New York lawmakers are expected to pass a medical marijuana bill, permitting use of the substance for critically ill patients. The Assembly is expected to approve the bill and it is anticipated the Senate will be of the same mind.
Gov. Eliot Spitzer has recently shocked many of his supporters by coming out in support of the legislation. As the former attorney general, Spitzer staunchly disapproved of medical marijuana during the gubernatorial race. However, Spitzer has recently admitted that his stance has since softened after better researching the drug and its potential benefits to the terminally ill.
Twelve states currently approve medicinal marijuana as an anti-emetic - a drug to relieve vomiting, nausea and anorexia caused by severe illness. The drug is commonly used to alleviate the pain and suffering of patients suffering from cancer, AIDS, hepatitis, multiple sclerosis and skeletal disorders.
The bill would permit the possession of 2.5 ounces of marijuana and up to 12 plants to certified patients.
Critics argue that legalizing medical marijuana would make the drug too accessible, promoting recreational use. But I think it's important to consider that marijuana is a crop that grows naturally in the wild and can easily be attained and reproduced. Prohibition forces patients to attain the drug illegally, driving up the cost and improving the underground market.
But drugs purchased off the street could be tainted with other drugs or hybrid, causing more harm to individuals already suffering. Prescription marijuana is safer as it is produced in a lab by medical professionals. By that rationale, enabling doctors to prescribe the drug helps control illegitimate sale and use.
In states where medical marijuana is approved, research indicates that most doctors have reserved prescription to patients whose conditions are considered incurable. To tell an individual who is terminally ill that marijuana is addictive and poses a threat to the human respiratory system seems moot.
And for those who might accuse Spitzer of being a “flip-flopper,” public officials often waste time debating issues when party loyalties prevent either side from bending to compromise. I applaud the governor for being open enough to change his views on the matter.
In the meantime, the Supreme Court and the state courts have historically disagreed as to whether or not the federal government can block such laws. Although the states have reasserted their rights, it will be interesting to see how the issue plays out as the medical marijuana movement gains momentum.
Carole Estabrook's Column appears Mondays in The Citizen and she can be reached at estabrookcarole@yahoo.com
Twelve states currently approve medicinal marijuana as an anti-emetic - a drug to relieve vomiting, nausea and anorexia caused by severe illness. The drug is commonly used to alleviate the pain and suffering of patients suffering from cancer, AIDS, hepatitis, multiple sclerosis and skeletal disorders.
The bill would permit the possession of 2.5 ounces of marijuana and up to 12 plants to certified patients.
Critics argue that legalizing medical marijuana would make the drug too accessible, promoting recreational use. But I think it's important to consider that marijuana is a crop that grows naturally in the wild and can easily be attained and reproduced. Prohibition forces patients to attain the drug illegally, driving up the cost and improving the underground market.
But drugs purchased off the street could be tainted with other drugs or hybrid, causing more harm to individuals already suffering. Prescription marijuana is safer as it is produced in a lab by medical professionals. By that rationale, enabling doctors to prescribe the drug helps control illegitimate sale and use.
In states where medical marijuana is approved, research indicates that most doctors have reserved prescription to patients whose conditions are considered incurable. To tell an individual who is terminally ill that marijuana is addictive and poses a threat to the human respiratory system seems moot.
And for those who might accuse Spitzer of being a “flip-flopper,” public officials often waste time debating issues when party loyalties prevent either side from bending to compromise. I applaud the governor for being open enough to change his views on the matter.
In the meantime, the Supreme Court and the state courts have historically disagreed as to whether or not the federal government can block such laws. Although the states have reasserted their rights, it will be interesting to see how the issue plays out as the medical marijuana movement gains momentum.
Carole Estabrook's Column appears Mondays in The Citizen and she can be reached at estabrookcarole@yahoo.com
The Citizens' Say
There are 1 comment(s)
brew1234 wrote on Jun 23, 2007 10:09 AM: