Opinion
Marijuana column misguided
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- Clegg absurd, biased on CFACT (May 5, 2009)
- Fund peer tutors (April 28, 2009)
- UW policy consistent with nation (April 23, 2009)
- Biddy's initiative not worth it (April 20, 2009)
- A plan for better advising (April 20, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Julie Isen makes a number of important points in her column supporting legal access to medical marijuana ("Medical marijuana hits Legislature," Dec. 6). Unfortunately, she seems unclear regarding some of the provisions of Rep. Gregg Underheim's bill, AB 740.
Isen is incorrect when she states that the bill "merely provides a defense" for patients who get caught, while leaving the law against marijuana possession intact. Under Rep. Underheim's legislation, legally qualified patients would be allowed to possess up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana and would not be subject to arrest.
Isen also objects to the fact that the legislation allows doctors only to recommend marijuana but not to prescribe it, and that it doesn't address the issue of how patients can obtain marijuana. While many agree that the best solution would be to allow the doctor to write a prescription that the patient could have filled at the pharmacy of his or her choice, federal law presently makes this impossible.
Prescriptions are governed by federal law, and federal law specifically bans marijuana prescriptions, erroneously classifying it (along with heroin and LSD) as a drug with no medical use. Until this changes, states are left with little ability to create a safe, well-regulated system for patient access to medical marijuana.
What states can do, however, is protect patients from arrest under state law, which is what AB 740 would do. Passage would also send an important signal to the federal government that it's time to bring federal marijuana laws into the 21st century.
Bruce Mirken is director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project.
4 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
The present Cannabis prohibition laws are nothing less than a blatant extention of the still ungoing cultural genocide, know as "The Inquisition" in other times.
This is all very well documented for those who are willing to do a little research on the history of Cannabis Prohibition, but "not politically correct" and therefor NOT TOUCHED by the mainstream media.
"Good Christians" are still exterminating the ancient cultures, with little change of tactics.
Reverend Ferre van Beveren,
Amsterdam
Wouldn't it be nice if this group of people fought so hard for drug companies to come out with treatments for people's diseases? Why don't we see that? Well, that's because these guys can't get high taking an advanced form of aspirin. It's comical how these potheads hide behind "medicinal use" excuse as to why pot should be leagal. Like pot is that hard to get it anyway.
Way to go Anonymous #2, you've just proved people don't understand the issue.
Legalizing this for medical (Rx) purposes still keeps it illegal to possess without a prescription...just like any number of prescription opiates, which are far more dangerous than marijuana.
Marijuana prohibition began in 1937, before the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and ended the practice of basing public policy on racial animus. In 1937, Congress prohibited marijuana because Hispanics reportedly used it. Before 1937, marijuana was considered to be medicine, which is how it should be classified today. The racism of the past should not prevent safe access to medicine today.