Consistency
In amongst the other dubious offerings that came out of St. Paul this week was a medical marijauna bill. This is not the first time that a medical marijuana bill has been introduced in the Senate, but it is the first time that it has been introduced with a DFL majority in both Houses.
Now this is an issue that I am torn on. On one hand, I fully understand that marijuana is a habit forming substance that can possibly lead to other drug use (although I'm not sure about the science behind that). On the other though you have people who are seriously ill - people with AIDS, cancer and other mostly fatal illnesses. These folks are probably not going to be getting behind the wheel of a car, so the worry of impaired driving would not be an issue. I honestly could be convinced that there is a medical use for marijuana. I mean there is a medical use for opium and heroin after all.
What I won't be convinced of, is the state government deciding who is a "qualifed patient". If a doctor decides that a patient would benefit from the use of medical marijuana, it should be the doctor's (and the patient's) decision. In the words of the abortion rights crowd (to which the authors of this legislation belong) what business does the government have getting between a doctor and a patient in deciding the best course of health treatment for the patient!
If they were really for patient privacy, they would apply the same rules that they apply to abortion (zero government intervention) with medicinal marijuana. Is a little consistency too much to ask?
Now this is an issue that I am torn on. On one hand, I fully understand that marijuana is a habit forming substance that can possibly lead to other drug use (although I'm not sure about the science behind that). On the other though you have people who are seriously ill - people with AIDS, cancer and other mostly fatal illnesses. These folks are probably not going to be getting behind the wheel of a car, so the worry of impaired driving would not be an issue. I honestly could be convinced that there is a medical use for marijuana. I mean there is a medical use for opium and heroin after all.
What I won't be convinced of, is the state government deciding who is a "qualifed patient". If a doctor decides that a patient would benefit from the use of medical marijuana, it should be the doctor's (and the patient's) decision. In the words of the abortion rights crowd (to which the authors of this legislation belong) what business does the government have getting between a doctor and a patient in deciding the best course of health treatment for the patient!
If they were really for patient privacy, they would apply the same rules that they apply to abortion (zero government intervention) with medicinal marijuana. Is a little consistency too much to ask?
Labels: Nanny Government
posted by The Lady Logician at
4:52 PM
6 Comments:
We are all so fucking happy that you've never ever ever had anyone in your family sick from a chronic disease. How wonderful for you and yours.
But when that winning streak ends, we certainly hope that your vomitus, pain-ridden, incapacitated relatives who are beyond the reach of current medicine don't land at your judgmental door for help.
Or maybe we do. Then maybe you can go on for hours lecturing them about how torn you are about the simple substance that can grant them relief. About how you, and you alone - not them and certainly not some state agency staffed by expert physicians - "might be convinced" that they need care. The "patient privacy" you espouse for some people (but not those equipped with vaginas, I guess) is exactly what the bill is about, but it simply does not exist for those needing medical marijuana, so you're soooooo sorry for their fate.
I'll bet that will make them feel so comforted.
Consistency = letting doctors and patients decide. That's not available for those who need medical marijuana, and we're well on the way to making that unavailable to all women, thanks to the likes of you.
And don't go telling me that "socialized medicine" isn't the answer -- ever try to get an MRI for a bleeding head out of Medica this month? What about that blood pressure medicine? How about that borken arm they don't believe you have?
By
Anonymous, at 7:24 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
The Lady Logician, at 9:07 PM
Anonymous....dear you really need to read rather than assume. I said that I am open minded about the necessity of medical marijuana and that the excuses for NOT allowing it are bogus ones. Personally I would allow medical marijuana especially for cancer and aids patients. I've seen what chemo has done to people.
What I said was that I was against the government getting between a doctor and patient in determining a course of treatment...a argument that is used every day to justify abortion.
Maybe you should try being just a little more open minded to the other side instead of just jumping in half cocked with a response full of assumptions. It would certainly serve you better than this last comment.
LL
By
The Lady Logician, at 8:44 AM
I will say you do have a point about Medica. Having said that do you want to give everyone the same kind of care that patients get out of Medica? Or would you rather have a system where those who are sick can see a doctor and get the treatment that they need when they are sick?
LL
By
The Lady Logician, at 8:47 AM
Sorry, but there is no point in attempting a rational response to such profanity-laced ranting.
J. Ewing
By
Anonymous, at 4:11 PM
I understand JE....however, that is the only way some people know how to engage in dialog. They seem to think that the more profanity and the more ire they throw into communication to more "impassioned" they sound. While they do sound "impassioned" they do not necessarily sound more compassionate, intelligent open-minded or informed.
LL
By
The Lady Logician, at 5:12 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home