"Not Guilty" in Medical Marijuana Trial..

[RainDog]

9. I think it's more complicated than that

Last edited Tue Jun 12, 2012, 12:31 AM - Edit history (1)

There are big special interest groups that do not want their revenue streams interrupted.

The way to counter this, imo, is to note how racist the application of mj laws are across the nation - this case was not about stop and frisk policies, etc - though those policies wouldn't exist w/o the law as it is. Michelle Alexander has done a good job creating the case that these laws are The New Jim Crow. We already know, via the crack vs. coke sentencing issues, that racism is applied regularly regarding various drug laws. We need to appeal to the basic sense of justice that should exist, if it doesn't, among lawmakers - to see this policy in regard to its outcomes, not their fears.

They need to do a cost/benefit analysis about the outcomes for marijuana use vs. arrest and all the consequences that follow. I know one teenager whose life would've been forever changed if he had been busted in Hawaii for something so many others did, as well.

Taxpayers have to let the govt know that we do not want them to put tax money toward something that people view as a valid substitute or adjunct medicine for the treatment of things like epilepsy, MS, CP, side effects of chemotherapy and HIV drugs, migraines, neuropathy, rheumatoid arthritis... the self interests of Americans, in regard to their health, matters too.

But we live in a culture that has specific guidelines for medicines developed to do as little harm as possible. So that makes it possible to discard marijuana when it is already illegal. If it were not illegal and all these uses were known - it would be sold as an herb in a health food store and doctors could recommend it without the need for its categorization as "medicine."

We know various herbs are medicine - some aren't - sometimes ppl make outrageous claims - but some herbs do, in fact, have beneficial health effects and doctors can and do mention them to patients as an alternative - valerian root instead of valium, for instance.

...which gets to another special interest group that lobbies against change - those folks making the valium, not growing valerian in their yards, or stopping at the health good store for a cheaper, less overpowering version of something.

And then there's the alcoholic beverage industry. Medically, this one doesn't matter, but no doubt this group does not want to face legal competition for its product.

Powerful lobbying groups don't give up a fight easily.

In spite of that, however, public perception is changing - and some politicians are smart enough to make use of this - Cuomo recently, for instance - I think it's easier at the state level because state pols can gauge voter sentiment.

After enough state-level laws change - the federal govt just can't continue to justify its stance.

That's how prohibition ended, too.