Medical Marijuana legalized in New Jersey- I blame The Situation

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/n...rijuana.html?hp

The New Jersey Assembly approved a measure on Monday that would make the state the first in the region and the 14th in the nation to legalize the use of marijuana for medical reasons.

The measure was to be voted on by the State Senate later in the afternoon, the final day of the legislative session. If passed, it would allow patients diagnosed with severe illnesses like cancer, AIDS, muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis to have access to marijuana distributed through state-monitored dispensaries.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine has said he would sign it into law before leaving office next Tuesday. Gov.-elect Christopher J. Christie, speaking at a press conference on Monday before the vote, reiterated his support for legalizing the medical use of marijuana as long as the final bill contained safeguards to ensure that it did not end up encouraging the recreational use of the drug.

Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, a Democrat from Princeton, said the New Jersey law would be the most restrictive in the nation because it would only permit doctors to prescribe it for a list of serious chronic illnesses. The legislation would also forbid patients from growing their own marijuana and using it in public, and it would regulate the drug under the strict conditions used to track the distribution of medically prescribed opiates like Oxycontin and morphine.

“I truly believe this will become a model for other states because it balances the compassionate use of medical marijuana while limiting the number of ailments that a physician can prescribe it for,” said Mr. Gusciora, who sponsored the bill.

Mr. Christie said he wanted to make sure that New Jersey did not follow the path of other states that have legalized the medical use of marijuana.

“I think we see all what’s happened in California,” Mr. Christie said. “It’s gotten completely out of control.”

Opponents of the New Jersey bill often use California’s experience as a cautionary tale, saying that medical marijuana is so loosely regulated there that the state has essentially decriminalized the drug. Under California law, residents can legally obtain marijuana to treat a list of maladies as common, and undefined, as anxiety or chronic pain.

The New Jersey Senate last year passed a less restrictive version of the proposal, which led opponents of medical marijuana to predict that it would pave the way for California-style “pot centers.” David Evans, executive director of the Drug Free School Coalition, said that such centers would make marijuana more readily available on the streets and lead to an increase use of drugs by teenagers.

But after conference hearings among legislative leaders, both chambers agreed on a more stringent bill.

As the legislators prepared to vote on the measure, more than a dozen chronically ill patients rallied at the State House to urge lawmakers to pass it.

One of them, Scott Ward, who said he suffered from multiple sclerosis, said he had been prescribed marijuana to alleviate leg cramps so severe that they often “feel like my muscles are tearing apart” and that leave him virtually unable to walk. Other prescription drugs either failed to ease the pain or left him so groggy he could do little more than sleep, Mr. Ward said. But when he followed his neurologist’s advice and treated his pain with marijuana, Mr. Ward said, the pain went away.

“I could do normal things like walk the dog,” said Mr. Ward, 26. “It made a huge difference in my life.”

New Jersey is now the 14th state to have at least one form of legal cannabis. I find it pretty amazing that anti medical marijuana advocates think that prescribing benzos and marinol is superior to providing medical marijuana.

Anyone with half a brain and no ties to pharmaceutical companies will tell you that the vast majority of alternatives to medical cannabis are not only not economical, many of them also cause far more harm.

All drugs should be legalized.

Talk of cannabis legalization has become commonplace. Millions across the United States and the world are in support of full and complete legalization of cannabis and everything that comes along with it. Namely taxation, harm reduction and the freeing up of billions of dollars worth of police and prison infrastructure. All of these are excellent points, but they beg a question- Why would cannabis be the only now-illicit drug that would benefit society by legalization.

Argument 1: Cannabis is less harmful than other drugs.

This argument is absolutely correct. Unfortunately our society does not judge substances based on harm. Nicotine is as addictive as heroin(1) and kills far more. Alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis and less dangerous than nicotine. Trying to find a rhyme or reason for why certain substances are prohibited/regulated more than others is a fools game and reveals little about why our current laws are the way they are. Our society should not focus on how dangerous certain drugs are physically- but how much danger comes from letting those drugs be manufactured and distributed in an entirely black market.

The first danger is that those involved with manufacture and distribution of drugs- by virtue of prohibition- are going to be criminals. Now while every "drug dealer" is not violent, many are and the underground nature of "the game" certainly encourages this. When we prohibit substances we not only artificially create crime, we enrich criminals to a massive degree. Also it costs billions, if not trillions of dollars to fight the war on drugs and we have made little to no progress on that front. Both on reducing drug usage and limiting the power of cartels and drug producers. Also having no regulation with regards to these substances leads to NO taxation and also no government oversight- leading to impurities and differing quality of product which can very easily lead to deaths.

The second danger comes from the lack of education regarding drug use. Many drug users do not have adequate education regarding the drugs they are using and unfortunately improperly use those drugs leading to harm. Education and awareness that comes with government regulation would greatly diminish overdoses and would also lead to more people going to doctors and emergency rooms when they may have had a bad experience with a narcotic.

The third and most detrimental danger comes from a focus on punishment over rehabilitation. Simply locking up drug users will never quell demand for a drug, due to the nature of drug addiction. Drug addicts and even first time users very rarely consider the legal implications of using due to the high likelihood of never being caught. So instead of punishment serving as a deterrent, it actually only seems to address the problem while leaving the roots free to grow. Those roots being poverty, lack of support for addicts, and lack of drug education.

Finally, it has been shown that the vast majority of drug users can and do use responsibly. Roughly 20 percent of the people in the United States are drug users(2), among those 30-40 million estimated drug users- on average there are 17,000 deaths per year(3). Roughly the same amount of people regularly use cigarettes/tobacco yet about 450,000 a year die from tobacco use.(3)

If drug users have shown themselves to be reasonably harm free in such great numbers in a market that is COMPLETELY unregulated- I think it is fair to logically deduce that not putting people in jail for that behavior is something we as a society must consider.










1. Nicotine, cocaine, heroin, and alcohol all meet criteria as addictive or dependence producing drugs, though none of these drugs causes addiction in all who are exposed (cf., APA, APA, WHO, Sur. Gen., FDA, NIDA, etc.). The risk of addiction following any use, the prevalence of frequent use among current users, and the occurance of APA, DSM-defined dependence among current users ranges from about 2 to 10 times greater for cigarettes than for these other drugs (Anthony et al. 1994, Exp.Clin. Psychopharm.; NIDA's Monitoring the Future Survey, FDA in Fed Register, Aug. 11, 1995; Surg. Gen. 1988).
2.http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer...Y/basicfax2.htm
3. http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30

The threat to America

In this country we are told from birth that certain things are guaranteed to us as American citizens. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness sums it up rather succinctly. The aforementioned guarantees are not something that we are asked to pay for and they are not something that the government grants us. They are our inalienable rights, our BIRTHRIGHT. However there has always been a school of thought in this country and others that questions whether or not we "deserve" some, or all of our rights. These movements come in different names and shapes, but they are all the same at the core.

Now I do not believe there is any kind of organized conspiracy to take away our rights, far from it. I feel that what we have to fear is the unorganized tyranny that happens incrementally and often without direction. Things like gun control laws, government surveillance, protest regulations all seem to be reasonable ideas to many Americans, yet these are just another part of the slow and creeping death of our rights- and this is why. While these measures may reduce crime, or stop terrorism or prevent whatever the boogeyman of the day is- allowing the government to engage in these activities without check is making a devils bargain.

Again- I do not feel that anyone particularly insidious is driving this activity. Rather it is all of us that encourages and allows more and more government encroachment into our lives. When we fear death in a traffic accident we allow the government to set up cameras on street corners. When we fear violence we allow police to violate the rights of fellow citizens in order to be "tough on crime". Our fear will take everything we hold sacred and dear.

We must not fear our neighbors. We must fear ourselves.

Farewell Mr. Mugabe

Fuming Mugabe rattled by hecklers

By Brian Hungwe Harare

Loud jeers and howls accompanied President Robert Mugabe's address to Zimbabwe's newly convened parliament, leaving ruling party members fuming.

Such uncouth behaviour from the opposition, one Zanu-PF insider said, was uncalled for.

But after gaining control of parliament, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) clearly wanted to make its mark.

The opening of parliament had started with the usual pomp and ceremony.

Mr Mugabe drove to the house in an open Rolls Royce, accompanied by horse-mounted police.

Singing party supporters, bussed in to give the occasion colour, welcomed him as the car drew in.

The elite presidential guard stood to attention for their commander-in-chief.

The most-decorated military generals followed behind him as he inspected the guard, resplendent in their military gear, who promised to salute him till death.

Inside parliament, it was a different story.

Lacking Grace

As Mr Mugabe sauntered into the building, a green stately cloth across his shoulders, his Zanu-PF legislators to the left of the house stood up as a mark of respect for their head of state, their party leader.

Military generals, then judges in their colonial red gowns and pink wigs, followed closely behind.

But what must have staggered Mr Mugabe was that the MDC MPs remained seated.

The president walked assertively past them, but he must have known then that he was in deep trouble.

This had never happened before to the 84-year-old leader.

Perhaps it was an inkling that the usual deference might be lacking that his wife Grace was not in attendance.

Half way through his speech, in which he praised South African President Thabo Mbeki for facilitating dialogue with the MDC and attacked rampant inflation, murmurs of discontent began to surface.

These jeers grew louder, leaving Zanu-PF MPs stunned.

"You killed people, we know that," a yell came from the MDC backbench.

'You are murderers'

In a crowd of more 200 legislators, it was hard to pinpoint the culprit.

"Yes, you are murderers," another echoed, in Shona.

Mr Mugabe then touched on the subject of sanctions.

"Surely sanctions cannot be good for any Zimbabwean and we have abundant evidence of their ravaging impact. We cannot condone such blatant spiteful injury," he said.

But the MDC struck again.

"Zanu-PF is rotting," the legislators chanted for a good three minutes.

As Mr Mugabe raised the issue of the economic crisis, the opposition erupted into another song.

"We are together in the struggle, no amount of beatings and killings will deter us," they sang.

At some point Mr Mugabe raised his head, face shaken, and then proceeded with his speech.

Some minutes later, however, he accidentally knocked down the microphone.

It was certainly not the Zimbabwean octogenarian's usual performance.

He may have raised his fist as he walked out of parliament to diplomats and businessmen monitoring proceedings from the television sets outside parliament.

But his body language told a story of a leader who no longer quite has his grip on power.

______________

Another aging dictator bites the dust. Articles like this only serve to reinforce ones strength in democratic processes and their ability to put fear in even the most absolute and long standing autocrats and their cronies. The only problem with this is the obvious instability that comes with the death throes of the old regime, and the lives that the machine will take with it to the grave. However, as President Jefferson said: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

The people of Zimbabwe have decided with a clear voice that they rule supreme. Now it is time for Mugabe to turn up his hearing aid.