy.I couldn't have said it better, Gary. Great job!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Nuevo Mexican on August 12, 2002 at 23:47:51 PT
Great Article Gary!
I have a friend with your exact name here, and he's quite outspoken and friendly, and we tend to agree on the most controversial topics!
But your article hit the nail on the head! Excellent question and answer approach that I will have to print out and use as my 'best responses' when debating or enlightening friends and strangers! Thanks for the service, you articulated your points in a way I wish we all could!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on August 12, 2002 at 20:10:39 PT
Gary
I don't know how long it's been since I first met you in a DrugSense Chat but you were a great newshawk and I always admired your taste in news articles. Since then you have gone on and done so much for the medical marijuana movement. You're Shining Gary! Keep It Up! And a Big Thank You!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Ethan Russo MD on August 12, 2002 at 16:53:34 PT:
Another Explanation
For medical users, there seems to be little or any tolerance for treatment of symptoms. The same dose tends to provide pain relief, decreased spasticity, control of intraocular pressure, etc. over time.Tolerance to unwanted psychoactive effects may develop to the extent that people become used to working, studying, etc. under the influence at a level that they would not have been able to achieve in some instances when they first began.Most medical users can achieve a dose that provides relief of symptoms with not impairments at all.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by druid on August 12, 2002 at 15:45:20 PT:
great job Gary!
Great Article! Gary you were well spoken and got the point across in few words!I agree with you on the tolerance thing. My wife and I did an experiment and only smoked on weekends for a while. After not smoking all week, some low-quality schwag weed got us both ripped. I also notice the effect of the same pot every day = less of an effect over time syndrom. I usually don't like to buy more that 1/2 oz at a time for this reason(unless of course something excellent like killer BC bud comes our way). I like to mix and match strains for the best effect.I also think there is just an overall tolerance that happens with time. I always wish I could hit that high I got the first year or two after "discovering" cannabis. The roll on the ground laughing so hard it hurts kind of high. I also used to get these things I called the "freeze-frames" cos nothing was appeared fluid when I was really high just sort of choppy like .aaahhhhhhh memories :) 
according the DEAth I shouldn't even be able to remember this kinda stuff right? Next year will mark my 20th anniversary of being a pothead and I am damn proud of it!But as far as overall tolerance goes I think there is middleground that is reached with pot. Everyone that smokes pot knows what their tolerance level is. Rather that tolerance is 2 or 3 hits or 2 or 3 bong bowls. For me anyway I know that 3 or 4 hits of average weed will do it but I have a friend that won't smoke less than an 1/8th blunt to himself in one sitting.well enough of my ramblings and again Great Job Gary!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Gary Storck on August 12, 2002 at 15:09:03 PT
Trout Mask
Everyone is different.What I was trying to convey is that someone who smokes every day will not have the same experience that someone who smokes monthly or weekly will. It's a tolerance of sorts.I have observed when you indulge every day, you are used to the effects. Someone who indulges only occasionally is not. Like if you smoke the same kind of cannabis for a month, it may not seem as good on Day 30 as on Day 1. But it still can be medicinal. And I know patients who can get the relief they need from a few puffs, less than what might get them, you, or I "high", but enough to stop the nausea, etc.Hope that clears things up. 
http://www.immly.org
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by TroutMask on August 12, 2002 at 14:54:52 PT
"Tolerance"?
"People using it medicinally or otherwise regularly usually develop a tolerance to the more psychoactive effects.""Some patients may only need a few puffs to attain the desired effect, less than what would get a recreational user high."Don't these two statements contradict each other? First, "people using it...regularly usually develop a tolerance", then "...a few puffs..., less than what would get a recreational user high".It has been my experience that there is little if any tolerance developed, unless we're talking 24 hours or less, meaning someone who gets high now will not notice as much of an affect if they smoke more a few hours from now. But once the buzz has worn off completely, I have found that the same amount will still get you just as high tomorrow, the next day, the next month and the next year(s). I've never found a need to smoke more than a few hits to achieve the desired state, given the same strain and potency.Are there any (non-chronic) long-term users who used to smoke a joint in the 70's but must now smoke a 1/4 ounce to get high???-TM
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment