The blog for those just a lottery win away from wealth

About < Liberal Blogs >

 
WILL THE SUPREME COURT GO TO POT?

The Supreme Court is currently considering arguments about the suitability and necessity of medical marijuana.

The issue centers on whether states can adopt laws that allow residents to use medical marijuana despite federal laws banning the substance. Ten states have passed medical marijuana laws: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

Diane Monson and Angel McClary Raich, residents of California have filed a lawsuit that seeks to make it unconstitutional to prosecute patients growing and using medical marijuana upon the recommendation of a physician.

Raich has been diagnosed with more than 10 serious medical conditions, including an inoperable brain tumor and several chronic pain disorders. Monson has severe chronic back pain and constant, painful muscle spasms.

Marijuana relives some of their pain and allows food to be consumed without nausea. Without this help, both would be confined to wheelchairs, and Raich would probably die due to malnutrition.

Opponents, who are generally not trained in medicine, unless they are pharmaceutical corporation lobbyists, claim that there are no medical benefits to be derived from marijuana.

You'll note too that the ant-pot scare commercials are hitting the airwaves again. It's no coincidence; they always get dragged out whenever marijuana is on trial or up for a legalization vote somewhere or another.

These public service announcements appeal to probably alcoholic parents to keep a close eye on their kids.

Shouldn't they be doing this without being chided?

Gone is the dog and pony show of former HEW Secretaries Donna Shalala and Joseph Califano, who used to tour the country spouting off inaccuracies about pot being highly addictive, and possessing terrible, but unnamed, side effects.

There are however hordes of other grim faced purveyors of fear gleefully being interviewed by virtually every talking head on the news channels.

The warnings are always the same, that marijuana is highly addictive and destroys the brain. If that were true the country would be littered with millions of blithering idiots compliments of the freer times of the '60's.

It appears to me that these prophets of doom have confused pot use with the characteristics of excess alcohol use. Their inaccuracies are probably the result of foggy minds caused by their own use of "legal" drugs provided by the pharmaceutical corporations.

The Federal Government likes playing games with States rights. When an issue arises that the Feds wish to control, it is declared to be within the jurisdiction of D.C.

If the item up for debate is one that will not profit the D.C. politicos, or if it's a lose-lose situation, a determination that the States should handle it will be forthcoming.

In this case the real issue isn't whether or not pot helps seriously ill people, it's about corporate protectionism.

America's pharmaceutical companies are concerned about a cheap or free remedy for simple stomach upset, or a replacement for the millions of tranquilizers and other mood altering drugs taken on a daily basis.

And, of course, let's not forget America's premier beer providers, Anheuser-Busch and Coors. The last thing they want is a substitute for their brain burning, liver-killing poisons.

We'll see soon enough with whom the High Court sides.





Visit "The Independent Writer"
and have a good laugh on Jim Ippolito

posted by Jim Ippolito on 12/07/2004 08:14:00 PM