-
Treasure State Treasury
May 17, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Sweet Sounds Way Out Yonder
May 2, 2013 | 7 comments
-
Midnight in Missoula
April 2, 2013 | 15 comments
-
Unsequestered Snow Melts
March 22, 2013 | 11 comments
-
What Would Barry Think?
March 7, 2013 | 10 comments
Special Report
High Under the Big Sky
Medical marijuana has found its Treasure State.
According to the Great Falls, Montana Tribune, at an October 2009 medical marijuana health screening in that city, a Dr. Patricia Cole of Whitefish examined 150 patients in 14 and a half hours. That’s an average of one every six minutes. Dr. Cole is affiliated with the Missoula-based “Montana Caregivers Network” (MCN), which promotes the traveling “Cannabis Caravans” in the Treasure State. And these aren’t conducted in hospitals or clinic settings. They can be set up in a conference room in a local hotel. For a fee ($150, or $100 for veterans and low income people) a doctor examines you and decides if you are eligible — depending on your specific physical or psychological complaint — for a card that permits you to be prescribed medical marijuana from a personal “caregiver.” Some submitted paperwork and payment for the “examination” and an additional $25 registration fee is all it takes to be issued a card, as no formal medical records are required, only a stated complaint such as chronic headaches or insomnia or back pain. And a card permits not only access to the marijuana retail outlets and licensed caregivers, but also allows one to grow a limited amount of the weed for one’s own use.
The Tribune goes on to relate that the Montana Board of Medical Examiners has frowned on Dr. Cole’s entrepreneurial adventures amongst the stoners, and fined her $2,000 for promoting “inadequate standards of care.” It further noted that Dr. Cole “did not document medical histories.[or] discuss proper dosing… [or] document a risk analysis of medical marijuana.” Dr. Cole is Montana’s first physician to be so disciplined. The Montana Caregivers Network supplied her with legal counsel and paid her fine. The above is illustrative of the problems Montana is now dealing with as a poorly written law light on regulation is currently implemented.
In 2004, 62% of Treasure State voters approved Initiative 148, which legalized medical marijuana for “certified patients” with a “debilitating medical condition” (i.e. cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, etc.). In October 2009, the Obama Administration ordered federal prosecutors to cease prosecuting medical marijuana patients in the legalized states. Montana — one of fourteen states and the District of Columbia to have legalized medical marijuana — now has 15,000 registered “patients,” up from 3,000 a year ago. It turns out there’s a lot of sick folks riding the Cannabis Caravan in Montana. “Before the doors even open the parking lot has 300 kids throwing Frisbees and playing Hacky-Sack,” Mark Long, narcotics chief for the Montana Department of Justice told the Wall Street Journal.
However, the brave new world of medicinal dope has a darker side than hippies tossing around Frisbees. In Kalispell a man was murdered who was tied to the theft of medical marijuana. There have been related assaults in the Missoula area. In Billings, Montana’s largest city, there have been two firebombings of medical marijuana outlets and “Not in our town” spray painted on the walls. The Billings City Council, with 80 licensed weed dispensaries already in the city of 100,000, has lately instituted a six-month moratorium on an additional 25 more. “It’s an absolute nightmare,” Billings Mayor Tom Hanel told the WSJ. “My prediction is that it’s only going to get worse if we continue to allow it.” Kalispell and Great Falls have also followed the moratorium route, as have the small towns of Anaconda near Butte, and Cascade near Great Falls. These last two (and scores of others in the state) underscore the simple fact that small municipalities lack the law enforcement capability to deal with criminality related to the dispensing of medical marijuana. And here’s an interesting set of statistics: Montana has roughly 1,000 licensed pharmacies, from small town drugstores to those found in chain retail stores such as Walmart; and in the last few years it’s accumulated 5,000 caregivers (mostly growing marijuana at home) and storefront outlets. And another: 9% of Montanans on probation or on parole from the state correctional system are in possession of medical marijuana cards.
The Montana Caregivers Network is an interesting entity. It’s a nonprofit whose executive director Jason Christ is the poster boy for medical marijuana in the Treasure State. Christ has attracted much media attention leading “smoke-ins” around the state, where he has made a show of lighting up in front of the State Capitol in Helena and within sight of police headquarters in Missoula. For Christ, medical marijuana (and it would seem legalization in general) is a public crusade. A typical quote: “I honestly feel like this has become a civil rights issue.” MCN has recently instituted online “TeleClinics,” physician exams via webcam; that is, it is now possible to access the Cannabis Caravan via cyberspace. That’ll certainly save MCN rental fees for all those hotel conference rooms. But one wonders what the Montana Board of Medical Examiners thinks of such an impersonal and medically unethical doctor-patient encounter?
There is a definite dichotomy seen in Montana’s medical marijuana controversy. Initiative 148 was very popular in urban Montana; cities such as Billings, Helena, Great Falls, Butte, and the liberal college towns of Missoula and Bozeman. Not so much in small towns across the vast rural reaches of the Treasure State. Urban Montana mustered the votes to pass 148. What is it about medical weed and university towns, not only in Montana, but across the country?
Missoula, population 70,000, is home to the University of Montana. There are a dozen storefront outlets and 400 registered caregiver/growers serving 1,800 (and growing) card carriers. According to a story in the Missoulian, many residents laud the fact that medical marijuana is giving a previously moribund commercial real estate market a boost, as more storefront outlets open. And garden supply stores are booming. Bozeman, population 35,000, and home to Montana State University, has 500 caregivers. One in 70 people in Bozeman is a caregiver. These are two cities populated for much of the year by thousands of young, vigorously healthy college students. Maybe there’s a high rate of card carriers among the more long-in-the tooth administrations and faculties.
Montana seems to be learning the lessons of California, a state always incubating bad ideas. After a decade of dispensary expansion, Los Angeles has now started to tightly regulate medical weed, and is closing many outlets (L.A. has more of these than it has Starbucks) that are home to criminal activity and gang infiltration. Missoula isn’t Los Angeles, but the same sort of problems are already cropping up there.
The Montana State Legislature will join the fray during its next session in January 2011, when it will take up legislative reform related to filling the many abuse-ridden regulatory holes in the 2004 Initiative. And there are calls from some of its Republican members to simply repeal the whole mess. So the question remains: Who — if anybody — will be permitted to get high under the Big Sky?
About the Author
Bill Croke, formerly of Cody, Wyoming, is a writer in Salmon, Idaho.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (64) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Bill Croke
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/02/high-under-the-big-sky
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The (Real) Great Divide
- Consternated Conferences
- A President Loses His Power
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Kitty| 6.2.10 @ 6:47AM
In one day, Dr. Cole made between $15,000 and $22,500, and still the "Montana Caregivers Network supplied her with legal counsel and paid her fine"?
Ardyce | 6.2.10 @ 2:50PM
MCN would never provide one of their doctors with such inefficient legal council. They will, however, attempt to provide a better attorney for her appeal
Robert Pinkerton| 6.2.10 @ 8:00AM
Cannabis should be flat lawful -- to grow, to prepare for sale, to sell, to buy, to consume -- under concurrent Federal and State tax control, as alcoholic beverages are now.
Sam| 6.2.10 @ 2:41PM
Absolutely, Mr. Pinkerton. I could kick, torture, and beat my dog to death (a horrific thought) and I would get the same sentence for that as if I were growing a bunch of marijuana in my basement.
How can growing a plant and killing a defenseless animal merit the same punishment? Weed should be legalized. That will put a huge dent in the power of the Mexican cartels and allow police to focus on real criminals and crimes.
Denver Todd| 6.2.10 @ 8:31AM
It is much the same in Colorado. It has virtually nothing to do with medicine, and everything to do with getting high legally. You really don't have to go far to get to a dispensary, maybe just a block or two on the busier streets. One location, at a busy intersection in Denver, actually advertises the price of an eighth of an ounce, $30, down from $40 just a few weeks ago. I hear that one of the big proponents of medical marijuana wants to reregulate the industry, to create a monopoly for himself in my opinion. It is all evil.
Melvin| 6.2.10 @ 9:12AM
If the government keeps the populaces stoned, then the populace ceases to be a threat or even give a damn about what the politicians are up to.
Len| 6.2.10 @ 11:23AM
That's what TV is for. Seriously, imagine taking away TV and the internet and let the populace still have a way of being informed of all the crimes done by the government. Revolution and reformation within a week.
Sam| 6.2.10 @ 2:43PM
This is America, folks. I believe that if a person wants to use weed, that is their choice and they must accept the consequences that come with it. I thought this was the land of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Tim| 6.2.10 @ 9:27AM
Meanwhile I go to buy non-prescription decongestant and find that I have to show ID, get rationed to one a day, bought 15 at a time, and sign a registry. All because some idiot somewhere is turning snot pills into meth. Insanity.
bmw ops | 6.3.10 @ 4:18AM
Couldn’t be written any better. Reading this post reminds me of my old room mate! He always kept talking about this. I will forward this article to him. Pretty sure he will have a good read. Thanks for sharing!
Grandpa| 6.2.10 @ 10:25AM
I'm a 56 year old grandfather that doesn't use recreational drugs. Never have, never will. For decades, I have said that we should legalize drugs because this is analagous to the Prohibition. As long as there is demand, capitalists like Al Capone will provide supply. We have spent billions on the War on Drugs to no avail. Politicians, judges, policemen, and foreign governments have been paid off, and yet the flow of drugs continues. Why not legalize the stuff, have companies like Bristol-Myers, Merck, or Pfizer manufacture the hard drugs (while we collect taxes on the sales) and save the money and lives of DEA agents? If everyone could grow pot in their gardens along with their peas and beans, the price would plummet. If we take away the profit incentive, the drug lords and crime syndicates would have to get real jobs.
Aquanomics| 6.2.10 @ 10:42AM
This makes far too much sense to be a good idea.
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 6.2.10 @ 11:45AM
Grandpa, tell that to all the parents who've lost children to illegal drugs like heroin, crack cocaine, methamphetamine, etc. Making illegal drugs legal won't stop the current addicts from staying addicted & will encourage more people to get hooked on hard drugs like heroin. The crime won't go away either. Unless the drugs are distributed for free, addicts will turn to theft, prostitution, etc. to pay for their fixes each & every day. Anyone every seen a heroin addict competently hold a good job? Who would hire an addict to begin with? As for marijuana, anyone who believes it it harmless is a total nut! My neighbor's son, who is on summer break, recently wrecked his Jeep while under the influence of marijuana. Where did he wreck the Jeep while under the influence? In the parking lot of the closest elementary school! Thankfully, school was out for the day. He hit the guardrail in the school parking lot so hard the chassis of the Jeep shifted & he shattered the windshield with his forehead! Unless the "legalize drugs" crowd will stand up & take responsibility for the actions of people like this who get high, then get behind the wheel & wreak havoc they should shut the hell up! Illegal drugs are illegal for a reason! Almighty GOD gave everyone a brain. It's a damn shame some refuse to use it.
LiveFreeOrDie| 6.2.10 @ 12:20PM
While your neighbors son wrecked his jeep 1,000 other people were busy wrecking their cars under the influence of alcohol which is far more dangerous and causes more death, destruction and mayhem than Marijuana ever has or ever will.
Grandpa| 6.2.10 @ 12:53PM
Mr. MacAlister, the reasons you give against the legalization of drugs are the same as those given to prevent the repeal of Prohibition. Sure, drugs can kill. Drugs reduce inhibitions and may give the person a feeling of invincibility. There are a million reasons why taking drugs is dumb. Still, the drugs flow. In the Bible, Adam and Eve could eat of any tree in the garden, and yet they still ate of the forbidden one. You and I cannot stop the allure of the forbidden fruit. At some point, after spending billions of dollars over the decades and way too many human lives in the attempt to stop it, we must realize this war cannot be won. We are fighting ourselves.
Kenneth E. MacAlister Jr.| 6.2.10 @ 1:12PM
Grandpa & Live Free Or Die, there is a saying that goes something to the effect of "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". Thank you both for proving it correct.
Len | 6.2.10 @ 1:26PM
Meaning what? That we should have taken up arms a long time ago to prevent one group of people from using force to compel others to live according to their desired standards. The evil is attempting to change behavior through force, rather than changing hearts. Are you better than God Himself who never gave men authority for such things, but said "go and preach the gospel"?
Are you taking into account all the ruined lives due to harsh jail terms for victimless crimes? The money spent attempting to enforce these drug laws, the money spent on prisons to house these people, the time spent tying up the courts, the manpower that could actually be spent protecting people from fraud and theft and crimes where person or property is actually harmed? The gangs that come into existence to provide a market that is going to exist regardless? The unjust asset forfeiture laws that enable government agencies at every level to punish people merely for driving someone who may be carrying drugs? The violence that results from there being recourse other than force to settle disputes? The money unconstitutionally given to other countries to "aid" them in the drug war?
Margie| 6.2.10 @ 7:10PM
Oh please, Len. If you want to try and invoke God here. Have you ever read what He says here: "And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery.." Eph. 5:18.
Or here: "But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber--not even to eat with such a one." 1 Cor. 5:11.
You Libertarians try and use the Bible to suit your Liberal leanings, but it won't work. You try and justify immorality by being immoral!
Len| 6.2.10 @ 9:00PM
I'm immoral??You are the one twisting what are personal admonitions into directions to compel people to outward actions with no actual inward willingness to do what is good. This is what the pharisees practiced and thus were rebuked by Jesus for being hypocrites. You come off as a typical cultural christian who has never actually entered into the service of God and therefore rejects such scriptures as "not by might or by strength, but by my spirit, says the Lord".
Margie| 6.2.10 @ 9:35PM
Nice try Len. Cultural Christian I'm not. Wouldn't a cultural Christian do things like you are actually promoting the legalization of? Do you call yourself a true Christian? If so, do you smoke, drink, or take illegal drugs? Talk about twisting things! Who is the hypocrite? You try and use the Bible and the admonishment of "preaching the gospel" in order to back your Liberal leanings, but if you are going to try and do that, actually preach the gospel, then you cannot disregard the entire gospel, in which is included the above verses, and you wouldn't be trying to have it both ways in the name of the Lord.
Len| 6.2.10 @ 10:07PM
Margie we are discussing what is appropriate for the government to do, and you continually cite scripture which is directed toward individuals as justification for a secular government to force compliance to standards which are only to be manifestations of inward character.
I am not putting myself forward as a christian, though I clearly have a better understanding of the scriptures than you, who again act as a pharisee in desiring outward acts, rather than a heart desirous only of God and thus not looking to physical pleasures.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to when and where God granted government the authority to direct people in their lives when they have not acted harmfully toward others. Even Israel which as a nation accepted the word of God and submitted to his rule had no such provisions.
Margie| 6.2.10 @ 11:09PM
First of all, it isn't being hypocritical (like a Pharisee), to obey the laws of the land. In fact it is what God tells us we must do.. I responded to your other post, below and I'm going to continue this conversation there after this post if you don't mind.. but as for quoting Scripture, I was responding to your doing same as you were trying to say that all God requires is to "preach the Gospel."
Now, the Libertarian mindset believes that there should be no law because it ought to be something that we choose or choose not to do as individuals.
That is flawed thinking. Without laws there is nothing but utter chaos! Why do you think God gave us the 10 Commandments? Of course, He already knew that no man could keep them even before He gave them (He had a plan to later send Jesus to be the expiation for our sin, thus becoming fulfilling the Law and the Prophets), but He still gave them.
And even Jesus tells us to "Render unto Caesar what is his, and to God what is His", and to submit to the governing authorities because they are set up by God. Mt. 5:17, Rms. 13:1.
Have I enlightened you any? I sincerely hope I have.
FischOnFire | 6.2.10 @ 7:19PM
Very well said Len. Some people look no further than the government to defeat their demons.
Motorcycles are dangerous also...get rid of them!
Or hey! Let's give MADD more power so that they may lower the levels even further!!
How about the SALT in your diet!
Yeah!! Freedom!
Grandpa| 6.2.10 @ 1:28PM
Dear Mr. MacAlister,
The quote is from Edmond Burke. It's one of my favorites. Another quote I like is the one from Albert Einstein that says "The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Len| 6.2.10 @ 1:03PM
So because other people have screwed up and parents have done a poor job raising their kids you have a right to tell someone what they may or may not do? Absurd. Laws are to protect liberty, property and person not to control people's lives.
Your little example of the jeep neglects the likelihood that had school been in session the jeep driver would not have been there. He may been in his own home or that of a friend if the laws did not force him to consume in a way so as to avoid detection.
Bill| 6.2.10 @ 2:01PM
Why don't you do any drugs? I bet it's because you have some thoughts surrounding the use of intoxicants. Yet you'd support the legalization of yet another intoxicant and all the risks that involves (such as the crime that surrounds it, the risk from intoxicated users in public, yet another downward ratchet in our cultural standards, etc.) simply because you want it taxed in order to pay certain public debts.
FischOnFire | 6.2.10 @ 7:09PM
I am with you Grandpa. Remove the profit margins and the extremely high (no pun int) cost to the US for the "War on Drugs" (another war we are losing) and we could save a bundle. Usage of drugs would see an up-tick only temporarily in my opinion. Then spend more on psa's/education and treatment (income from the taxed mary jane should more than cover that).
Not my most conservative viewpoint but hey...?!
My question is: How did mankind get this far without substance control legislation?
We cannot make this life sterile and without risks Ken. Our cost to benefit ratio is way out of wack.
Len| 6.2.10 @ 11:29AM
The issue here is who owns oneself? If I own myself, then how can someone else have the authority to tell me what I may or may not consume? If I go and commit a crime while high(don't toke FYI) all that matters is what harm I have done to person or property.
To illustrate the absurdity of this, right now the FDA is arguing in court that people do not have the right to buy raw milk, so in other words I am the property of the government and my liberty is based on what the government allows me to do.
http://www.tenthamendmentcente.....stitution/
Bill| 6.2.10 @ 2:04PM
So I gather you're opposed to the work of the FDA, right?
Len| 6.2.10 @ 2:32PM
" The work"...rather vague a phrase. Meaning what the agency is actually supposed to do, as opposed to what it actually does and as opposed to what it actually accomplishes in regard to it's state purpose.
As your question is lacking in specificity, I will likewise give a broad answer. I am opposed to other people telling me what I may or not eat. I am opposed to other people interfering in what should only be a two-way free market exchange. I am opposed to the federal government continually violating the limits of the US constitution, which in this case is food inspection and until usurped was carried out by the states and rightfully so, at least concerning the federal structure.
Sam| 6.2.10 @ 2:49PM
Len,
I love all your posts, along with Grandpa. How come so many conservatives have forgotten about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? Legalizing drugs does not force anyone to take anything. It's called personal choice. I'm thankful there are others who still believe in it.
Len| 6.2.10 @ 3:44PM
" The work"...rather vague a phrase. Meaning what the agency is actually supposed to do, as opposed to what it actually does and as opposed to what it actually accomplishes in regard to it's state purpose.
Should've been followed by a question mark.
" The work"...rather vague a phrase. Meaning what the agency is actually supposed to do, as opposed to what it actually does and as opposed to what it actually accomplishes in regard to it's state purpose?
Margie| 6.2.10 @ 7:22PM
Who owns oneself?
"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body." 1 Cor. 6:19&20;.
Libertarians want all the "freedom" and none of the responsibility!
Len| 6.2.10 @ 9:13PM
Again twisting scripture. Paul here was speaking to those who had voluntarily submitted themselves to the lordship of Jesus Christ, not giving instructions to a secular government. While God will judge those who have not given themselves to him, here on earth he only grants secular governments authority for justice and protecting the people. This is what is constantly spoken of throughout the scriptures and specifically in the following.."they do not hold the sword in vain".
You seem to be more willing to use force to make people outwardly compliant to certain "moral" standards, than to fast and pray and moan for people's eyes to be opened to their need for God.
Margie| 6.2.10 @ 9:49PM
Yes he was talking to those who are His, and I was talking to you because you act as if you are one of His, and so the verse would apply to you would it not, then? As it would apply to me as well. You stated that "if you own yourself" and then who has the right to "tell you what to do." You act as if you are to be immune from the laws of the land, and worse yet you don't want there to be in existence most of the laws we have, as is the Libertarian mindset. Yet this is in direct conflict with what God wants.. you remind me of this verse, "For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another." Gal. 5:13.
How ludicous to try and claim that I am forcing people to comply to moral standards, when it is the law of the land, and you are saying it shouldn't be on the basis of because "we own ourselves".
Libertarianism~ All of the "freedom", but none of the responsibility.
Len| 6.2.10 @ 10:11PM
What responsibility?? Again,God never gave any government authority to compel people in their personal actions which do not affect person or property. You cannot cite one verse to back this up. You talk about the laws of the land, so then you are okay with the government using force to compel people to give their money which will be used for abortion?? Or are you picking and choosing?
Yes Margie,you are a typical cultural christian who looks to the arm of man to do only what God himself is to do.
Margie| 6.2.10 @ 10:47PM
"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." Rms. 13:1.
Real Christians obey what the Bible says. I mistook you for a Christian. You act like one by the way you speak, but you said yourself above that you don't claim to be one. You profess to know God's mind yet you truly know it not.
Before you judge others as Pharisees, I would suggest looking in the mirror.
LiveFreeOrDie| 6.2.10 @ 12:27PM
I don't use Marijuana but it should not be illegal and I don't believe the Federal government has or ever had the authority to make it so. I do, however, try to drink raw milk exclusively and if the FDA gets it's way it will be illegal to drink milk from a cow. FDA should be done away with, it no longer serves the public good.
chris| 6.2.10 @ 12:59PM
The Federal war on drugs affects one thing and one thing only - the price that people pay for drugs.
I don't use alcohol, tobacco or drugs, but I think that the Federal government needs to let the states decide whether or how to proceed with respect to pot and other recreational drugs.
The War on Drugs has worked as well as the War on Poverty has.
Let's declare victory in each and quit.
Len| 6.2.10 @ 1:14PM
The federal "war on drugs" is merely another grab at power by people who care nothing for the US constitution and the fact that it is an instrument of delegate powers and that laws affecting the people were clearly left to the states as the 10 was meant to clarify and safeguard.
The clear intent of the commerce clause was to enable the states to have free trade without one state exacting overly burdensome fees on the people of other states and thus setting the states at odds with each other, and making all the states weak and un-united.
The federal government was enacted to be a government for governments and not the people and this is rather evident from the powers granted to the federal government to exercise. In truth this makes agencies like the DEA and ATF illegal associations and liable for all the use of force and asset seizures they have carried out under authority never constitutionally delegated. It also makes Clinton, Reagan, both Bushes and Obama all criminals as they have been responsible for all the acts carried out under their executive authority.
Pat| 6.2.10 @ 2:02PM
Len, your comment is spot on - governmental power is almost as addictive as heroin to our elected royalty. And in the light hearted network comedy that is American society today, the government's lust for power is the only enduring constant which can punctuate the rampant insanity. Take marijuana for instance, not only can it be dangerously intoxicating but it can also lead to lung cancer - yet we flood the airways with public service announcements warning against smoking cigarettes and heaping sanctimonious contempt on the cigarette manufacturers and, at the same time, laud the health benefits of marijuana - you get a hefty dose of carcinogens with each and every toke but you feel so good you don't mind.
And the search for ever more power over citizens leads directly to widespread contempt for our hundreds of thousands of laws. If we don't care about our open borders and our large population of illegals, it seems silly to seriously police recreational drugs, lung cancer or not. There are indeed drawbacks to ignoring lawbreakers, but in a society where "law" is situationally arbitrary and politically motivated, it's understandable that citizens would resent being forced to respect the rights of non-citizens while the government, in its single minded quest for ever larger bureauracracies and agencies, would curtail the pleasures of legal citizens. Americans are, and rightly so, developing a healthy contempt for our laws - laws that are at once contradictory and increasingly arbitrary.
Bill| 6.2.10 @ 2:05PM
If you don't like the price of drugs, don't buy them.
Carlos| 6.2.10 @ 3:22PM
Just take a stroll through the shopping district of Santa Cruz, California one day if you'd like to meet the brain-dead "patients" of Californistan's "medical" marihuana "clinics." You'll thank your lucky stars that things aren't that bad in your town yet.
But just you wait.
Chris| 6.2.10 @ 6:22PM
Everyone posting here should look up project L.E.A.P. whereas police, judges,prosecutors, attorneys et.al. all want POT legalized so as to STOP the wasteful spending of taxpayer[s] monies in a war which has not been won and will never be won at any expence. Just plant your seeds and grow- grow- grow your own. As the old song goes "The Beat Goes On".
So for all you naysayers of POT, Inhale deeply as often as you can, you may find that it's better than Jack Daniels or your favorite Brew or Chew. Ever think we could produce Bio-Fuel from it too on the wide open spaces of The "Big Sky" State. One way or another it's the CASH CROP OF AMERICA"
Never had a problem with it in in 40 + years of smoking it. I'd rather see the youth smoke pot than shoving "smack" needles in ther vains or smoking crack or snorting horse tranquilizer "tick" a/k/a PCP,or Meth the flamming fools !!
Clinton nee Publius| 6.2.10 @ 8:02PM
Mr. Croke acts as if corruption in the drug industry is somehow new and restricted to marijuana. What would he say about alcohol?
Nothing, because; Mr. Croke is a hypocrite. He's part of the conservative movement that wants to preach its morals to us and act just like the Democrats they routinely denounce. Mr. Croke, I'd like to know how you feel about alcohol and tobacco. Tell us Mr. Hypocrite. Tell me how many people have overdosed from smoking marijuana, Mr. Hypocrite. What was that? Zero? You didn't know? Tell me, Mr. Hypocrite... Tell me how many people die of alcohol poisoning each day? Do you know?
Oooohh, I see. It's the "gateway" drug thing. Smoking marijuana would lead to more dangerous drug usage so it needs to be banned. I see. Makes perfect sense to me. Let's test your theory. We'll outlaw the drug that may lead to more dangerous drugs, but we'll keep drugs legal that will in fact kill you if you use them. Yeah... I see how it works now.
Tell me, Mr. Pinhead Morals Police. Tell me how you are different. The Democrats take my money to fund the government they want and you take my money to fund the government you want. Both want big government to tell me how I should live my life and put me in jail if I don't live the life their value system says I should lead.
Where's the difference?
This article is the signature reason why the Tea Party has to leave the conservative movement behind along with the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Pardon me for wanting freedom. What drugs people take, the bets they make, the things they drink and do are NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS MR. PUSSBAG BUSYBODY. As long as my conduct doesn't harm you, my family or your property, you have no more right to tell me how to live than the Democrats do, you corrupt dirtbag.
GreyLion| 6.3.10 @ 12:15PM
CnP,
NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS MR. PUSSBAG BUSYBODY,
The only thing worse than uncle Ted is a state full of uncle Teds high on drugs. If drugs are legalized here then the next big public safety issue will be mailboxes. If you think people going "postal" is bad wait until you see mailboxes going "Kazinsky".
Wood| 6.3.10 @ 3:10AM
I wish I could see what you all would actually say to each other face to face. If it is as rude and disrespectful as your postings I would be shocked, ahhh the power of anonymity!
Grandpa| 6.3.10 @ 10:35AM
Dear Mr./Ms. Wood,
I'm afraid you're right. It seems that freedom, civility, and personal responsibility are precious commodities in this fair land of ours.
Carlos| 6.3.10 @ 12:32PM
Yeah, Woody, that's why you signed your critical screed with your full name, address, and contact info. Am I right?
Lynn B.| 6.3.10 @ 11:05PM
Dont be to prude to see the facts
Fact is Marijuana would be a huge profit for the government if it legalized it, taxed it and what not.
It doesnt take a genius to see that.
So i say; Take em lighters out and smoke some bud
Relax :)
Leonard Krivitsky, MD, DD| 6.4.10 @ 11:28AM
I would add my comment that Cannabis is much safer than alcohol and most controlled prescription drugs in terms of potential for overdose, creation of a dependency or organ damage. Just recently such popular drugs as Tylenol, Motrin and Benadryl were “recalled” due to potential serious, even fatal, side effects. And yet, there is an active disinformation campaign going on with respect to “medical Cannabis”.
Also, I would comment that Cannabis use has been shown to suppress violent behavior (Substance Abuse: A Comprehensive Textbook, 4-th Edition, page 267), and this is extremely important from the point of view of the individual, as well as public, safety.
Since Cannabis use suppresses violence by inducing a calm, relaxed state and also improves the “negative affective state” that many people occasionally have, its use may also prove to be a “barrier”, rather than “gateway” to alcohol and hard drug use.
I would also comment that Anti-Cannabis laws on this country seem to encourage young people to experiment with alcohol and/or hard drugs for the simple reason that Cannabis, which is much less dangerous, can be detected in drug testing for much longer than, say, heroin, other opiates, cocaine, or methamphetamines.
This is why many people may tend to try those hard drugs with very high “addiction liability” and then get addicted. This is the true story behind the so-called "gateway drug" theory.
Removing marijuana from the same group with heroin and cocaine will finally send the right message to young people as to the dangers of the latter, or otherwise some people may assume that cocaine, heroin, other opiates or methamphetamines are JUST AS dangerous (or non-dangerous) as Cannabis, while they are infinitely more dangerous.
I believe we need to show the public BENEFIT from legalizing Cannabis, not just the absence of harm. I further believe that stressing Cannabis potential to suppress violence and, hopefully, curb the hard drug abuse and addiction is a PUBLIC SAFETY issue, and we are on the right side of it!
Margie| 6.4.10 @ 5:21PM
Gee wilikers, Doc, I reckon if you keep them stoned they sure will be less likely to be violent. Hmm, now lets's ee. As a past toker in my youth I remember that smoking pot also tends to some people paranoid, too. So if people who tend to be physcotic and violent are allowed to smoke the weed regulary, why golly gee, what would we have there? Unbelievable that a Dr. is using this type of logic. Like Lucy used to say, arrrrrgghh!
Hey Doc, don't bogart that joint!
Johanna| 6.5.10 @ 8:19AM
No wonder we are becoming like California in Montana. By now half the population from California has moved in here.
dk| 7.1.10 @ 4:40AM
beijing massage