76 Comments - What about the children? - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 8:20 am: I’m concerned about second hand marijuana smoke in homes where children are present. It is *very* unlike Springfield not to address this. What gives? - Ghost - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 8:55 am: All these medical marijuana crazies. Cant they stick to the nice healthy drugs like percoset and vicoden, since these are not highly addictive or gateway drugs. Heck just ask Rush Limbaugh, who also opposes marijuana… We need to limit doctors to only prescribing these safe drugs… - Chanson - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:00 am: It is time to legalize drugs in order to BETTER control them; currently, there is little control. As far as smoking around children, those that would smoke or use any product around kids are probably doing it now. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:04 am: If you believe that medical marijuana is justified, then perhaps you would also wish to try other 17th Century medical remedies. Let’s just ignor all the medical advancements made over the past centuries, and return to the days when we foraged for roots, weeds, and claimed that illnesses were caused by demons. There is no medical need to smoke marijuana. The active ingredients within it has been isolated, manufactured and is available thanks to modern medicine. How much drug do you inhale in a joint? No one knows, because we’re talking about different kinds of weed, and different kinds of joints. Different smoking techniques. If you believe in science, then you would easily recognize that we measure and monitor for results. That’s called science, potheads. Would you be willing to pop pills from a bottle that doesn’t prescribe how much to take? I don’t think you would. But you have no problem believing that we can just grab a bunch of marijuana, smoke some, and the drugs within it will do the trick. Nonsense! Over the past forty years, marijuana supporters have had this ridiculous fantasy that because marijuana is natural, it is OK. These same people have been taught to shun other things made by Man, because they are not natural. We are seeing a generational fallacy to justify drug use - that’s all. There is no such thing as medical marijuana in the 21st Century. Get off it, stoners! - Gene Parmesan - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:08 am: VanMan, you are absolutely 100% clueless regarding the science behind marijuana and the cannabinoid system. The cannabinoid system was only discovered early in the 20th century and represents a fantastic new direction of medical science with many opportunities to learn more about our bodies and the effects of THC and other cannabinoids. However, I can only partially blame you for your ignorance as the United States government has strongly discouraged and worked against medical testing of marijuana and the cannabinoid system. - vito - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:08 am: Rich, besides Bellock (NO) and Lang (YES) votes–how did the other votes and why didn’t any story list the other members votes? - Ghost - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:12 am: Actually VM, I hate to burst your bubble, but modern medical research has been investigating a lot of the cures from olden days and re-implementing it. For example, those crazy burn doctors actually have started using maggots to clean burn wounds. appears they can perfectly remove all the dead flesh without hurting the living. And then these whacky plastic surgeons are using leeches to restore circulation and so froth. These crazy 17th century techniques, how dare modenr science consider that tools from the past migh actually be viable today. As one ages it is not a good idea to assume that something from the past is no longer of use. - wordslinger - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:16 am: I give Carrierre credit for having the courage for civil disobidience. Hard to believe this is an issue in 2009. Now if you’ll excuse I have to run out to Walgreens to get my Vic prescription filled and pick up some Jack Daniels and smokes. And bacon, eggs and butter. - dupage dan - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:17 am: I have gone back and forth on this issue over the years. Prohibition does not work. We have clear historical evidence of that. The only people who benefited from that were craven criminals. And people kept drinking anyway. Marijuana is not physically addictive like alcohol and tobacco. Psychological dependence is an issue but that problem exists with alcohol and tobacco as well. We control other vices with varying degrees of success (alcohol, tobacco, gambling, etc) so why not MJ? I would not want minors to have any legal access. Driving while high could be a problem but tests indicate presence of MJ in the system long after the psychoactive effects have worn off. On point, there is some evidence that MJ reduces nausea in chemo patients and increases appetite as well in cancer and HIV patients. Some evidence exists that it helps with Glaucoma. Not much research has been done in this area. On the other hand, govt involvement in managing/profiting from vices is worrisome. Generally, I believe you can create a worthwhile life of interest, pleasure and exitement without resorting to the easy high of drugs. I sail, SCUBA dive, hike, camp, build things with wood, steel, plastic. I work hard to instill in my son the idea that the cheap high thru drugs is no accomplishment - no true lasting satisfaction in that. Most of the above was a bit off topic but since people believe the medical MJ issue will lead to legalization in general I couldn’t help myself. Reduced nausea and increased appetite can be a life saver for people with cancer or HIV. If the wasting effects of these diseases can be managed by creating the munchies I’m all for it. - Amy - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:17 am: “modern medicine” looks down or, or makes illegal, midwives, herbal remedies that have been in use for years, anything that cannot make the drug/insurance/big hospital focus money. sometimes simple is best. this is what the bill addresses. and on behalf of friends with cancer who need relief from the “modern medicine” that they hope can add to a cure….give them the dope if they want to smoke it to abate the nausea. - vise77 - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:17 am: VM: Good points about the science, and I think “medical marijuana” is, in large part, just a backdoor legalization attempt (not that I oppose the legal sale of pot, but still.) That said, I’ve known more than a few significantly ill people, as have my various relatives, many of whom work in health care, who, for one reason or another, have enjoyed better results from smoking or eating or otherwise ingesting marijuana than from any pill. Why? I don’t know; I’m no scientist. And though my example is mere anecdote, I think you should consider these things. Also consider: I’ve heard that it is currently difficult to measure the medical benefits of marijuana, from what health researchers have told me. That’s because the Feds frown on marijuana-related grants that might potentially show benefits of the drug. Not sure how much truth there is, but I know a fair number of medical researchers through family connections. - Gene Parmesan - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:20 am: “There is no medical need to smoke marijuana.” This is partially correct. New marijuana delivery techniques have been developed including ‘vaporizing’ which is similar to ’smoking’ but only releases the THC and not the other compounds found in marijuana. However, the inhalation of marijuana can serve as a self-regulating manner of ingestion. A user simply takes as many hits as needed for the desired effect. In a way this can be preferable to a “one size fits all” pill. - Vote Quimby! - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:20 am: The Springfield man may have jumped the gun a little….what was he thinking!? VanMan: how about all the medical ‘miracle’ drugs that have been recalled over the past 40 years? Vioxx, what have you…how many have they killed or injured? Marijuana has one of the longest clinical trials in our history! Would I choose it over some lab-concocted pheronome heavily marketed directly to consumers proclaiming all these benefits? Pills are certainly not a perfect delivery method–factors including tolerance, body weight, bioavailability and each person’s unique structure will vary the amount taken. And are you sure those generics are equivalent? I have personal experience they are not…. Marijuana is only a gateway drug because under our current legal structure, people who sell it also sell other, more addictive therefore more profitable drugs. Witness the crack craze of 20 years ago and the havoc caused by methamphetamine. If marijuana was legalized in the same manner as alcohol, you might be amazed who you see shopping at the local grocer… - Chanson - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:25 am: Not to mention that pain killers and other legal drugs have hideous side effects that make the use of them sometimes worse than the cure. Of course, the makers of fiber products love the public use of pain killers. - Pat collins - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:32 am: arijuana has one of the longest clinical trials in our history! Anecdotal stories != clinical trials. Vaporizers are of course the BEST way to deliver any “good things” from medicinal use, as would be prepared food products. They would also control it much more easily than letting plants grow. But of course, backdoor legalization is what this is all about. Else, why would Mr. Lang NOT address the methods with more clinical support? Not to mention the second hand smoke thing - Phineas J. Whoopee - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:39 am: I believe medical marijuana should be legalized provided the drug is properly taxed and they build lots more White Castles to handle the fall out. BTW, I bet Lou Lang was a hippy in the day. - Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:40 am: My understanding (admittedly limited) is that research in to the viability of marijuana as a medical treatment has been stymied by the federal government. So, we don’t really know if it is effective or not. The feds need to relax the restrictions so the research can take place. In addition, the governments unreasonable fear of the evil, killer weed extends to the hemp varieties which could be a viable cash crop from everything from clothing fibers to bio fuels. While it may or may not be a cash crop, it’s difficult to say if it cannot be grown. (So much for the free market). I’m not a hemp/marijuana legalization activist, but the country’s obsession with this plant goes to the absurd. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:50 am: As one ages it is not a good idea to assume that something from the past is no longer of use. What a wonderful conservative statement. Can we hope that you will remember this regarding all the other issues we blog on? You usually don’t apply this excellent point. As to all these comments regarding dangerous pharmaceuticals justifying old-fashioned medicine - where is your faith in science? Or do you people only believe in science when it can be used as a debating point against those of us questioning your superior viewpoints on the issues? You either accept science or you embrace quack medicine. You can’t demand both simply because you want to smoke pot legally. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 10:00 am: VM, I offer you my raised middle finger today. My very own personal anecdote on this issue was a dying mother, whose chemo and radiation treatments left her with nausea and no appetite. She was down to about 75 lbs before her doctor encouraged her to try some marijuana, hoping it would help ease the side effects of her cancer treatment. Of course, he couldn’t prescribe it, so she was on her own. She asked one of her friends who had a teenage son at the time, and he provided a small amount of pot. She didn’t particularly enjoy smoking it, but found it did, in fact, help increase her appetite and she began to gain some weight before long, keeping her strong enough to continue treatment. Yes, this anecdote is hardly data, but it’s good enough for me. Kudos to Rep. Lang for advancing this bill. VM, you are an ignorant blowhard on this subject. - Three Doors Over - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 10:09 am: Congrats to Lou Lang for introducing this bill. Just wish it would go further. Still, hopefully, when people see that all these poor souls suffering through the effects chemo don’t turn into mad, pot-addled zombies, we can then move on to an intelligent discussion regarding the complete hypocrisy and waste of taxpayer money surrounding the continuing criminalization of marijuana. - HoBoSkillet - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 10:13 am: ===You either accept science or you embrace quack medicine.=== VMan- I love that statement because “science” in the past has embraced quack medicine. I have on my desk right now a medical journal from July 1896 called “The Laryngoscope: Monthly Journal Devoted to Diseases of the Nose, Throat, Ear.” and within this journal is a full page advertisement entitled “The Merits of Our Cocaine.” The areas between science and quackery are gray at times. It wasn’t that long ago that we treated syphilis with arsenic and that wasn’t considered quackery at the time. It was the best thing they had available at the time until newer tests developed better treatments. Perhaps pot is the best thing we have available at this time to treat some of the side effects of chemo/HIV treatments or whatever. All I do know is that “science” is an evolving set of knowledge and is never static. So I find your statement of accepting science or quackery objectionable because most of the time quackery is just yesterday’s science. Maybe tomorrow there will be a peer reviewed scientific study revealing that pot is the best treatment available and we will scratch our heads wondering why we never realized it all along… Or maybe we won’t. The only way we will find out is through scientific and medical experimentation and studies. I say let’s open the door. - Trent Green's Clipboard - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 10:14 am: Government does much better when it protects people from the consequences of other people’s actions, not your own. Which is worse for society — a bunch of college kids sitting around a dorm getting high and then passing out in front of the TV, or a single adult, really drunk, behind the wheel of a car? If people want to smoke marijuana in their own homes or the homes of friends, for medicinal or non-medicinal reasons, that should be fine. If under the influence of any drug (marijuana, alcohol, whatever else) they go out and do something dangerous to other people, they should face whatever the current consequences are and then some. Whatever you think of marijuana’s medicinal properties, think of it this way: if you took two people of similar health, and, all other things being equal, had one of them smoke a joint every day, and the other one eat bacon double cheeseburgers and fries every day, which is going to die of their activity first? - Jake from Elwood - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 10:16 am: Um. . .what’s with the guy with the press release? Did he watch one too many episodes of “Weeds”? Kinda sounds like the former pro football player who wrote a personal check to his drug dealer and wrote the word “drugs” in the memo line. - Youngster - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 10:31 am: I just don’t understand how you can legalize a drug for medicinal purposes that will never get FDA approval because of all the problems associated with it. If you smoke it, like these people want to do, you are inhaling a lot of known carcinogens. - Gene Parmesan - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 10:35 am: Youngster, just about every drug known to man has side effects. It’s just a simple cost vs. benefit analysis. Plus, vaporizing can mitigate the number of carcinogens, and you can ingest marijuana through food as well. As to the FDA, Obama has been sending some interesting signals regarding federal involvement in marijuana. VMan, you’re the one ignoring medical science by insisting medical marijuana is “quack medicine”. Do a little research on cannabinoids and the impact medical marijuana can have on some diseases/symptoms. You might just learn something. - Johnny USA - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 10:45 am: Gene - I’ll let the FDA do my medical research for me. If I did it (by definition), it would be quackery. That doesn’t help anyone. - Legaleagle - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 10:50 am: There has been a medical marijuana law on the books in Illinois since the early ’70s. And why do people want to smoke it and ruin their lungs? Take it in pill form if it is medicinal. But that is not what the proponents want, so I’m suspicious! - gordon G. - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 10:54 am: weed is good. - Gene Parmesan - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 10:58 am: Johnny, the FDA isn’t exactly a saintly non-partisan scientific agency, and the do make mistakes (Vioxx?). There is also political pressure at the agency. The Bush administration certainly did not support medical marijuana. The Institute of Medicine, a division of the National Academy of Science, disputed the findings of the FDA. - Pat collins - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 10:58 am: marijuana as a medical treatment has been stymied by the federal government. So, we don’t really know if it is effective or not. Oh? They prevent Japanese research? Swiss research? British? Or maybe those places have lots of Pharma firms, and scientists also? And they can’t seem to find any benefits that pass muster, like for any other drug? Or maybe the benefits can not be so proven…. - IrishPirate - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 11:05 am: First, I have never used any illegal drugs because by the time I was old enough to experiment my older brothers had done them all. I would have had to roll them up and smoke them. Second, the “medical” arguments against marijuana use are about as correct as the idea that masturbation causes blindness. As that great philosopher Don Rumsfeld said “freedom is messy”. It’s amazing to me how anyone can call themselves a conservative when they want to dictate to others what drugs they imbibe and who they can have sex with. I can just picture John McCain railing against this. He of the serial adultery, alcohol fueled episodes, and pill popping wife. If some cancer patient wants to use marijuana and it helps them it is none of my business trying to “save them”. Over 25 years ago one of my friends dad was dying of cancer. He of the crewcut,military bearing, and Reagan democrat credentials. Some weed was acquired for him from the neighborhood cop who instead of tossing it down the sewer left it on the dying man’s nightstand. It helped him gain weight and lessened the pain. So like the previous poster I extend my middle finger in salute to those of you “proud Americans” who want to tell others how to die. - stones - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 11:06 am: I am 100% for legalizing marijuana on a prescription basis for legitimate medical reasons. This is not a new proposal but was first brought forth in 1977 in the Illinois Senate. My father who was battling cancer during that period was allergic to some of the treatments of the time. He was given doses of a form of marijuana in tablet for to treat the extreme nausia and other symptoms of his treatment. Without the marijuana tablets, he might have not continued on with his treatments. If this reduces suffering for people that suffer from cancer, glaucoma or other diseases then I am all for it. - Anonymous - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 11:07 am: If there’s already a medical marijuana law on the books that was never implemented because IDPH didn’t bother making rules (or refused to make rules) to implement it, why not just have DPH make rules now, and bring the law out of limbo? - Real Estate - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 11:24 am: What Stones said! And I am thoroughly up to date on the problems with mj. I am the one that writes that my teen got addicted to it. But, if it helps cancer patients, which there are an awful lot of cases out there that says it does, so be it. Cancer treatment is awful. You can say “get your doctor to prescribe it in medicinal form” all day long. The doctors do not know how to treat nausea and pain - either that, or they just don’t care. - Mike Murray - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 11:24 am: Enough with the bird references and claims that all proponents are simply stoners. Lets keep it civil, or at least as civil as possible. - Real Estate - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 11:26 am: Here is a recent article http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columns/story/1424946.html - Alison - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 11:29 am: FACT: The Rx eye drops for Glaucoma don’t work nearly as well as MJ. Highly regulated, providing medical MJ would be on a case-by-case basis according to need, history, etc. alleviating a lot of senseless pain & suffering. There’s also an environmental benefit: industrial hemp. Right now the DEA doesn’t allow anyone to grow it in the US because they say they can’t distinguish it from illegal MJ plants (laughable as it sounds). The economic potential from this industry alone is massive. Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act: No-brainer! - dupage dan - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 11:31 am: For those saying that MJ can be taken in pill form this is not a very good delivery system for someone with severe nausea. You have to be able to keep the Rx down in order for it to work. Swallowing a pill w/even a minimum of water may be too much for some patients. - L.S. - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 11:38 am: VanillaMan - true to you name, you are a buzzkill. No, I wouldn’t take random unmarked pills because that might kill me. Marijuana isn’t going to kill anyone. You’re dismissive and holier than thou, self-rightous tone is unneccessary and brings nothing to the argument. You say there is no medical need, well, there is no meidcal need for other painkillers either than. It’s about providing comfort and aid to people in need. A lot of people pushing this very common sense measure are not “potheads” as you so caliously say. Some of us have seen the effect of chemo and radiation on a loved one and have seen how medicinal marijuana has helped them. - Levois - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 12:02 pm: So how long until Illinois becomes a libertarian paradise. Looks like we’re headed that way. Although those others states that have it aren’t anywhere near it. I think I jumped the gun here. - Short-term memory loss - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 12:07 pm: “Dude, where’s my business?” - jake - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 12:17 pm: The most authoritative brief summary of the scientific (including social science) evidence on medical marijuana is the executive summary of the National Academy of Sciences report on the issue. That is at http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376&page=1 The executive summary is 12 pages, and the rest of the report can be accessed from there as well. Both the pros and cons are well laid out. I think most people reading that would feel that the pros of the legislation that the House will vote on outweigh the cons, especially for relief of symptoms of terminal cancer patients for whom the long term effects of smoking are not an issue. The report also calls for more research to figure out how to find a non-smoking way of administering the beneficial effects. There seems to be no evidence-based reason to suppose that the use of marijuana outlined in the bill would lead to use of harder drugs. - wordslinger - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 12:38 pm: Jake, for the anti-zealots, the National Academy of Sciences won’t be good enough. Einstein, Newton and Salk wouldn’t be good enough, either. It’s an emotional or ideological thing. - Just Wondering . . . - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 12:57 pm: Why is the House looking at this first? Shouldn’t this kind of legislation be considered in a joint session? - anon - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 12:58 pm: People who are suffering with MS, Parkinsons, cancer and other painful, disabling conditions should be able to use marajuana if it helps with their symptoms. It seems ridiculous and inhumane to deny these people relief because of ideology or fear from “what ifs”. Besides, lots of pharmaceuticals are based on plant research. Indeed, we may not achieve scientific advancement without utilizing the components found in nature. - Pat collins - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 12:59 pm: Jake, for the anti-zealots, the National Academy of Sciences Well, if the bill fit that report it might. It misses off these sensible requirements: failure of all approved medications to provide relief has been documented, · the symptoms can reasonably be expected to be relieved by rapid onset cannabinoid drugs, · such treatment is administered under medical supervision in a manner that allows for assessment of treatment effectiveness, and · involves an oversight strategy comparable to an institutional review board process that could provide guidance within 24 hours of a submission by a physician to provide marijuana to a patient for a specified use. If the items in bold were there, you’d get something useful from all this. Minus that’s its just a way to get pot. It doesn’t even seem to need a Rx, just a diagnosis of a condition. - Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 1:20 pm: It’s been government by the simple instead of by the science. Restrictions have resulted in a lack of data on medical results and a lack of markets for hemp. The lack of data and markets is then used to justify a continued ban. The other down side is the documented expense in our criminal justice system. - IrishPirate - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 1:22 pm: To those of you who loathe the idea of Marijuana I think this may help explain your thinking. The fundamentalist psyche. It’s better to know that to have doubt. Makes life so much easier. - been there - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 1:41 pm: I don’t think anyone’s pointed out here that the legislature voted to legalize it, and Thompson signed it, in 1978 because Rep. Joe Ebbesen’s roommate (another rep.) needed it as did a senator. Probably that explains why nothing else happened to implement it. But doesn’t it seem only fair now, over 30 years later, to let everyone else benefit who needs it? - Pat collins - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 1:41 pm: The stronger their religious zeal and the more they believed in God, the less their ACC fired in response to their own errors, and the fewer errors they made. Missed off the bit about “fewer errors they made”? - bugs - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 1:54 pm: the dopers have won this one-let it go - IrishPirate - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 2:15 pm: Pat, I didn’t miss that part. If you were familiar with the term “conservatism of doubt” perhaps you would have more faith in freedom than faith in “belief”. I LOVE your idea about a committee deciding whether an MD prescribing the wacky weed was appropriate in every case. When committees decide on all the other drugs, many much more dangerous than marijuana, you may have a legitimate point. NOT. It’s nice to have all the answers. It prevents annoying thinks like “doubt” or “ideas” coming into play. Can’t let those naughty facts get in the way of “BELIEF”. As Rush Limbaugh smokes on his nicotine delivery system, whilst drinking his cognac, and eating a large juicy steak he can count on “conservatives” to not think their way into supporting his grand ideas. I long for the days of Barry Goldwater and Bill Buckley. Until their ideas again are a force to be reckoned with the Grand Old Party will not be so “grand”. What is it about freedom that so scares you? It’s a rhetorical question, Patrick. Think it over while you have a beer. - drug advocate general - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 2:24 pm: as peter tosh said - legalize it don’t criticize it pot is the best recreational drug for people who want to avoid hang overs, depression, violent outbursts, and a host of other maladies associated with chronic alcohol abuse including liver disease the hypocrisy of the war on drugs is stunning what illinois should do is LEGALIZE ALL MARIJUANA AND TAX IT TO PLUG THE BUDGET HOLE most people who smoke pot are your neighbors - professionals like doctors, lawyers, stockbrokers, news people, and not burn outs as the spinmeisters for the alcohol and tobacco companies that fund the partnership for a drug free america would have you believe. the entire war on “some drugs” is a fraud and has been so from the very beginning - illinois should say enough is enough we have higher priorities to spend law enforcement funds on and could tax something people are doing anyways the so-called burn outs are usually the barfly drunks who go home and are belligerent to their families not the pot smokers if the state legalized it and taxed marijuana they could plug the entire budget deficit overnight - Norseman - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 2:41 pm: “If there’s already a medical marijuana law on the books that was never implemented because IDPH didn’t bother making rules (or refused to make rules) to implement it, why not just have DPH make rules now, and bring the law out of limbo?” Because DPH never had that authority. It seems to be an urban myth that keeps getting perpetuated when these bills get implemented. Try looking it up and you’ll probably find that this was something the Dangerous Drugs Commission was supposed to do. - Norseman - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 2:42 pm: Oops - these bills get introduced. - Pat collins - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 2:54 pm: The idea of the committee is to make sure the data is collected properly. And it was the National Academy of Sciences’s idea. I just like it. Why should pot be any different from any other Pharmaceutical? Let it be proven effective like any other drug. - been there - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 2:57 pm: my recollection is that the state police were named in some capacity in the 1978 bill but you’re right, Norseman, anyone who wants to know should just look it up. usually the new bill just amends that section of the statute, so that’s where i’m going to look–at the new bill. - zatoichi - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 3:17 pm: Before my aunt died of cancer, my cousins got her as much pot as she wished to use, with her doc’s unwritten blessing. It was not much and it made chemo tolerable for her. How much money has been spent and is currently spent to enforce laws that huge numbers of people willfully ignore? There is a strong need for good evidence on both sides of this arguement. Available data seems to be leaning in favor of marijuana. Is MJ a gateway drug? My personal experience (and that of many long term friends) leans more towards beer and cigarettes being the first step gateways. Glad Lang is bringing this up. - Anonymous - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 3:31 pm: Lang should be applauded for his efforts. Approve medicinal and decriminalize it the street drug. Its just silly the amount money spent bring an offender through the judicial system for a petty offense. As to the argument that we should buy rx drugs that have a similar effect as one someone can grow on the cheap is silly as well. Why should a cancer victim have to pay big $$ money or worse yet why should the government pay premium dollars for pain killers when you can grow it in your house. I do not believe it is a gateway drug. If it did not exist the addictive personalities would just start with caffeine, then nicotine, then alcohol, then coke on so on. I used a fair amount of the hydroponic cannabis which was bright green with the orange and red hairs IE the good stuff! and have never moved through the so called “gateway” to harder drugs. - casual observer - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 3:35 pm: My daughter has MS and her husband gives her a shot every night. The shot makes her nauseous and sore. She told me that pot helps her which I won’t even question. I only asked that she tell her doctor. When she did he said “Oh yeah, a lot of my patients do. I just can’t prescribe it”. The only problem is for her to get it, her husband has to meet up with some shady “friends”. That’s scary and not right. My daughter is a loving wife and mother of 2 wonderful children. If pot helps her to take the medicine she needs to stay out of a wheelchair and active with her family, I’ll fight anyone that tries to deny her. - taxmandan - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 3:58 pm: If anyone here thinks it’s only going to be cancer and AIDS type patients getting pot cards, then you’re a dope. Just look at what is happening in CA. For a fee a “doctor” will “prescribe” marijuana for anything from aches and pains to a headache. What does the state intend to do to prevent this scenerio? Come on, a pot club? - Vote Quimby! - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 4:27 pm: tax: and if you need any prescription drug out there, you can find a doctor to write you a scrip. Just ask Rush Limbauh and the many, many people who have taken prescription drugs without a prescription in their own name. - IrishPirate - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 4:32 pm: Taxmandan, if you want to use that argument then alcohol should be banned because some people abuse it. Let’s get rid of gasoline because some people use it to burn other people. My alcoholic dad used to take fistfuls of aspirin trying to get rid of his headaches. Gotta ban that also. Any reasonable person would agree that pot is less dangerous than alcohol. Hell even SOME unreasonable people would agree to that. If you don’t want to use pot, don’t. I don’t. If you don’t want to own a gun. Don’t. If you’re against gay marriage don’t get gay married. If you think premarital sex is wrong…….well you get the idea. Freedom is messy. Sometimes people may even do things you don’t agree with. Puritanism is the belief that somewhere someone is having fun…..and it has to be stopped. As for Pat Collins you stated “involves an oversight strategy comparable to an institutional review board process that could provide guidance within 24 hours of a submission by a physician to provide marijuana to a patient for a specified use.” Now that sounds to me that you want a review board to review every single MD prescription for pot. Perhaps I am misinterpreting your intent. Will some Docs abuse any medical marijuana law. Yep. Now if you will excuse me one of my drugs of choice awaits me. Caffeine. - Plutocrat03 - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 4:34 pm: So this thread is leaning toward decriminalization of pot, but as I recall this thread was in support of banning the use of a legal product - tobacco because it is stinky. Using that logic you want to legalize it before you ban it. I want to know who I can sue when someone on pot slams into me on the road. If it was alcohol, then I have a whole body of dram shop laws to fall back on. Since this is a new problem, I probably would include Mr. Lang and associates in a lawsuit. Regardless of the ‘controls’ in this bill, this will increase the supply of pot available to the general community. I have been in the Netherlands and have personally seen how their concept works. It does not. Why do we need to try old failed solutions. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 4:36 pm: I haven’t been insulted like this since - uh, well, not so very long ago. You people praise medicinal pot like others praise faith healers, homeopathic medicine, chiropractors and oatmeal. Some are so incensed that I would somehow question or deny that a loved one, a friend, a co-worker, an in-law, or a friend of a friend’s loved one’s co-worker’s in-law knew someone who was forced to use pot because modern medicine had utterly failed them. What does science say, folks? Is this bill being passed because of scientific evidence as determined by our proven national procedures, (the FDA), or is it just a political move to satisfy a need for a promised tax windfall? Who is this cure intended for? Sick people, or sick government? According to the FDA, there is no medical reasons to smoke marijuana for medicinal reasons. When our medicinal community can agree on how to use marijuana so that it can deliver a measured dosage of it’s pharaceutical properties to measurably alleviate a medical need - then we can start discussing how to medicate patients appropriately. Until then, this is just nonsense. Our governments regulate drugs. We pay them to do this because we have had thousands die over the centuries due to bad medicine. The FDA is doing it’s job as a watchdog dedicated to you, the citizen. We have seen what happens when our government watchdogs fall asleep, so why are so many of you hell-bent on ignoring what the FDA is saying about dope smoking? If you don’t have a problem with dope, then say it’s OK to smoke it. Try to have it decriminalized or legalized. But don’t play games, by claiming it is a necessary medicinal cure to some people. It is nonsense talk. Next, you’ll start claiming that crystal meth is a great diet aid for fat folks who no longer need their teeth. - Belle - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 4:41 pm: anyone else thinking bout cheetos and dingdongs? - IrishPirate - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 5:10 pm: Plutocrat and VanillaMan, the scientific evidence does support the medicinal use of weed. Now Bush’s FDA and Clinton’s FDA denied that for political reasons. Think of medicinal marijuana as the WMD’s of drug policy. Twist the truth to fit your ideology. Of course why let facts get in the way of your ideology. Search around for the non FDA tests. I need a beer. The opposition to this is like the Obama birth certificate controversy. No matter what proof is offered there will always be more “demands”. Where is the original typewriter the certificate was typed on? Why was it destroyed. As for failed policies I suggest you ask the Mexican government how much they like our “drug war”. It’s wonderful when we criminalize a public health issue and destabilize other governments because of it. - Vote Quimby! - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 5:24 pm: ==Next, you’ll start claiming that crystal meth is a great diet aid for fat folks who no longer need their teeth.== Nice distraction technique…stick to the subject! - Larry Mullholland - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 5:40 pm: VM ==But don’t play games, by claiming it is a necessary medicinal cure to some people. It is nonsense talk.== To be technical, medical care is not ‘necessary’. We use it to improve our lives. If MJ improves ones life without a burdon on the masses then legalize it. To those that say that it is not readily available right now have not looked for it. Make two phone calls to trusted friends and you will find it. It is not a gateway drug anymore than caffeine or nicotine. It should be available for medicinal purposes and hemp should be allowed to be grown for industrial purposes and at the very least, it should be decriminalzed to clear our jails and court backlogs. As to the FDA/DEA. I think they will soon back off Canabis under a silent directive from the White House. - wordslinger - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 6:41 pm: –Minus that’s its just a way to get pot. It doesn’t even seem to need a Rx, just a way to get pot– Pat Collins, I respect your opinion (unlike some I won’t mention), but I don’t understand what really bothers you about this. I’m 45 years old, and I’ve known where I could get pot since I was 14. No problem. Back in the day, I chose to get some at times. Now, I don’t. It’s my choice. But I tell you, I’ve been on the business end of recreational pot and recreational booze, and it’s really no comparison as to which is more dangerous to the individual or society. You’re worried about abuse of prescription pot? There’s not abuse of prescription Vic or, unlike pot, other addictive drugs? Come on. Folks who are in pain say a little herb helps. How does that bother you? And who the hell are we to deny it? - Toast Man - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 6:46 pm: VanMan - I don’t what to pile on you but “quack medicine?” I think not. Are you aware of how many drugs on the market today came from herbs and plants? A lot. Aspirin(acetylsalicylic acid) is derived from a species of the willow (Salicaceae salix) tree family. Taxol, a very common and useful breast cancer drug was derived from the Pacific yew, Taxus brevifolia. Before you disregard the usefulness of “natural” remedies you should research where many of today’s drugs came from. Unless you only want to use one of those rushed to market new meds that have extensive side effects, usually including death, in certain instances. - Cubs Fan - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 8:31 pm: ==What does science say, folks?== Ah, but you’re not talking about science. You’re talking about government chemists that are paid to support or form the government’s position. Facts are facts until they become part of a statistical report. Then they become propaganda. Pingback It’s All Starting to Make Sense « …in Downers Grove - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:19 pm: […] Well… Posted in Uncategorized. […] - wordslinger - Thursday, Mar 5, 09 @ 9:38 pm: ==I don’t think anyone’s pointed out here that the legislature voted to legalize it, and Thompson signed it, in 1978 because Rep. Joe Ebbesen’s roommate (another rep.) needed it as did a senator. == I was wondering about the background of that ‘78 law. Dr. Joe Ebbesen, O.D., was a Main Street conservative Republican rep and former mayor of DeKalb. When I was a kid, I used to work at a Wipe the Windows, Check the Oil, Dollar Gas station and took care or Mayor Joe’s Caddy. Great guy, salt of the earth, rock-ribbed conservative of the old school. A guy like that sponsored a medicinal marijuana law in 1978? My, how the GOP has progressed. - TaxMeMore - Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 2:23 am: Medical marijuana is good. People that want to lock other people in cages for using are bad. Its that simple. - Vote Quimby! - Friday, Mar 6, 09 @ 8:27 am: What are the odds it actually gets to a floor vote? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.