Can anyone explain this
As you've no doubt heard, the Supremes have issued a decision from on high that makes it a federal crime to use medically prescribed marijuana. Now a person in California, for instance, where medical marijuana is legal, who smokes marijuana to aliviate the nausea from chemotherapy or to relieve glaucoma or other conditions can be prosecuted and sentenced to jail even though it's legal in their state.
I can not believe that this has happened. While I can imagine an overly strict interpretation of the law as an argument for this, the fact remains that it's simply dumb, counter-intuitive, and cruel to those who will be forced to either suffer or break the law.
This doesn't even involve the legalization argument. It has nothing to do with whether marijuana is a harmful drug. It only has to do with whether U.S. citizens have the right to avail themselves of it's demonstrated medical benefits.
This is a glaring example of the literally insane attitude in the U.S. about marijuana. We're so incredibly hypocritical and irrational about these types of things. Since there's zero rational reason for this ruling, one can't help but think that it's an alcohol manufacturer's protection measure in disguise. While alcohol is churned out by the millions upon millions of gallons, we still treat marijuana, a relatively benign drug, like it was a menace to society.
It is absolutely stupid. Millions have been smoking pot for decades with no discernable effect on society. Yet the damage wreaked by alcohol goes on unabated.
And this ruling only affects people who have been prescribed marijuana by a doctor!
I can't figure it out. It makes no sense whatsoever.
What possible rational can explain such a ridiculous ruling?
posted by The Inside Dope @ 6/07/2005
3 comments
3 Comments:
You know those Republicans, always taking power away from the state and making it a federal decision.... oh wait, that's supposed to be Democrats? The world is turning upside down...
Diehard, I'd only add that this really had nothing to do with the "drug culture" per se. It only deals with people who are using marijuana for medical benefit after having been prescribed it by a physician.
Certainly the anti-pot people might think this is the "camel's nose under the tent" thing and feel that denying it's use for pain relief to terminal cancer patients is preferable to the minute chance that if it was allowed to continue, it might eventually lead to de-criminalization. As you said, just plain stupid ... "compassionate conservatism" my ass.
Thanks so much Dissenter, for your usual cogent analysis and explanation.
I assumed the ruling was based on a legal concept and not on the question of the desirability of medicianal pot or whether the practice should be banned based on it's status as an otherwise illegal drug.
Thanks for spelling out the issue at hand. I was aware that the conservatives on the court were actually "dissenters"... much like yourself.
And I think we should all mail Clarance Thomas a cookie for actually casting a vote that differed from Scalia! Amazing.
People have noted that the dissenting justices aside from Thomas have all dealt with or are currently dealing with cancer, and therefore the thinking is that they were more sympathetic to medicianal marijuana users. Thomas, it's said, was a King Kong mea-mea pot user in college and this informed his opinion.
Neither of those things likely played any role in their decisions, but it's interesting to note.
Post a Comment
<< Home