cannabisnews.com: Here's a Chance To Say No Here's a Chance To Say No Posted by FoM on July 15, 2000 at 22:16:38 PT By Al Knight, Denver Post Columnist Source: Denver Post Six states already permit the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes and many predict Colorado will join the group. A constitutional amendment allowing physicians to recommend the use of smoked marijuana is on the state's November ballot and early opinion polls show 3-to-1 support for it.The argument for it has superficial appeal. Why not let those who are seriously ill use the drug if a doctor says it may relieve pain, nausea or other discomfort? Indeed that argument is so appealing it nearly handcuffed opposition groups in the places it has been debated proving once again that the simple argument beats one that is more complex.Thankfully the Colorado opposition, which includes a number of highly respected medical groups, has developed an appealing counter-argument and thinks it can raise enough money to publicize it.A good argument, and money to circulate it, remain the two indispensable requirements for a successful opposition campaign.The Colorado campaign against the medical marijuana initiative is being run by Coloradans Against Legalizing Marijuana and its members include a number of highly respected medical figures, including Dr. Joel Karlin, former head of the Colorado Medical Society.The theme of the opposition is "mad medicine, bad law." CALM will argue:- There are better and safer drugs that contain the same chemical (THC) found in smoked marijuana. These drugs have advantages. Most importantly, the dosage is accurate whereas street marijuana can vary greatly in strength and purity. Secondly, the patient need not either grow the drug personally or purchase it in the illegal marketplace, as provided under the Colorado measure.- Out-of-state money will figure prominently in the proponents' campaign. Early reports confirm this and add credence to the charge that the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes is simply the tip of an iceberg, the larger goal being to legalize it generally.- Groups organized to represent the very patients who supposedly will most benefit from medical marijuana oppose the initiative. CALM will run ads announcing the support of the American Medical Association and Colorado Medical Society, among others. - Depending on how courts interpret the Colorado initiative, employers might be required to let some employees work under the influence of marijuana. This point may seem exaggerated. What it refers to is a provision in the initiative that says that nothing in the act "shall require any employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any work place." The reason this is not entirely reassuring is that federal law normally trumps state law and it is not inconceivable that an employee, acting under the Americans With Disabilities Act, would claim the right to smoke marijuana while at work.- Because there are other and safer ways to approach the medical problems, the medical marijuana initiative should be viewed as what it is, a part of a larger plan to legalize its use. These will not necessarily be winning arguments in the face of a really well-financed campaign featuring television ads of appealing patients pleading for the mere opportunity to smoke marijuana for medical reasons.The opponents know they can't win if they appear to be unconcerned about these patients and their condition. That is why they will often repeat the fact that the National Institutes of Health has reviewed this issue and reported that crude marijuana adds nothing to currently available medicine and in fact may increase the risk to patients.In the end, however, the winning argument may be the simple desire to avoid a conflicted public policy that criminalizes marijuana in some settings, permits it in others.Some supporters of medical marijuana would eagerly resolve this conflict by legalizing the drug. The better course is the one CALM has charted, which is to avoid exceptions, especially where, as here, they fail on both medical and legal grounds. Published: July 16, 2000 Copyright 2000 The Denver Post.Related Articles & Web Site:Coloradans For Medical Rightshttp://www.medicalmarijuana.com/2 Doctors, Attorney Fight Plan To Allow Medical Pot http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread5455.shtmlBusybodies Trying To Stifle Debate http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread3044.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives:http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #13 posted by FoM on July 17, 2000 at 08:47:56 PT Thanks Dan and Everyone! Thanks Dan for the good explanation. It does happen and will happen again I'm sure. I have edit ability now so I can fix it most times. Not all but most. We want to be thought of as having integrity! You know why? Because we have integrity! You all are so good!Peace, FoM! [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by Dan B on July 17, 2000 at 06:19:53 PT: Re: Knight and Ditmer Actually, Joanne Ditmer runs a column in the same paper (hers was an unrelated article published the same day). The article printed above was linked to "Al Knight" in the op-ed columns, along with his picture and a link to archives of his articles, but when one reached the article it stated that it was written by Joanne Ditmer. It was a natural mistake to attribute the article to that author since that was the name accompanying the article. Joanne Ditmer's column was a couple of spots down the list from Al Knight's link, so I did not see hers at first, thus I assumed that she was a guest writer filling in for Knight.Honest mistake (at least for me and FoM; FoM ran into the same trouble as documented in this thread). [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by dddd on July 17, 2000 at 03:13:48 PT Joanne and Al I am somewhat intrigued by the mixup in who actually wrote this article.I hope Al or Joanne will speak up,and take credit for their article. Al ,,or Joanne,,,,,,inquiring minds want to know. Perhaps they are "nom de plumes",for someone on the czars payroll?....dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Dan B on July 17, 2000 at 01:03:05 PT: Just to Clear Things Up... The original online post of this article in the Denver Post listed Joanne Ditmer as the author. Since then, we have learned that Al Knight was the author. I have sent two versions of this article to the Denver Post: one referring to the article as authored by Joanne Ditmer, and a later one revising the article when I learned that it was actually written by Al Knight. I'm hoping they understand the revision as a sign of my integrity, rather than as simply an inconvenience to their newsroom staff.Thanks, by the way, for the positive remarks, everyone. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by dddd on July 16, 2000 at 23:23:06 PT P.S. Joanne Ditmer...?Al Knight...? [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by dddd on July 16, 2000 at 23:14:46 PT gotta say I must also tell ya Dan,,that was excellent.You are cool and good!....Dont stop.......Sincerely.......dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by military officer guy on July 16, 2000 at 20:43:08 PT dan the man... add another very bright person to our growing list of supporters...btw dan b, that was awesome...there are a lot of very educated people that visit this site...i'm lovn it...we can win this war... [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by observer on July 16, 2000 at 14:10:01 PT All Knight Noise Wow! that was a nice job Dan! I hope that gets published. I read this benighted OPED on mapinc and immediately came here 'cause I knew it would get a response or two!* * *The whole issue is jail, and the article didn't mention it once. This is a consistent red-herring, divert-their-attention sort of attack the Prohibitionists use over and over. Sadly, it works for them. People's attention is easily diverted. The issue isn't about the relative effectiveness of medications (although cannabis wins that one too), rather, it is about throwing adults in prison for using cannabis. Notice (and I agree it is hard to notice what isn't said), but notice how that jail and prison, incarceration etc. isn't mentioned nor hinted at even one time in the article! The prohibitionists hope to divert attention elsewhere: "medicine isn't smoked", "government should choose, not people", "message to the children", etc. But not one time is mentioned that the vote is whether or not to lock adults up in jail for using cannabis; the referendum is not about those other things. Prohibitionists invariably try to minimize or they totally ignore the little detail of jail in their appeals for more punishments and continued prohibition. Hold their feet to the fire, make them answer why it is best to send people to jail, make them answer why they play down or ignore the reality of their prisons. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by FoM on July 16, 2000 at 14:07:29 PT One More Thing Hi Again!Here is the email for Al Knight! I hope I'm not confusing anybody!Peace, FoM!E-Mail: aknight chaffee.net [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on July 16, 2000 at 13:37:25 PT Corrections To The Article Hi Dan and kapt! I'm glad you sent it to the editor. I just was notified that the author is Al Knight and I corrected it in the article but I also removed the email address so here is where to send e-mails if you didn't know. Let me know if it get's published too!Peace, FoM!E-Mail: letters denverpost.com [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Dan B on July 16, 2000 at 12:55:37 PT: Sent it, I did. Kaptinemo,Thanks for the support. I sent it in as an op-ed article because the Denver Post limits its letters to the editor to 200 words or less. I'll keep everyone posted, should they decide to publish it. I have cleaned it up a bit, in terms of writing style, and have more fully addressed it to the writer of the article, Joanne Ditmer, while continuing the focus on the arguments of her colleagues at CALM. Thanks again. Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on July 16, 2000 at 07:31:02 PT: Dan, I hope you sent that to the editor Because you effectively demolished all their points. Bravo! [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Dan B on July 16, 2000 at 00:46:01 PT: Nice Try...But Absolutely Incorrect! “The theme of the opposition is ‘mad medicine, bad law.’ CALM will argue..." In other words, “Bad! Bad law! Bad, bad, bad!” How intelligent.- "There are better and safer drugs, etc..."Response: They are correct only in stating that these drugs contain THC in accurately controlled dosages. What they fail to mention is that (1) these dosages are often larger than typical dosages of THC obtained through smoking marijuana, that (2) isolating THC in the pill form disregards the positive, often modulating effects of the other 59 cannabinoids found, as the word suggests, exclusively in cannabis [marijuana], (3) a pill will not help those who are using the drug as an anti-emetic due to the fact that they are already vomiting up anything that goes down the esophagus, and (4) strong evidence suggests that Marinol, the THC pill, does not work as well as smoked marijuana for those who have tried both, and many report that its intoxicating effects are much more debilitating than smoked marijuana. I might also suggest bringing up the topic of Steve Kubby, who has used marijuana under a doctor’s supervision to successfully treat a rare form of adrenal cancer that almost invariably kills the patient within five years. Kubby has lived with the cancer for the past fifteen years and shows no signs of slowing.- "Out-of-state money will figure prominently in the proponents' campaign, etc...." Response: This is a “straw man” argument designed to divert attention away from the real issue. The fact is that people with chronic illnesses are not allowed to use an effective medication because the State of Colorado, in collusion with the United States government, has deemed this medication “naughty.” People are being imprisoned for making informed decisions in a medical setting to use marijuana as a treatment for legitimate illnesses. Which is the greater evil, the supposed intent to legalize marijuana for everyone, or the deliberate persecution of medical patients, many of whom are battling for their very lives? One might include, as well, the story of Peter McWilliams, who passed away in June because the federal government refused to allow him the use of the only medication that worked for him to control the nausea associated with the drug “cocktails” he was taking to control the HIV virus: marijuana. - "Groups organized to represent the very patients who supposedly will most benefit from medical marijuana oppose the initiative, etc...." Response: Worldwide, study after study reveal the truth that marijuana is an effective treatment that benefits medical patients. Witness the recent study from South Africa that shows marijuana benefits AIDS patients without causing harm, the studies from Israel that confirm the effectiveness of marijuana as a treatment for multiple sclerosis, the National Institute of Mental Health study showing that marijuana may prevent brain damage from strokes and slow the progress of Alzheimers and Parkinsonism, or the Spanish study published earlier this year that credits cannabinoids with significantly reducing glial cell brain cancer tumors. In addition, here is a list of organizations that have endorsed medical access to marijuana: the Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Bar Association, American Public Health Association, American Society of Addiction Medicine, AIDS Action Council, British Medical Association, California Academy of Family Physicians, California Legislative Council for Older Americans, California Medical Association, California Nurses Association, California Pharmacists Association, California Society of Addiction Medicine, California-Pacific Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, Colorado Nurses Association, Consumer Reports magazine, Kaiser Permanente, Lymphoma Foundation of America, Multiple Sclerosis California Action Network, National Association of Attorneys General, National Association of People with AIDS, National Nurses Society on Addictions, New Mexico Nurses Association, New York State Nurses Association, New England Journal of Medicine, Virginia Nurses Association, and the editorial boards of Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, Miami Herald, New York Times, Orange County Register, and USA Today. (Source: Common Sense for Drug Policy Foundation, http://www.csdp.org ). - "Depending on how courts interpret the Colorado initiative, employers might be required to let some employees work under the influence of marijuana, etc...." Response: First, if you use the argument that federal law usually trumps state law, you must also concede that it should cause no worry whatsoever if the citizens of Colorado want to legalize medical marijuana because the feds will inevitably step in (as they have done in California) and arrest people for legal medical use on the grounds that such use violates federal law, even though it is legal within the parameters set by the state. Second, the fact that the law provides a way out for employers is merely a concession to those who fear marijuana may have a negative effect on workplace performance. It does not mean that such an effect is inevitable. Furthermore, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those who would ban medical marijuana as to the negative effects of marijuana on the workplace. Such effects have not been demonstrated, most likely because the vast majority those who use the drug (recreationally or medically) do so when they are not at work.- "Because there are other and safer ways to approach the medical problems, etc...."Response: Back to issue number two (these folks are redundant, aren’t they?). First, prove that they are. Second, prove that society would be damaged if marijuana were legalized for recreational use. A vast wealth of information from countries in which marijuana is treated as legal [such as the Netherlands] suggests that society would benefit from marijuana legalization, as evidence by decreased murder rates, decreased use of hard drugs (like cocaine and morphine, both of which are currently prescribed by doctors for medical purposes in this country, and both of which pose far greater risks than marijuana ever has and ever could, even of potency increased exponentially), and no greater use of marijuana than is currently found here in America. --“...The better course is the one CALM has charted, which is to avoid exceptions, especially where, as here, they fail on both medical and legal grounds.”Response: Avoid exceptions? Do you mean exceptions like those given for alcohol (which kills about 100,000 people each year) and tobacco (which kills about 500,000 people each year), both of which fail on medical grounds? As for legal grounds, study your Constitution. Study your U. S. History. You will find that the Constitution specifically prohibits laws respecting the establishment of religion, and laws of prohibition fall into that category. You will find that our founding fathers (George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, to name a few) cultivated and used cannabis, and evidence exists in Washington’s journal that he actively grew marijuana for the purpose of cultivating potent THC-bearing plants (he gleefully documented separating female plants from the males, for which there is no other purpose). You will find that great American leaders (like Abraham Lincoln) specifically spoke out against such laws. Witness, as well, the endorsement of medical marijuana by the American Bar Association and the National Association of Attorneys General, if you want to see what the legal community thinks of anti-medical marijuana laws.To sum, all of the arguments presented by CALM (a misnomer if ever there was one) are insubstantial and erroneous. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: