cannabisnews.com: Flawed, But Not Fatally Flawed, But Not Fatally Posted by FoM on October 10, 2000 at 10:05:51 PT Editorial Source: Daily Camera To hear Gov. Bill Owens tell it, Amendment 20, the "Medical Marijuana Initiative," is really just a sort of "Drug Dealers' Full Employment Act." That's going overboard, but Owens and the group Coloradans Against Legalizing Marijuana do have a legitimate point: The initiative all but assures that, at least for first-time users, the source of the drug will be illegal dealers. So we agree that the amendment is not particularly well-crafted. But in all their drug-war inspired bluster (Owens has declared that the initiative will not pass "in Colorado — not on my watch...") opponents forget that despite flaws, the measure's simply about compassion. The amendment would decriminalize the use of marijuana for patients suffering from diseases — some terminal — such as cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis and glaucoma. It would allow patients who have received a physician's authorization to register with the state to possess and use up to six plants or two ounces of the herb. Patients would not be able to use the drug in public places or operate a vehicle, and employers would not have to accommodate its use in the workplace. Patients could use their registered status to avoid criminal prosecution for use and possession, but would be subject to laws against distributing the drug to others. The measure's major flaw is that it doesn't even address the question of distribution. Unless patients happened to stumble upon a wild cannabis plant in a ditch somewhere, they would have to make their initial acquisition illegally, since even marijuana seeds are banned under federal law. Presumably thereafter a patient could avoid this awkward situation by growing his or her own plants. Opponents, which include the American Medical Association and the Colorado Medical Society, also point out that smoking marijuana carries its own health risks, and that regulated medication containing a synthetic version of marijuana's active ingredient, THC, is available by prescription. But proponents note that the drug does not have to be smoked: It can be inhaled as a vapor, eaten or drunk as a tea. They argue that condemning the drug because of a delivery system is a bit like saying patients shouldn't receive intravenous morphine because that's how junkies take heroin. And for those suffering severe nausea and vomiting, using THC in pill form obviously would be a challenge. Owens and others claim that "marijuana isn't medicine," but the Institute of Medicine has reported that marijuana can be effective for the relief of some symptoms, and the New England Journal of Medicine has editorialized in favor of using the drug in certain situations. An expert panel at the National Institutes of Health has concluded that marijuana can relieve the nausea associated with chemotherapy, increase the appetites of AIDS patients and relieve painful pressure caused by muscle tumors and glaucoma. Ultimately, it's hard to deny that this is something of a "message" initiative, and that many of its proponents support the general legalization of marijuana. But the amendment, flawed as it is, is sufficiently limited that those who fear full-blown legalization need not fret. And how much danger is there, really, in letting a terminal cancer patient ease his or her symptoms? Rather than "send the wrong message" to children, the amendment would actually clarify that marijuana is a real drug, and not to be trifled with. And who among us really wants to see an AIDS patient dragged from his or her home by police simply for trying to ease the pain and symptoms of the disease? We urge a vote of Yes on Amendment 20. Source: Daily Camera (CO) Published: October 10, 2000 Fax: 303-449-9358 Copyright: 2000 The Daily Camera. Contact: openforum thedailycamera.com Address: Open Forum, Daily Camera P.O. Box 591, Boulder, CO 80306 Website: http://www.bouldernews.com/ Related Articles & Web Sites:Coloradans For Medical Rights: http://www.medicalmarijuana.com/Drug Policy Forum of Colorado: http://www.drugsense.org/dpfco/Voters Favoring Medical Marijuana: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7257.shtmlEndorsement: No on Medical Marijuana: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7217.shtmlMedical Marijuana Amendment Flawed: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6993.shtmlIt's Bad Medicine, It's Bad Law: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6986.shtmlCannabisNews Articles - Colorado: http://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=coloradoCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives: http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #5 posted by freedom fighter on October 10, 2000 at 17:56:54 PT first I had to read I_rule posting twice. It is so beautiful!Colorado will win this ballot. I just hope we get 80%! [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by ras james on October 10, 2000 at 17:06:45 PT a controlled substance alcohol is now a controlled substance...legal sometimes and illegal other times. so also marijuana is now a controlled substance...remember the federal government gives medical marijuana to eight american citizens now. the controls on alcohol and tobacco need to be tightened and the controls on cannabis sativa need to be less retrictive. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on October 10, 2000 at 16:22:08 PT: Bravo, I Rule! The pity is the irony would immediately be lost on most antis. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by i_rule_ on October 10, 2000 at 13:52:05 PT Thought this was interesting. There was consensus among the forum participants on the need to ask a number of questions of those proposing legalization. Too often, the specifics of how to implement a system for the distribution and sale of legalized drugs are never discussed. Instead, simplistic rhetoric is used to deflect serious consideration of the many questions that must be thought through before one can evaluate the ramifications of their proposals. This is the great weakness of the pro-legalization position. Participants in the Forum suggested that the following questions be asked consistently in order to illustrate the shallowness of the legalization concept. 1. Should all drugs be legalized? 2. Who will determine which segments of the population will have access to legalized drugs? 3. Will they be limited only to people over 18, 21? 4. Will cocaine, heroin, LSD, and PCP be made available if people request them? 5. Who will sell drugs, the government, private companies? 6. Who will be liable for damages caused by drug use, and the activities of those taking drugs? 7. Who will collect the revenues generated by the drug sales? 8. How will a black market for cheaper drugs be controlled? 9. Who will bear the costs to society of increased drug use? 10. How will absenteeism and loss of productivity be addressed by business? Who will bear the costs of lost productivity, consumers, stockholders?11. Will the local drug situation in a community dictate which drugs are sold where? 12. How will society care for and pay for the attendant social costs of increased drug use, including family disintegration and child neglect? 13. Who will bear the costs of the expansion of social service and welfare programs that may be necessary to care for increased drug addicts through drug legalization? Would taxpayers bear this expense through increased taxes, would funding for other programs such as education be reduced? 14. Will people still need prescriptions for currently controlled medications, such as antibiotics, if drugs are legalized? 15. Will legal drugs require prescriptions? 16. Can anyone, regardless of physical or medical conditions, purchase drugs? 17. How will we deal with the influx of people to the United States who will seek legal drugs? 18. Can we begin a legalization pilot program in your neighborhood for one year? 19. Should the distribution outlets be located in the already overburdened inner city?>Now here is the counter....******************************************************** THE AMERICAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA ASSOCIATION 15 Monarch Bay Plaza, Box 375, Dana Point, Ca 92629 Web site: http://www.drugsense.org/amma/ E-mail: amma drugsense.org Join our List: http://www.drugsense.org/amma/********************************************************The American Medical Marijuana Association suggests that the followingquestions be asked consistently of the DEA in order to illustrate theshallowness of the prohibition concept.1. Should all politically incorrect drugs be outlawed?2. Who will determine which segments of the population will have access tooutlawed drugs? 3. Will they be limited only to people over 18, 21?4. Will cocaine, heroin, LSD, and PCP continue to make millionaires out ofthugs?5. Who will sell outlawed drugs, the government or outlaws?6. Who will be liable for damages caused by prohibiting drug use, and thelure of easy drug money that comes with prohibition.7. Who will collect the billions of dollars of lost revenues generated bythe illicit drug sales?8. How will a black market for illicit drugs be controlled?9. Who will bear the costs to society of increased illicit drug use andviolence associated with prohibiton?10. How will absenteeism and loss of productivity be addressed by business?Who will bear the costs of lost productivity, consumers, stockholders?11. Will the complete lack of regulation of illicit drugs in a communitycontinue to dictate which drugs are sold where?12. How will society care for and pay for the attendant social costs ofincreased drug use, including family disintegration and child neglect thatare associated with prohibition?13. Who will bear the costs of the expansion of social service and welfareprograms that may be necessary to care for increased drug addicts throughdrug prohibition? Will taxpayers continue to bear this expense throughincreased taxes and the continuing reduction of education budgets?14. How else can we protect the pharmaceutical industry if we don't keep thehighly popular cannabis herb illegal?15. Will people still buy expensive and toxic prescription drugs if cannabisis easily and inexpensively available?16. Anyone, regardless of physical or medical conditions, can currentlypurchase illicit drugs, why change this?17. How else can the DEA ensure an influx of violent criminals to the UnitedStates unless we continue prohibition?18. How can the DEA allow a medical marijuana for sick people and stillscare communities into supporting SWAT raids and expensive cop toys?19. Should the illicit distribution outlets located in the alreadyoverburdened inner city be allowed to be replaced by medical marijuanadispensaries and pharmacies?20. If the DEA can only seize 10% of illicit drugs and yet DEA studies showthat illicit drug smugglers can afford to lose up to 90% and still makemoney, how does the DEA expect to stop in influx of drugs into this country? [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Sledhead on October 10, 2000 at 10:55:38 PT Amendment 20 POLL If you'd like to vote in a MMJ Poll & post a comment, the Denver Rocky Mountain News has an editorial, etc. at the following add & one of the CALM promoters has written his opinion there. Pretty pitiful....http://cfapps.insidedenver.com/opinion/editorial.cfm?ID=553Have fun.... [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: