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.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)