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

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

So far, one opponent has responded.

I have been wall-to-walling legislative candidates on Facebook. So far, a few folks who are no surprise have responded that they support the Safe Access Act (Measure 13). I have received one response from an opponent; Jeanette Deurloo, Independent, Dist. 32 House.

This one took alot of thought on my part I appreciate the compassion in the medical field. However, an important vote such as this should be made with clear thinking putting emotions aside. When my big brother suffered from cancer, continous morphine could not give him any comfort. Marjuana certainly couldn't help. There is no utopia in this lifetime, and watching a loved one suffer and die is immeasurable sorrow. He has been gone ten years and I still miss him.

For patients looking for relief from medical conditions through marijuana, there is already a legal and FDA approved medical marijuana-like medicine, dronabinol, that doctors can prescribe. You probably know that more young people are now in treatment for marijuana dependency then for alcohol or other illegal drugs.
I guess because it seems so harmless that we overlook that marijuana abusers are four times more likely to report symptoms of depression and have more suicidal thoughts than those who never used the drug.

Although we do not agree on Measure 13, I hope you will still keep this on your facebook and perhaps research marijuana use more. These hard decissions are difficult to make. I guess one size does not fit all.

I replied to Ms. Deurloo: Am I to understand that because cannabis was either not considered in your brother's treatment or was tried and was not as effective as you would like, you think it should be withheld from people for whom it is plainly effective?

I fail to see the relevance of the rest of your statement.


taco said...

If marijuana couldn't have helped her brother, it is unable to help others? If elected, she'll fit in very nicely in Pierre.

DDC said...

Well, at least she gave you an answer. More than you can say about most politicians.

Heck, I'd vote for someone I disagree with over someone that won't answer me. At least you know what you're getting.

DDC said...

By the way, did anyone happen to notice where brings you these days?

Duffer said...

I keep hearing the line about the increasing number of teenagers in treatment for cannabis "dependency".
That's the corrections bureaucracy line these days - and it would seem powerful to those trying to make a decision.

Is it not true that if kids get popped with some reefer by LE, or turned in by their parents, that treatment is mandated?

Don't get me wrong - I agree with the Prop 19 wording that stipulates age 18 and comes down on those that supply to those younger than that - just like we do for those that supply alcohol to minors. I think judges, prosecutors and politicians are peddling another untruth here with their (minors in treatment) argument logic.

Bob Newland said...


Try it.

Bob Newland said...

Now, THAT's funny, DDC.

Someday I'll buy you a beer over that one.

repete said...

Duffer: Obviously they need treatment. If they have the fortitude to see past the curtain of fear and parade of governmental lies to the point where they still try MJ, then they need treatment to get fixed.

DDC said...


Anytime! I've been wondering what to do with that domain name since I acquired it a little while back. Seems like a good placeholder to me. Let me know how many hits you get off of it (assuming your guys have some kind of tracking on here). I'm curious to know what kind of traffic it generates.

Bob Newland said...

DDC, since it appears that just gets redirected to DecForum, I don't think we can distinguish those hits from those who come from a DecForum bookmark or who type in our URL in the address bar.

Duffer said...

Repete - The legislator quoted in the post indicated increased numbers of teenager treatment enrollments as one her primary reasons for opposing IM 13.

It's one of the IM 13 opponents primary jabs; but it has nothing to do with this specific measure; and I'll wager Bob may hear it repeated at his debate by Ms. Prang. Part of the "fear" campaign.