This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Should Cannabis be legalized as a medicine?
The rich biodiversity of plants in nature has provided humans many medicines to prevent and cure sickness and disease. The use of cannabis as a medicine continues to gain acceptance within the scientific and medical community, with Connecticut early this month joining 16 other states to legalize it for medical use. Case studies continue to support the value of cannabis as a medicine to ameliorate various ailments ranging from glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, Parkinson's, chronic pain, and nausea associated with cancer.
Despite scientific evidence supporting medicinal qualities from cannabis, much controversy surrounds outright legalization for medicinal use. While many states currently allow cannabis as an alternative to traditional medicines, the FDA continues to classify cannabis as a schedule I drug subjecting patients to possible fines and/or imprisonment under federal law.
Can cannabis find a place in today's society as an alternative medicine, or are possible unforeseen consequences too great to allow this plant for medicinal use?
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.














Robert Winner 50+
Nope can not see this as a good thing. Drugs, illegals and criminals are the most expensive cost that burden the workers today. Making it legal will not change the crime rate. It will increase the danger it represents to the public.
Okay I'm braced for the responses. I have been in police work most of my life and have seen this first hand. Hope it never come to your house or your loved ones. All the best. Bob.
Patrick Mazi
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but your assertions are simply opinions. One cannot definitively say, "If cannabis is legalized for medical use, then crime will... insurance will... etc." Saying you know what will happen is nonsense. In fact, a 5 min GoogleScholar search will provide peer reviewed studies that make claims completely opposite of your assertions.
Medically speaking, the THC drug you mention is called Marinol. Though it has helped many patients manage various diseases, anecdotal evidence supports the view that it is not as effective as when THC is ingested via cannabis. Furthermore, the drug is costly and many insurance providers will not cover the cost of the prescription. If you had to watch a loved one whither away due to complications of a disease that could be eased with cannabis, I believe making your stance would be softened if not swayed.
Lastly, in response for your association of the legalization movement and the "welfare generation," I would like to direct you to a recent NY Times op-ed. This editorial was penned by a NY State Supreme Court Justice. Since you are formerly in law enforcement, perhaps the opinion of an individual who 1) is not of the welfare generation and 2) has dedicated their life to upholding the laws of our country as you have may soften your opinions. Here is the web address:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/opinion/a-judges-plea-for-medical-marijuana.html?_r=2&ref=opinion
Bob, thank you for your service as a police officer. I hope that you continue to consume additional information concerning this subject matter and come to a more defensible, less inflammatory opinion (even if you still disagree with legalization). Disagreement is okay; shooting from the hip on a sensitive issue is less so.
Robert Winner 50+
Patrick Mazi
Sure there are many op-eds to be had, but there is only one NY Times and I would venture a guess it is crazy difficult to get your essay published there. Dime a dozen in the NY Times, I think not.
Oncology is a medical specialty that deals with cancer and cancer treatment. Sure oncologists deal with minimizing pain, but so do orthopedic surgeons, cardiologists, and ophthalmologists. So discounting the need for cannabis based on the fact there are oncologists isn't the best argument one could make.
Again, I urge you to research this issue. Having worked in a level one trauma hospital, I can say I have never seen anyone come in due to the ill effects of marijuana. As for the PD suggestion, I have been on two ride-a-longs. My college roommates (3) all now work as police officers in municipalities around Kansas City. I have my bases covered and come to my conclusion on this issue.
I applaud your disagreement and am encouraged you care enough to reply to my post. I am not trying to dissuade you from your opinion, just hoping you will continue your research and come to a more reasoned defense of your position (it is a very valid position on this issue).
Georgia Kurtz
Secondly, THC in pill form is available but the argument against this would be that act of taking marijuana in as a whole (either smoked or oils heated and ate etc) has synergistic effects that cannot be reproduced by simply using one component of marijuana.
Finally, it is hard for me to see crime rates increasing due to marijuana use, marijuana is omnipresent and the structures to abuse, such as gardens, drug dealers, etc are already in place and are not being abused at any unusual rate. I know many marijuana "users" from every walk of life, including line cooks and 6 figure professionals and none of them prey on others. I think the idea that marijuana makes people criminals is the same ideas as cake making someone fat. Some people are predisposed to criminal activity due to genetics and environment, marijuana does not make someone a criminal. Some people are predisposed to over-consuming cake because of genetics and environment and this makes them fat, the cake doesn't make them fat.
Peace
Allison Walter
Robert Winner 50+
Mike Robinson
Then again, in America where over 3% of the population is in jail or on probation, the business model of incarceration demands tenants....