The whole point of free speech is not to make ideas exempt from criticism but to expose them to it.

Sunday, July 11, 2010

Clearly the endgame?

In commentary on a post below, TF says:

The argument shouldn’t be whether or not medical marijuana should be legalized; the argument should be whether or not marijuana should be legalized. That’s clearly the endgame, and that’s what I keep in mind when pondering how to vote on the issue in November.

That statement is too cryptic for me. It needs a bumper sticker for context. Is TF's statement an endorsement of something or a denouncement of something? Even so, I think I see reflected a congealing question on the part of perhaps a significant portion of voters. So, I'll try to address the questions I think TF implies.

During the past eighteen months there has been more discussion on all aspects of managing the oncoming legitimized cannabis market than I saw in the previous forty years. Things are still shaking into position, but legitimized cannabis is a done deal.The shaking out part is still marked by the savagery on the part of the morons who think they can control folks' appetites for life, liberty and happiness,

First things first. The immediate issue is whether sick, disabled and dying South Dakotans will have the right to use the most benign therapeutic substance known--and probably the most effective over a wide range of adverse conditions--with the assent of their physicians. South Dakota voters have a chance to weigh in directly on that question in November. Let's get those whose needs are most urgent out of the line of fire of the terrorists who have whimsically ruined many of our lives over the past 70 years.

If you're inclined to help in the effort to make South Dakota's laws a little less cruel, take a look at the Safe Access Act website.


taco said...

TF should tell some cancer patient and her doctor that they can't have potentially lifesaving medicinal marijuana because TF believes there is a larger "end game" afoot.

Thad Wasson said...

Powertech wishes to place our drinking water at risk by drilling for uranium. A candidate for office chooses not to pay property tax and places his tax burden on his neighbors. The Rapid City BID is passed 55%-45%, placing a new tax on taxpayers who did not support it. These examples are made by others placing what they want above the concerns of their fellow men.

Marijuana use is a decision that does not affect your neighbor, will not tax him of his earnings, and will restore a freedom that has been denied.

Bob Ellis said...

It seems TF is willing to consider a question the proponents of "medical" marijuana would rather the voters not consider.

Proponents of "medical" marijuana want the voters to believe that smoking pot is the only way to relieve pain...despite the plethora of legal pain medications available. Proponents of "medical" marijuana want the voters to believe that, even if the dozens or more other pain medications were not available, the only way to achieve the numbing benefits of THC is to smoke a doobie, that the non-smoked forms simply don't exist.

In other words, they want the voters to be as stoned to the truth as many of the proponents are to reality.

TF is correct that this is indeed the endgame; "medical" marijuana is only a vehicle to move the debate a step closer to the full legalization of recreational drugs.

The violent crime that has come with legalization of "medical" marijuana in California and Montana are all the lesson needed to show us that the claims of drug proponents are false: crime is not reduced, and drug use isn't a "victimless crime."

Having more people stoned more of the time will not make our community a better place.

taco said...

Bob Ellis, medical marijuana, often put into baked goods, is the herb of choice for many doctors and seriously ill patients - why are you trying to interfere with the doctor/patient relationship? I would love to see you tell someone suffering through chemo that she couldn't smoke pot because it would hurt the collective good of society. I think you have socialistic tendencies that you aren't aware of.

Violent crime coming from medical marijuana? Please stop with your fear mongering, you have no statistics to validate your assertion - the reverse is true:

larry kurtz said...

God save me, ip agrees with Ellis!

South Dakotans might just be too stupid to enjoy less government intrusion into the lives of its population.

More guns!

DDC said...

Mr. Ellis.

I'll pose my question from a prior post again.

Is our society better off with these patients high on oxycodone (and likely addicted) and a cocktail of other drugs than we would be if they were allowed to smoke marijuana instead?

Should oxycodone be illegal to prescribe?

You keep bringing up smoking as a method of delivery as a point of contention. Why does the method of delivery matter? Should we ban cigarettes?

I'd love to hear your answers. You don't even have to answer all of my questions, just pick a couple.

Bill Fleming said...

On the contrary, Ellis. It seems TF is willing to consider something that you are not. Several things, actually. First, so what if THC can obtained by other means. That probably means via Big Pharma, and it probably means a big price tag. What's wrong with growing your own high quality medicine in your own home, for basically nothing? Would you argue that we shouldn't grow our own sage, or thyme, or string beans, because we can get perfectly good stuff from the store?

And second, what if marijuana were legal for recreational purposes. So what? Are you saying that would cause more harm than putting hundreds of thousands of people in prison for using it? Or having drug cartels murdering people over territorial rights to sell it on the black market.

I don't think you've even begun to think this through, Bob, and I don't think you ever will. And personally, I don't care if you ever do. I just think its audacious ouf you in your narrow minded way to accuse others of not having considered this issue in as much depth as you have.

That's just baloney.

Bob Newland said...

And what Biblical verse can you give us to support any of that, Bob Ellis? I assume you're checking scripture, because no science supports any of it.

Bob Newland said...

Despite my warnings, Ellis took Bad Route Road. But he did it to pursue a false view of Christianity.

Neal said...

Want to know why outright legalization is the end game? It's because in the state's that have legalized marijuana for medical purposes, the sky hasn't fallen like some folks predict. In fact it's been just the opposite.

How many of the states that have passed medical marijuana have made any serious attempt to repeal those laws? None. That tells you all you need to know.

john said...

FDA approved chantix (latest smoking cessation pill) leads you to Smoking free healthy life. The Best possible way to quit smoking for clean and healthy world.

larry kurtz said...

Newland, the dispensary is the weak link in Montana's law. The State and DPHHS will ultimately face court challenges.

Quite candidly, I'd like to see more medical community participation, eg. hospice. I live with a CNM, CNP and former hospice nurse with pharmaceutical prescriptive authority and she is forbidden by insurance directives to prescribe medical marijuana.

If 13 is going to fly, it's going to be accepted as a legitimate therapy for the most grievously ill.

Some day cannabis will be taken off the Schedule 1 list. We can fight for that independently of the compassion debate.

Does that make sense?

larry kurtz said...

independent of

Bob Newland said...

Tom Daubert (one of the principals in advocacy for patients' rights in Montana) said, "First we need a law that recognizes cannabis as a therapeutic substance; then we try to tweak it so it actually works for patients."

All this would be unnecessary if the twisted sonsofbitches who oppose medical cannabis because they oppose cannabis because..., well, they have no reason they can articulate logically would pull their heads out of whomever's ass they have it in.

That's by way of saying I agree with you, Kurtz.

larry kurtz said...

Here's a recent article on Daubert

Ken G said...

My misses administers chemotherapy treatments at a cancer clinic (not in Rapid City). She's not a pot smoker, tried it twenty some years ago as a teenager and didn't care for the "high". Yet she's a medical marijuana advocate.

She and her fellow nurses on a near daily basis overhear 60 to 80 year old grammas' whispering about marijuana and where to get it while undergoing treatments. Too often it goes something like this. "My grandson buys it for me from a boy at school he knows".
The misses would rather grandma be able to legally buy her medicine rather then putting her grandsons freedom at risk. For her it's that simple. Besides all the doctors she works with wish they could recommend it.

The cats out of the bag Bob E., anyone going through chemotherapy knows it works. It's folks like you, I'm assuming, that haven't had to fight the vomiting which comes with many of the treatments, who think 80 year old ladies shouldn't be smoking medical pot.
"After all Ken, there is a shiny little Marinol pill that will do the same thing." Problem with the pill it can take 30 minutes to several hours to work. It's 100% THC, even for pot smokers, it's simply too strong and gets them far to "stoned". Smoked or vaporized cannabis works within minutes and costs a heck of a lot less them Marinol and doesn't make them stupid.

FF said...

Haven't you kids noticed after these repeated exercises in futility that Ellis will not be responding to this thread (this topic) again?

Look at the previous posts on this topic. He never responds when questioned.

DDC said...


I'm pretty sure it is futile, but maybe he'll read something that makes him realize the error of his position on this. It's also important to refute his statements for others that may come across these posts.

Bill Fleming said...

DDC, exactly. Bob E. should never be allowed to bloviate in a vacuum. The resulting sucking action could damage all the Internet tubes.

Tess Franzen said...

My apologies, I certainly didn’t intend to start a firestorm; I was simply making an observation. My observation stems from the discussions I’ve had with people on both sides of the issue, albeit my survey is limited and not scientific.

The vast majority of proponents I’ve spoken to see legalizing marijuana for medical purposes as a first step to a desired legalization of recreational marijuana, and the opponents see it as the same, which is why they oppose it for medical reasons too.

This is going to be on the ballot this November, so I need to look at it carefully enough to make an informed, responsible, and compassionate decision.

The reason my comment wasn’t an endorsement or a denouncement of medical marijuana is because I haven’t landed solidly on either side of the issue, not yet anyway.

It’s clear that passions run high on this subject among those of you who frequent this forum, and I appreciate the views presented here, on both sides.

I’m searching for the truth, and as my favorite college professor explained; truth is found by looking at an issue from every perspective.

Mr. Ellis, could you post a link to a source that clarifies your statement on an increase in violent crimes in areas where medical marijuana has been legalized? Or share more on it? (I can provide an email address if that works better for you.)

Mr. Taco, I’ve never before heard a claim that medical marijuana is potentially life-saving; could you send me a link to that info.? Or share more on it?

DDC said...


Mr. Ellis likes to find stories about isolated incidents and link any violence or accidents that have any relation to marijuana as a direct result of marijuana.

On his website, he uses the example of the federal government busting medical marijuana dispensaries as an example of the crime wave that medical marijuana causes. Those are simple cases of where the law creates the crime. In most cases, the dispensaries were following the relevant state laws.

He also uses the examples of dispensaries being robbed and a couple of people being murdered at those dispensaries as an example of the crime that medical marijuana causes. I will point out that pharmacies are robbed every day for narcotics such as oxycodone. I don't see Mr. Ellis railing against pharmacies and oxycodone.

I commend you for keeping an open mind about this. I have been on the more "conservative" side of this issue until fairly recently. In fact, I voted against the last medical marijuana measure in SD.

While I have come to the realization that our drug war isn't worth the price that we are paying for it (in terms of lives, money and the production of those that we incarcerate), I don't think that the legalization "endgame" should be of any consideration when discussing initiated measure 13.

Initiated measure 13 is a very strictly defined medical marijuana measure. I don't care if there are other medicines that do some of the same things that marijuana does. I don't think it is my place to decide what drugs that a doctor can prescribe to their patients, especially when marijuana is so cheap and effective. I don't think it is my place to decide what works best for another person's treatment, especially those with debilitating diseases. I surely do not want them to go to jail for using what works best for them.

taco said...

Medicinal marijuana can be life saving. For example, the Claifornia Legisltaive council has reported that "studies show that one-third of all cancer patient discontinue potentially life-saving chemotherapy due to the severe and debilitating side effects and the same is true for many AIDS patients receiving AZT or other similar therapies."

What has patient after patient and doctor after doctor found to be the best medicine for side effects of chemo? Marijuana!

I don't have a study at hand to bolster the immeditealy preceding claim. If you, however, read the first five paragraphs from the link below, you can see that marijuana does give people needed strength to undergo the chemo they need to fight deadly cancer:

ole said...

The silence from Bob Ellis regarding TF's question to him is palpable.

Donna said...

Tess I truly appreciate your concern for the future ramifications of passing this but I also truly belive that any ramifications will address themselves in the future. The issue at hand is providing access to a safe and regulated form of medicine for the people who are suffering needlessly. I would urge you to direct your energy to the issue at hand. Is it humane to deny pain relieving medicine regardless of what it is ? Please talk to people in the medical field as well as people who would benefit from this.