Thinking Out Loud - Medical Marijuana And Conservatism

[AKenewell]

Thinking Out Loud - Medical Marijuana and Conservatism

 

 

Published July 05, 2010 by:

Charles B Reynolds

 

 

"Even If One Takes Every Reefer Madness Allegation of the Prohibitionists at Face Value, Marijuana Prohibition Has Done Far More Harm to Far More People Than Marijuana Ever Could." - William F. Buckley, Jr.

 

As a conservative, I am against the overall legalization of drugs as a way to stop abuses and wars and crimes and victims. I hear all the arguments about legalizing these things from "it will increase tax revenue" to"it will put the drug cartels out of business" to "people will stop stealing and killing to support their habit."

 

And I say in response that the cost of regulating street drugs like cocaine and meth and heroine will far outstrip any tax levies. I would say that people will not stop stealing and killing to support their habit because they kill and steal to support many legitimate habits such as smoking, drinking and sex. And as for the drug cartels, they will still be in business because there will always be a black market or street need for all these drugs. There will always be, as there are for such legal drugs as Oxycontin and Quaaludes, a need by people who really don't need them and cannot get a prescription for them (as will most definitely be required even if they become legalized because they are that dangerous).

 

That being said, I am about to tick off all my extremist conservative readers.

 

For all the arguments against the medical use of marijuana, I can give you one for the legalization of this controversial drug. And I am not going to start describing such pain management examples of people who want their last days to be livable.

 

Picture a woman waking up each day in severe debilitating pain from Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). Pain that not only cripples but deforms. Then imagine an underlying chemical imbalance in the brain that causes such severe depression as to be physical in nature. A depression that is so destructive in emotional, physical and relationship ways that most of us cannot even comprehend when the sufferer just wants to cut themselves and "let the pain out." Further, as this woman wakes up in this condition, imagine her child coming in and saying "pick me up, mommy."

 

Due to the fact that RA medication such as Embrel, Humira and the rest only work for a short period of time, and due to the fact that medications normally used for the chemical imbalances are not compatible with the RAmedications (that don't work for very long anyway), this woman (only in her early twenties) can only roll over and spend the next 23 hours either sleeping or crying. The pain feeds the depression. The depression feeds the increase in bone loss through inactivity.

 

Now imagine that young woman has access to medical marijuana, which eases the pain of the RA and allows the depression to be manageable. Imagine that she can now get up and spend time with her child. She may not be able to pick the child up due to the bone loss associated with the RA, but she can laugh as he shows her a new dance he made up, or tells his first real joke. She is able to sit with him and answer his questions about why the ground outside is wet in the morning and why the yellow crayon is different than the blue one. As she battles her illnesses, she is able to be a mother and a sister and a daughter and a friend. She doesn't have to continually say to a non-understanding child why mommy doesn't feel well, all the time. She can function and contribute and live. All because she had access to medical marijuana.

 

Now you may say this is a rare case and doesn't warrant a law allowing the use of medical marijuana. And I counter that it is for this and all the other cases often quoted, such as giving someone comfort in their final days or taking the pain from cancer and chemo patients. I say it is for all these people that we need to stop looking at marijuana as the poster child for all the drug addicts and pushers and cartels throughout the world. Stop treating it like the opening of the floodgates to the worldwide spread of drug abuse. And start treating it like a medication for the potential relief of suffering. In decades past many other "drugs" were researched and used for medications we have today. Oxycontin is an oxycodone which is derived from opiates. Opiates such as heroine are linked to nefarious people and dark squalid rooms of abandoned homes. But without it, you would not have morphine and other pain medications. We need to stop looking at the popular misconceptions and start looking at how it could help people such as the woman referred to above.

 

 

 

For those who might read the example of the woman with the unlikely combination of Borderline Personality Disorder and Rheumatoid Arthritis as just being for dramatic effect, and responding that they can show real drug users and real crimes as fact for their position, let me just say this. The above woman is real. And this woman, in her early twenties, has to not only suffer from these crippling illnesses but struggle with the sad look on the face of her children who don't understand why mommy is "not feeling well" most of the time. Her family watches her struggle in pain each day to overcome the pain just to read to her children and push them, however briefly, on the swing. It is a fact that medical marijuana cold ease her suffering. It would not fix the problem of the diseases but it would give her and her children a better quality of life. And I am not talking for just a few months of relief from pain. But this would be for a lifetime. So a mother could watch her children grow and her children could spend years with a mother active in their lives. Although that would be an admirable reason alone, there is always such cases as terminal cancer and other life ending illnesses. that can and do receive relief from medical marijuana.

 

So the position of being a conservative who approves of the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes really isn't at odds at all. The desire to give someone the liberty to live a life free of pain and the wish to see children grow and learn from their mother is so in keeping with the real values of conservatism. To be conservative does not mean to be heartless. In fact, these values are stated clearly in our Constitution. ". . . promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . ." And in the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The ideals espoused by conservative values holds that doing what is possible to allow people to live a life free from pain, the liberty not to be considered criminals for something that is beyond their scope to change and pursue happiness in ways that do not infringe on the rights of others, is not only important, it is intrinsic. Although they would have you think otherwise, the opposition to conservatism does not hold the patent on compassion. It was conservatism that held to freedom from slavery. It was conservatism that pushed for more open doors for all. It is conservatism that demands accountability for actions. And it should be a deeply held conservative value to help those in need. In ways that show prudence along with compassion.

 

Although I often find myself at odds with the policies of the President, I would support his decision not to go after people and dispensaries who abide by the law of their states in which medical marijuana is legal. Perhaps this will open the dialogue within the States to expand the number of states that allow the use of medical marijuana.

 

As usual, agree or disagree, but I just hope it makes you think. Either way, this is just me, thinking out loud.

 

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5555212/thinking_out_loud_medical_marijuana.html?cat=5

[AKenewell]

To be conservative does not mean to be heartless. In fact, these values are stated clearly in our Constitution. ". . . promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity . . ." And in the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The ideals espoused by conservative values holds that doing what is possible to allow people to live a life free from pain, the liberty not to be considered criminals for something that is beyond their scope to change and pursue happiness in ways that do not infringe on the rights of others, is not only important, it is intrinsic. Although they would have you think otherwise, the opposition to conservatism does not hold the patent on compassion.

 

 

This writer sure does have a good way of looking at this, now wouldn't it be nice if this was how everyone looked at it?

[+420Atheist]

Pretty good article. Gee if we could just get every conservative to know someone personally who is suffering and is helped by MMJ then we could pass it nation wide. One thing that may have some positive effect of our nation going further right is the very far right like Glen Beck tend to be more libertarian and pro legalization.

 

But like most conservatives he is against legalization and uses faulty logic to get there.

 

And I say in response that the cost of regulating street drugs like cocaine and meth and heroine will far outstrip any tax levies.

 

How would he know this? The examples I would point to are tobacco and alcohol. Both heavily regulated and taxed. Tobacco revenues for the state of MI in 2005 was over 1.1 billion dollars. I could not find data on the cost of administrating the tax program but if it is more than 1.1 billion then we should eliminate the tax. I doubt that is the case. Common sense tells us a program like this should only cost a fraction of what it is bringing in.

 

I would say that people will not stop stealing and killing to support their habit because they kill and steal to support many legitimate habits such as smoking, drinking and sex.

 

This is a fallacy of distraction. On the surface the statement seems logical. What it fails to recognize is the frequency of these crimes. Will people still steal for drugs? Sure. Well it be the same problem it is today? Doubtful. I can say that with confidence as we have the history of alcohol prohibition as an example.

 

And as for the drug cartels, they will still be in business because there will always be a black market or street need for all these drugs.

 

This is the biggest BS statement he makes. Again he ignores the history of alcohol prohibition and attempts to distract the reader with the idea that there may still be a black market but ignores the billions of dollars that will be removed from that black market by legalization. There are still a few dry counties down south where the tradition of making bootleg whiskey is being carried out but it is a extremely small fraction of what was going on during the 1920s. I believe the only reason moonshining is happening today is more family tradition than any money that is being made.

[AKenewell]

How would he know this? The examples I would point to are tobacco and alcohol. Both heavily regulated and taxed. Tobacco revenues for the state of MI in 2005 was over 1.1 billion dollars. I could not find data on the cost of administrating the tax program but if it is more than 1.1 billion then we should eliminate the tax. I doubt that is the case. Common sense tells us a program like this should only cost a fraction of what it is bringing in.

 

I don't think you read the whole article. You're taking his arguments out of context, unless you're trying to argue for the legalization of, say, cocaine. Either that, or you failed reading comprehension. it's time to go back to school! The author is talking about cocaine, meth, and heroine. He says, "the cost of regulating street drugs like cocaine and meth and heroine will far outstrip any tax levies."

 

 

This is a fallacy of distraction. On the surface the statement seems logical. What it fails to recognize is the frequency of these crimes. Will people still steal for drugs? Sure. Well it be the same problem it is today? Doubtful. I can say that with confidence as we have the history of alcohol prohibition as an example.

 

.

.

.

This is the biggest BS statement he makes. Again he ignores the history of alcohol prohibition and attempts to distract the reader with the idea that there may still be a black market but ignores the billions of dollars that will be removed from that black market by legalization. There are still a few dry counties down south where the tradition of making bootleg whiskey is being carried out but it is a extremely small fraction of what was going on during the 1920s. I believe the only reason moonshining is happening today is more family tradition than any money that is being made.

 

Again, by "these drugs" the author is still writing about cocaine, meth, and heroine. You're obviously missing the point. He states that he's against "the overall legalization of drugs" but he's writing about his position on hard drugs as a prelude to talking about cannabis. He's arguing FOR medical marijuana, not against it. He cites a real life example, quotes the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, and goes on to say, "It should be a deeply held conservative value to help those in need."

 

In his words...

I say it is for all these people that we need to stop looking at marijuana as the poster child for all the drug addicts and pushers and cartels throughout the world. Stop treating it like the opening of the floodgates to the worldwide spread of drug abuse. And start treating it like a medication for the potential relief of suffering.

[TheSmartestManAlive]

Pretty good article. Gee if we could just get every conservative to know someone personally who is suffering and is helped by MMJ then we could pass it nation wide. One thing that may have some positive effect of our nation going further right is the very far right like Glen Beck tend to be more libertarian and pro legalization.

 

But like most conservatives he is against legalization and uses faulty logic to get there.

 

 

 

How would he know this? The examples I would point to are tobacco and alcohol. Both heavily regulated and taxed. Tobacco revenues for the state of MI in 2005 was over 1.1 billion dollars. I could not find data on the cost of administrating the tax program but if it is more than 1.1 billion then we should eliminate the tax. I doubt that is the case. Common sense tells us a program like this should only cost a fraction of what it is bringing in.

 

 

 

This is a fallacy of distraction. On the surface the statement seems logical. What it fails to recognize is the frequency of these crimes. Will people still steal for drugs? Sure. Well it be the same problem it is today? Doubtful. I can say that with confidence as we have the history of alcohol prohibition as an example.

 

 

 

This is the biggest BS statement he makes. Again he ignores the history of alcohol prohibition and attempts to distract the reader with the idea that there may still be a black market but ignores the billions of dollars that will be removed from that black market by legalization. There are still a few dry counties down south where the tradition of making bootleg whiskey is being carried out but it is a extremely small fraction of what was going on during the 1920s. I believe the only reason moonshining is happening today is more family tradition than any money that is being made.

 

 

I agree with alot of what is said here. I consider myself conservitive , but i do think the stance most conservatives have on drugs is a bit wack. I 100 % beleive in limited government, including limiiting the regulation of Narcodics. The drug war has hurt more americans by far then it has saved.

[+420Atheist]

I don't think you read the whole article. You're taking his arguments out of context, unless you're trying to argue for the legalization of, say, cocaine. Either that, or you failed reading comprehension. it's time to go back to school! The author is talking about cocaine, meth, and heroine. He says, "the cost of regulating street drugs like cocaine and meth and heroine will far outstrip any tax levies."

 

 

 

 

Again, by "these drugs" the author is still writing about cocaine, meth, and heroine. You're obviously missing the point. He states that he's against "the overall legalization of drugs" but he's writing about his position on hard drugs as a prelude to talking about cannabis. He's arguing FOR medical marijuana, not against it. He cites a real life example, quotes the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, and goes on to say, "It should be a deeply held conservative value to help those in need."

 

In his words...

 

No I got that. My reply was only about his logic in being against legalization of drugs. I guess I should have been more specific. Of course I agree with his position on MMJ however his logic is flawed when it comes to prohibition of any kind including meth cocaine and heroine. Sorry I was not more clear.

 

I think he has missed the point. He is only for MMJ because he personally knows someone who is helped by it but misses the bigger picture, that prohibition of any drug is causing the gang and crime related activities and would be reduced greatly if all were legalized.

[jinx]

All in all, an excellent article. I will circulate it via an email to my friends....

Incidentally, the use of Oxycontin and Morphine for chronic pain conditions has a multitude of negative side effects. Although seemingly insignificant the tremendous constipation which these drugs cause can result in painfull BMs which can make their life an additional living hell. I have one acquaintance on morphine who rarely visits friends for fear of having to deal with this issue alone...he literally can stop up a toilet which requires someone to vigorously plunge...the embarrassment alone is horrendous !!!!

[AKenewell]

No I got that. My reply was only about his logic in being against legalization of drugs. I guess I should have been more specific. Of course I agree with his position on MMJ however his logic is flawed when it comes to prohibition of any kind including meth cocaine and heroine. Sorry I was not more clear.

 

I think he has missed the point. He is only for MMJ because he personally knows someone who is helped by it but misses the bigger picture, that prohibition of any drug is causing the gang and crime related activities and would be reduced greatly if all were legalized.

 

If that's YOUR view, that ALL drugs should be legalized, then you're out there. It makes your earlier comments make sense. But I would differ that ALL drugs should be legalized. The hard drugs that the author of the article mentions cause great harm and death, unlike cannabis. They are also all potently addictive. I understand the point of view when some people argue that all drugs should be legalized, but I think the harms would greatly outweigh the benefits. Heart attacks, strokes... in a young person, it's cocaine until proven otherwise. According to your rationale, if we had no speed limit, we wouldn't have to worry about speeders. If we surrendered to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, we wouldn't have to worry about trying to defend ourselves. Sometimes you have to draw a line. It's a civil society, laws are the basis, and while it's true that if we were to legalize all drugs, there would be no more "drug offenders," we would gain huge new problems with harmful effects of cocaine, meth, and heroine. The medical uses of these and similar drugs are extremely limited in their benefits (eye surgery, weight loss, pain), outweighed by their harms (cardiovascular events, personality changes, stroke, death, dependence, etc). Cannabis, on the other hand, has the benefits we know of and very few risks, with no LD50 (lethal dose at which half of the treated population will die).

 

It's apples and oranges. A discussion of cannabis doesn't belong in the context of cocaine, meth, and heroine, unless it's for illustration as in Charles Reynolds' above article.

[+420Atheist]

I agree with alot of what is said here. I consider myself conservitive , but i do think the stance most conservatives have on drugs is a bit wack. I 100 % beleive in limited government, including limiiting the regulation of Narcodics. The drug war has hurt more americans by far then it has saved.

 

I agree with a lot of the libertarian point's of view that the tea party and the Glen Becks have when it comes to individual liberties. Right now Texas Republicans are trying to outlaw sodomy and gay marriage in Texas. How does that fit with the small government model? And really is throwing people in prison for sodomy punishment? I'm sure they will find no sodomy in prison.

[+420Atheist]

If that's YOUR view, that ALL drugs should be legalized, then you're out there.

 

Objection, Counselor "out there" is a prejudicial term. But yes I do believe in legalization of all drugs. But that does not make Mr. Reynolds logic any more correct.

 

In the article he goes out of his way to differentiate between medical marijuana and every thing else. Even though he specifically mentions cocaine and such he seems to be sidestepping making a statement about recreational use of marijuana. And if he is applying those same arguments for other drugs to recreational marijuana then my comments are still very relevant.

 

I don't mean to come off as being unappreciative when someone on the conservative side takes up the cause. I am happy more in the conservative mind set are coming around to seeing the value of marijuana as a medicine. However I would be even more elated if they would see the fallacy of fighting a 30 year war and not meeting a single stated goal. I would be ecstatic if more conservatives were to take up the cause like Glen Beck has and call for legalization of marijuana for any use.

[UrbanFarmer]

I agree with a lot of the libertarian point's of view that the tea party and the Glen Becks have when it comes to individual liberties. Right now Texas Republicans are trying to outlaw sodomy and gay marriage in Texas. How does that fit with the small government model? And really is throwing people in prison for sodomy punishment? I'm sure they will find no sodomy in prison.

 

It seems that their idea of getting govt out of folks lives depends on whose lives we're talking about.

 

"We want govt out of our lives, but if we don't agree with yours then we're all for govt intruding in YOUR life"

 

They're too damned dumb or brainwashed to see the hypocrisy. Maybe that's why they like Sarah Palin so much, and elected GWB as gov.

[AKenewell]

Objection, Counselor "out there" is a prejudicial term. But yes I do believe in legalization of all drugs. But that does not make Mr. Reynolds logic any more correct.

 

In the article he goes out of his way to differentiate between medical marijuana and every thing else. Even though he specifically mentions cocaine and such he seems to be sidestepping making a statement about recreational use of marijuana. And if he is applying those same arguments for other drugs to recreational marijuana then my comments are still very relevant.

 

I don't mean to come off as being unappreciative when someone on the conservative side takes up the cause. I am happy more in the conservative mind set are coming around to seeing the value of marijuana as a medicine. However I would be even more elated if they would see the fallacy of fighting a 30 year war and not meeting a single stated goal. I would be ecstatic if more conservatives were to take up the cause like Glen Beck has and call for legalization of marijuana for any use.

 

I did not mean to sound prejudicial, I do think that legalization of ALL drugs is out there, you have your belief and we just have an opposite view, so I should have said that is out there, not you are out there. I also think we have a completely different interpretation of the author's view, I do not believe he is applying the same arguments for the other mentioned drugs to recreational marijuana at all.

[+420Atheist]

I did not mean to sound prejudicial,

 

I was laughing when I wrote that so I was not offended. My online persona has thicker skin than my real life anti social self. Seriously though I don't want to p1$$ off the guy that is doing so much for the cause and I may need to defend me someday.

[TheSmartestManAlive]

It seems that their idea of getting govt out of folks lives depends on whose lives we're talking about.

 

"We want govt out of our lives, but if we don't agree with yours then we're all for govt intruding in YOUR life"

 

They're too damned dumb or brainwashed to see the hypocrisy. Maybe that's why they like Sarah Palin so much, and elected GWB as gov.

 

 

 

People like you try to classify the issue as a black and white issue. As if people only have a choice between zero government and a socialist government. Like anyone would really want to eliminate the police department? You are creating a false-dilema.

[FloridityNow]

 

 

 

People like you try to classify the issue as a black and white issue. As if people only have a choice between zero government and a socialist government. Like anyone would really want to eliminate the police department? You are creating a false-dilema.

 

SAY WHAT? That made absolutely no sense. I think maybe you're confusing who wrote what, but then you did reply to the farmer, so... I'll just score it as ("people like") YOU being your usual polarizing self. Ha ha.

[AKenewell]

I was laughing when I wrote that so I was not offended. My online persona has thicker skin than my real life anti social self. Seriously though I don't want to p1$$ off the guy that is doing so much for the cause and I may need to defend me someday.

 

And I laughed when I read Objection Counselor,now that was funny !!

[Bisharoo]

Well, when words still had definative meanings, the "true conservative" (not what conservatives are portrayed by the media or by democrats or republicans) was really the "Jeffersonian Liberal". That was when liberal stood for liberty. This means that every person owns their own self. We are not to owned or controlled by the king or gangster or government leaders. We will self-govern, thank you very much!! We all have the right (because we exist as humans, not because our govt. decrees it so) to our own life, our own liberty, and our own pursuit of happiness, and as long as we do not infringe on someone else's right to live for their own sake, we are to be FREE, unincumbered by the use or threat of force from some king or tyrant or thug or gangster or mob or government or anyone. The true conservative believes that every person has free will above all else (again as long as you do not infringe on another's rights), and any attempt to control human behavior by subjective laws or rules (someone's opinion) is in itself a form of tyranny.

I am a conservative. I have tremendous compassion for all people. These are not contradictions.

Yes, I don't see a lot of so-called conservatives on the right side of the MMJ fence, but our side of this fence is one that includes the rights of every person to truly be free, to make their own choices and live with the consequences.

We have to evolve, people, to a form of society that would protect the rights of each person to be free, period!! Anything else is just someone's opinion. SUBJECTIVISM no matter how thoughtful, insightful, and well intentioned, should never be imposed on a free people.

If you vote for candidate A, well they are OK with MMJ, but have many other opinions how to rule and regulate your life, take your property, and then you are in the same boat again.

We will all be in this same boat again until we find more true "Jeffersonian Liberal" conservatives, like a Ron Paul.

People, we have got to find new representatives who will listen to the voice of a people yearning for liberty's sweet song!

So, do we settle again for a lesser of 2 evils, or can someone run to represent us who truly has the interests of all individuals' rights utmost on their mind and in their heart!

[Guest finallyfree09]

i can SOOOOOO relate to the woman in this article. there isn't anything out there that is much more depressing to a person that is always in pain than seeing the look on your kids' faces when you can't go outside and play catch or run around the yard or armwrestle with the boy.... it really is depressing. whats even worse is when your kids stop trying to play with you because they have become convinced that it is THEIR fault that "dad hurts himself every time he plays with us."

 

mmj helps me get through the constant pain of my arthritis and degenerative disc disease. mmj helps me get through the burning in my legs from all of the nerves being pinched off in my lower back. mmj helps get me thru some of the depression that accompanies a condition that limits EVERY SINGLE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY of my daily life.

 

MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS A GODSEND. now... if there were only a way to make people stop treating mmj patients like victims of the plague.

 

what happened to america? when i was a little kid in school we were all taught about how great of a country this is... about how compassionate a people americans are... about how we are supposed to love our neighbors.

 

now we have turned into a nation that hates our neighbor because they are different... our politicians have turned america into a place where we must find out what our neighbor is doing and try to put them in prison for it.

 

in america compassion has nearly become a 4 letter word. we only get compassion if it is deemed that we deserve it. where i come from compassion is part of being HUMAN and is generously given to any and all in need.

 

some politician out there needs to run for office strictly to bring back compassion, to bring back loving thy neighbor, to bring back live and let live, to bring back the helping hand that someone might need in a time of crisis or a time of great suffering and pain.

 

america has turned into a nation of cynical and uncaring puppets... willing to do whatever uncle sam says. this is what i say....

 

START ACTING LIKE YOUR MOTHER TAUGHT YOU TO ACT! START TREATING PEOPLE AS YOU WANT TO BE TREATED! START CARING ABOUT PEOPLE THAT ARE IN A POSITION THAT YOU MAY FIND YOURSELF IN SOMEDAY! PUT POLITICIANS IN THEIR PLACE AND DEMAND THAT COMPASSION FOR OTHERS IS CONSIDERED WHEN WRITING ANY LAW OR PASSING ANY ORDINANCE!

 

just my $0.02.

[DT61]

Settling for the lesser of 2 evils is still settling for evil - why compromise anything so early in the game?

Hold their feet to the fire - THIS is your 1 and only chance before they subject you to their personal will - just look at the non-accountability of currently elected officials.

[+420Atheist]

And I laughed when I read Objection Counselor,now that was funny !!

 

I watched too much Boston Legal.