|
|
|
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
![[Masthead]](http://www.marshallnews.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
A Few Clouds ~ High: 78°F ~ Low: 55°F Saturday, May 25, 2013 |
|
Last Dance with Mary JanePosted Friday, January 30, 2009, at 4:19 PM
The other day I was reading blogs on the Web site of our sister paper, The Southeast Missourian. I came across one about another attempt by Missouri legislators to approve marijuana for medical purposes. Representative Kay Meiners of Kansas City has introduced the bill this time, but it certainly is not the first.
What interested me about the blog, however, was the comments left by readers. All eight were in favor of legalizing medicinal marijuana use, and I was rather surprised. I would have expected people to argue fiercely about this topic. So, just because I am curious, I now pose the question to Democrat-News readers. Should marijuana use be allowed as a treatment for the pain of terminally ill patients? Comments Showing most recent comments first [Show in chronological order instead] |
Little Town Blues Goes to China  - Archives - Blog RSS feed ![[Feed icon]](http://www.marshallnews.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon} - Comments RSS feed - Send email to SYDNEY STONNER - Login Something about music. Something about small towns. Something about Hong Kong. Or maybe something else entirely.
Sydney is a former staff writer for the Democrat-News. She received degrees from University of Missouri in both music and magazine journalism. She played oboe with the Marshall Philharmonic Orchestra and the Marshall Municipal Band while she was in Marshall. Hot topics What a Difference a Year Makes(0 ~ 5:40 AM, May 22)
No Room for Shyness
Yes We Can (go to Japan)
The Doorman Always Rings Twice
The Disaster in Japan, as seen from Hong Kong
|
Email link
Read comments (31)
Blog archive
People high on marijuana do not causae accidents. They are at home on the couch duh.
Check this out http://hempworld.com/HempPharm/articles/....
I'd rather the lady in front of me on my way to work have a **** joint in her hand than her cell phone. I'd feel a lot safer.
WTF I don't think you are going to get many to admit a crime in public. I only stated yes because I am an old man. My transgressions ocurred so long ago that the statute of limitations expired way back.
I do not know the point of your request. I do defend those who do not choose to answer. I don't see any hypocrisy in that position.
Yes.
I have a question. Has anyone posting here besides myself ever smoked pot? C'mon, be honest.
That fifty percent (thus far) support out right legalization astounds me.
OK Reader - we've changed our poll question, so take another look. Although the sample is small at the moment, the vote is split a different way now. Half think marijuana should be legalized. The other half thinks it should be legalized ONLY for medical use or not legalized at all. It's the humanitarian aspect of it that moves people, in my opinion, which doesn't represent a true change in how they feel about legalization.
Wow, it appears the verdict is in with Democrat News readers. The local poll has run seventy five percent "for" concerning the marijuana for the terminally ill proposition . The same poll source that went for McCain, and ran conservative on several other issues has turned about on this issue.
It tells me that local citizens (past and present) have a heart. If the question had been simply "should pot be legalized" I believe seventy five percent would have voted against.
Being an internal (nope, I didn't mean eternal) optimist I can hope that it was not just kind natures of folks that swung the vote, but rather a libertarian/progressive streak in the local populis.
What ever the reason, "the times they are a changing".
Since we can concede that both illegal and legal substances are abused, what is the point of this line of argument? It has nothing to do with weather there are benefits or even impairments to be found in the legalization of medicinal marijuana. It will be abused, legal or not. It is this type of distraction that keeps this country's "war on drugs" so pointless and misguided. The prohibition didn't stop people from drinking, and the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes isn't going to turn all of us into mindless pot junkies. The issues of abuse and legalization of any kind aren't related, no matter how much dissenters want them to be.
Reader101: All of the drugs that are "monitored" - oxycodone, percocet, et al - are also abused. There's no particular reason why monitoring marijuana in any form will be any better than that.
People also die in accidents when a driver is under the influence of pot. The arguement here is legalizing medicinal pot, not pot for everyone. If medicinal pot is legalized, it should be closely supervised by medical professionals, the same as other prescription pain killers.
I love this. It should totally be legalized. I lost my dad to cancer a few months ago, and he was totally of the "Not in my house" generation. He wouldn't eat, wouldn't sleep, and I begged him to just try it. He never would. I watched him suffer so needlessly for months before he finally started his morphine patches. He died that day. I just don't get it. I think we should legalize marijuana and outlaw alcohol, you know, since thousands of people actually DO DIE from drunk driving accidents, abuse brought on by alcoholism, suicide from alcohol related depression and so on every single day, I just don't understand it. We should focus on what IS hurting and killing us.
nana dot,
i think people abuse the use of alchol and it should be banned people do stupid things with it as well as "weed" kids are often doing stupid things at school and in public while "high" i think it should be kept illegal and the people who are doing it should be punished, as a teen that sees this in school as well as in public i think its humiliating. so why legalize it for medical use, when like kathy explained any kind of smoking is not good for you.
Nana Dot,
That's a good site on hemp production.
I've heard even very consersative farmers say they would love to grow hemp, which has a very low (virtually non-existent) THC level. Since it still grows wild in these parts, and hasn't been grown as a crop since the 1800's, it obviously would grow well here.
The Highway Patrol and other law-enforcement type agencies are against legalized hemp production.
When I was in Journalism school (many moons ago), my editor once wrote an editorial stating that they should legalize marijuana and then pay farmers not to produce it! That still makes me laugh, just thinking about it.
The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law has a very comprehensive, and regularly updated web site covering a broad range of cannabis related subjects.
One of the problems with forming an educated opinion on the subject is a lack of current scientific research. That problem is compounded by the reticence of our federal government in conjunction with the mass media to publish research results, etc. unless they have a negative view of the subject.
I note for instance that some recent studies indicate that cannabis use slows the growth of cancerous tumors, including lung cancer.
http://norml.org/
Cosa Nostra: Smoking anything, including marijuana, is bad for you, and I've never suggested anything else. Research continues on the use of marijuana and viewpoints will always diverge, but here's one view of some of the possibilities:
http://www.medmjscience.org/Pages/histor...
How odd, smoker Kathy Fairchild is not sure about the one thing that someone could smoke that would ACTUALLY DO SOMEONE SOME GOOD is worth legalizing.
I definately agree with the other posters. To have a proven pain medication for a myraid of chronic conditions, as well as for terminally ill patients, and to not have it legally available is absolutely ridiculous. Making medicinal marijuana legal is in no way legalizing marijuana for the rest of the population. In contrast though to the situation in California, I would like to see Missouri have strict laws on the distribution. I think it should be grown and sold by pharmacutical companies-the quality needs to assured just as any other prescription medication. It should be dispensed by a pharmacist at the local pharmacies with a prescription from a doctor. Prescriptions should be only for a limited amount at a time and only a certain number of refills available within a certain time limit. The patient would then have to be examined by a doctor again to receive another prescription. This has to be treated like any other prescription pain medication and managed by a doctor.
What an idiot. It will be interesting to see if his endorsement income rises, falls, or remains the same.
I bet he didn't foresee that he was going to become a social barometer concerning the marijuana issue.
Andrew, I am still laughing as a result of reading your post...or is it because of what I inhaled a few minutes ago? (just kidding)
That's a funny image. Of course, the commercials would give no indication of what the product actually was. I can see a montage of a bright sunny morning. Light coming through the window. Sheets flying off the bed as the occupant suddenly rises with a ridiculous grin on their face. Cut to a huge breakfast layout with people gathered around laughing at unheard jokes as they pile their plates high with food. "Please ask your doctor about Cannatrol." Of course, that list of disclaimers would actually be quite frightening because they are all worst case scenario "May cause vomiting due to over consumption of White Castle burgers."
By the way, it may be that resistance to providing medical marijuana would be much diminished if it was grown, packaged, and sold by the pharmaceutical industry, and they could make a two hundred percent profit from its sale.
I have not heard anyone say this (maybe because it is stupid), but it seems to me that with a crop so easy to cheaply grow, package, and deliver to pharmacies it may even (to some degree) undercut the illegal cannabis providers.
I can see in my mind's eye those slick commercials for Cannabuster, Cannatrol,and Marilife, endlessly featured with the evening news among the barrage of commercials for Celebrex, Viagra, and the rest that try to capture a share of the dollars of older Americans. At least the list of proven side effects would be less life threatening, and shorter than many of the drugs advertised.
What I meant in my prior post was that no longer would the ill and those that aided them have to break the law to secure needed medicine. I made no mention of the "nephew" breaking the law by growing an illegal substance, nor in any other manner.
I have known people who did secure marijuana for loved ones that had never had any dealings with drugs of any nature. They were frightened as they pursued their quest, but overcame their fear out of love. All that would end if the patient could use his/her Doctor's prescription to obtain it legally.
As to whether the prescription is necessary, that should be determined within the doctor/patient relationship as are all other prescriptions. Would there be abuse of the system? Of course there would, just as there is systemic abuse of a myriad of other prescription medications such as hydrocodone. Few think that all those medicines should be banned, because some abuse it. Why should marijuana be treated differently?
In the recent past, Dateline or 20/20 or 60 Minutes ran a story on the medical use of marijuana that was very interesting, but it raised a number of questions in my mind that were left unanswered.
Let's say that we legalize marijuana for use by the terminally-ill.
Where do we draw the line? How quickly must a person die after diagnosis to be considered "terminally" ill? When would it be legal to use marijuana in the process of dying? It is two months? Maybe six? A year? What if the diagnosis turns out to be premature? Do you withdraw the permission for the drug and wait for a future, closer-to-death time?
Is it really fair to legalize marijuana for this use, but to withhold it from people who have chronic illnesses and are in a lot of pain? And what about those who aren't quite in the category of "ill" who have conditions that aren't life-threatening but cause a lot of pain. I know many people who suffer from migraine headaches - why not allow them relief, too?
I think it's an extremely complicated question with no perfect answers. Even if answers could be worked out to all of these questions and the many others I've not thought of, there is still the question of need.
Do we really need another legal way to relieve pain to add to all the others we have? Has enough objective research been done to make us all sure that marijuana is absolutely the *only* way there is to relieve pain for some patients?
yes
Thank you, Kathy, for posting that article. It addresses much of the confusion over distribution. Luckily, with California forging the way on this issue, Missouri might be able to look at the problems the have developed for their legalization and draft a bill that considers the problems of distribution. I would be interested to learn just what considerations Meiner's bill makes on that issue.
I agree that this subject has certainly not been beaten to death in this particular forum. I think one of the reasons it may seem to have been beaten to death is because it is not the simple issue it probably should be. I agree with both of the 'yea' responses so far, but I'm concerned that they are not really dealing with the question put forth by Meiner's bill.
I don't believe the legalization of marijuana for medical use would condone obtaining it from your nephew who is illegally growing it in his basement. It would involve a prescription from state licensed medical professional. I am not sure how the process works from that point. I've never known anyone with a medical marijuana prescription, but I've certainly seen the pain suffered from those without it. But I'm quite sure that nephew growing it in his basement would still be in violation of the law. This is a point on which people opposed to such a "no brainer" may be confused.
The medical use of marijuana in no way would legalize the production and distribution of marijuana without having it prescribed by a medical professional. Now, perhaps I'm just as confused on this matter as anyone. I think this forum probably needs some clarification on just what such a law would allow in terms of how the patient would obtain their medicine. Despite these comments, you can put me down as a supporter.
Here's a story on an unintended side effect of legalizing the medicinal use of marijuana:
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/m...
Actually Milford, I find this very relevant. It certainly isn't a subject that has "beaten to death," in my perspective. It was after Sydney read the SE Missourian blog and told me about it that I actually wondered what people here in mid-Missouri would think. Would they be as receptive as southeast Missouri bloggers? As a long-time Marshall resident I didn't think they would, so Sydney posed the question and braved the negative comments.
So far we have found out two readers believe Kay Meiner's bill makes sense. We also now know that you think toupe and eggshell are two very different colors.
As a nurse who has worked in hospice in the past, OK I must say yes in response to your question. Neither party invaulved in such a situation should have to face criminal charges should law officers discover what they were doing.
Its a no brainer.
As things stand no severely ill person is more than three people away from someone that can source medical marijuana for them. Some choose to use it, others do not.
The police have many more important things to do than chase down some terminally ill wreck of a cancer patient, and some young nephew who gave them relief.
The only question is do we want to remove the onus of criminal activity from the sufferer, and the compassionate provider?
Dear Ms. Stonner,thank you for your blog, I am a long time reader but a first time responder. I noticed the subject matter of this blog dealt with the legalization of mariwana use. This is a topic which has been expounded upon frequently, and in this readers has been beaten to death like an eqwestrian animal for which I am drawing a blank. Incase you find yoursend in a bind for interesting and relavent material might I make a few suggestions? First, does Diet Dr. Pepper taste like regular Dr. Pepper? Second, should the Marshall Democrat change the color scheme of their website to toupe or eggshell?