Proposal 1

Prop 1 is the first of the two legislative proposals on this November’s ballot.  It basically asks the good citizens if legalizing medical marijuana is a good or bad thing for Michigan.  Surprisingly, I have neither seen nor heard any advertisements pro or con on this proposal; I suspect that will change shortly.  For the truth in advertising bit, I don’t smoke and may be the only person who lived through the 60s that didn’t try marijuana; had it not been illegal, I would definitely have given it a go and likely would try it now if it were legal.

Prop 1 reads in its entirety:

A LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO PERMIT THE USE AND CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA FOR SPECIFIED MEDICAL CONDITIONS

The proposed law would:
  * Permit physician approved use of marijuana by registered patients with debilitating medical conditions including cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, MS and other conditions as may be approved by the Department of Community Health.
  * Permit registered individuals to grow limited amounts of marijuana for qualifying patients in an enclosed, locked facility.
  * Require Department of Community Health to establish an identification card system for patients qualified to use marijuana and individuals qualified to grow marijuana.
  * Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana.

Clearly the implementing instructions and amendments to the Michigan Constitution would involve the “devil in the details,” but this certainly sounds reasonable.  It appears marijuana has some unique medicinal characteristics that relieve pain that is unattainable in other known drug treatments, even Marinol which is touted as the “medical marijuana.

The pros and cons of this are interesting, but seem to be shrouded more in the morality of smoking rather than the actual pain relief benefits of it. 

There are two distinct pro arguments.  Marijuana apparently has pain diminishing features unavailable elsewhere that give great aid to patients suffering from the dread diseases listed in the proposal as well as perhaps some others.  It would also decriminalize the use of marijuana for the people that are already suffering.

On the cons, there seem to be more emotional cons than anything based in reason as far as I can see.  There are a number of studies that say marijuana is no more effective than (say) Marinol in providing relief.  As far as I can tell, these studies were sponsored by the government which has a vested interest in not expanding drug use so I question their validity.  Another con is that it is very difficult to provide an accurate dose via a cigarette delivery system.  While this is likely true, I don’t see any major problem with being a little more or less pain free; another joint could always relieve remaining pain if needed.  The next postulated con is that smoking is inherently bad, regardless if the smoke contains marijuana or not.  This is ridiculous.  A person dying of AIDS or cancer should not have to worry about their lungs.  In fact, it is time the rules on another legal drug, nicotine, are relaxed and the “do-gooders” leave the straight smoking public alone.  As smoking is legal, private companies such as restaurants should be able to allow or not allow smoking without government interference.

The only significant con I’ve heard postulated is that illegal drug use will increase; I think it is naïve to believe that would not be the case.  Let’s look at it a bit closer though. 

Currently, cigarette smoking is legal.  There is fairly convincing proof that it is bad for one’s health, but it remains legal.  Also, alcohol, which provides a buzz analogous to marijuana, is legal.  Is it time for us to decriminalize marijuana totally, not just for medical purposes?  I recognize this is a fairly simplistic argument, but it certainly makes sense to me.  If someone has a good argument against legalizing marijuana, I’d certainly like to hear it.

I will vote yes on Prop 1.

Comments

[Aubrey Marron]

Timo,

I agree with most of what you say here. I have thought for many years that marijuana should be decriminalized. All the studies I've read that claim it is addictive or a gateway drug are from very dubious sources.

I would have to disagree about tobacco in public places, though. If you are in a room where someone is smoking marijuana, you don't get high. If you are in a room where someone is drinking alcohol, you don't get drunk. But if you are in a room where someone is smoking tobacco, you are smoking tobacco too. As someone who has lost too many people dear to me to lung cancer, I don't want to be in that room.

[Haggy]

Aubrey -

I would like to tackle the last part of your post since this has long been a pet-peeve of mine.

I am not a smoker myself and pretty much hate the smell of cigarettes. However - I think if a business owner wants to allow smoking then the government should have NO say in that at all.

If you do not want to have the smoke then do not go to that restaurant or bar. Let the market make the decision - not the government.

I still fail to see how it would be the government's business or responsibility to force a business owner to ban cigarettes when it is THEIR business and it is your choice to go to that venue where you could be affected by the smoke.

[Andrew Smith]

I will be voting Yes on Prop 1 as well. The government has no business in telling citizens what they can put in their bodies. If I want to shoot myself up with window cleaner everyday, I should be able to do that. It's no business of the government. I think a resolution which completely decriminalized marijuana would fail, much like I feel Barney Frank's bill to decriminalize pot on a national basis, if it ever sees the light of day, would also fail. There is far too little public support for that on a national scale, but in MI, I think Prop 1 has a good chance to pass.

As for smoking in public places, I fully agree with Haggy. This is an issue of property rights. If I can smoke in my own home because I own it and can set the rules there, then a business owner can set the rules for his own business and his land that he owns. Now, if he doesn't own his building or his space, and is merely renting, then his landlord would make the ultimate decision and would be wise to include some provision in their rental agreement to that effect. In every case, once again, it should not be left up to the government to decide. Certainly, there are some establishments that have chosen to go smoke-free, and there are others that have not. It's up to the individual to decide which way to go.

[Populista]

I agree with Andrew, the government has no business telling me what I can do with my body.