Marijuana and Amendment 2

“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” (John 7:24).

In the November election, 2014, residents of Florida will be called upon to vote on medical marijuana for this state. The Orlando Sentinel gave on September 26, 2014, a page-long column to those both for and against Amendment 2. Ben Pollara encouraged readers to vote in favor of the amendment, saying it would be heartless to deny those who need marijuana, which serves as medicine for numerous ills (just about anything, actually). Is it true that marijuana does help some conditions? Yes. Is this amendment only about helping those folks? No. It is about opening the door to increased marijuana usage.

Some individuals do actually benefit from some marijuana, and it is cheaper to buy than various drugs that “Big Pharma” produces and makes available. So why not have compassion on those who do not have the money to pay large sums of money for costly prescriptions and just legalize it for those suffering with certain health problems? If that could be accomplished in a way that would not advance marijuana usage among the general population, many of us would vote for it. Alcohol and morphine are used to relieve pain; why not use marijuana for the same purpose?

Madelyn Butler wrote the opposing position in extremely fine fashion. She begins thus:

The relationship between a doctor and a patient is a sacred trust and a legal bond. One of the most common treatments that doctors provide to patients is to prescribe medications. When writing a prescription, the doctor stipulates a specific medication, precise doses, how often and when it is taken, and for how long. Your doctor and pharmacist review every medication you are taking to protect you from adverse drug interactions. The entire process of testing, approving, manufacturing, prescribing and selling prescription medications is carefully regulated (A16).

Under Amendment 2, none of these safeguards are in place. All that would be needed to obtain “medical marijuana” is a “recommendation” from a “licensed physician.” Probably, as it has occurred in other places (such as San Francisco), so would it be here: Marijuana would be prescribed for just about anything, including “trouble sleeping” (lawyers admit that this is not an exaggeration). As Madelyn Butler put it:

And you wouldn’t be getting marijuana through a reputable doctor’s office. Like other states with these sham laws, people who want to smoke pot will visit a “pot doc”—someone of the same ethical ilk as the “pill-mill docs” that we’ve worked so hard to drive out of Florida.

Motives

The advocates for legalization say that opponents are simply using scare tactics to talk voters out of passing the amendment, which “establishes the right of seriously ill Floridians to use medical marijuana if their doctor recommends it” (A16). Okay. So those opposed to the amendment want seriously ill people to remain seriously ill? Really? Is this the best argument for voting in favor of Amendment 2? Such is absurd on the face of it, and it ignores what has happened in other locales where the ill were used as a pretext for the camel to get his nose under the tent.

Pollara also argues that opponents of the amendment have suggested that legalizing medical marijuana could lead to date rape. Probably very few have used such an argument, but it is no worse than blanketing all opponents as heartless. Pollara insists that “the social ills predicted by hysterical opponents have simply failed to materialize.” Has the man never heard of the city of San Francisco? Type in the city and “marijuana” on the Internet. Medical Marijuana cards are available for $10. You can find a “weed” map where pot is sold.

There are no problems with legalization. No kidding? What world does Pollara live in? Why, in the world of Mary Jane, everything is apparently wonderful. The crime rate is down, suicide is down (never mind the evidence to the contrary), teenagers are using less marijuana. Isn’t it marvelous? One cannot help but wonder if the one making this case was not high on something when he wrote it?

He does not deal with the fact that marijuana is several times more potent than it was forty years ago or that it is particularly devastating to young people. Just as marijuana is a gateway drug, so the “medical Marijuana” gambit is a gateway to having as many people smoking pot as have the desire.

No Accountability

According to Madelyn Butler, if someone is harmed or killed while using marijuana, the person who “prescribed” it to them cannot be held accountable. She writes that John Morgan,

the trial lawyer bankrolling Amendment 2, runs ads for his law firm “seeking justice,” “for the people,” as he says—but under his amendment, marijuana would become the only drug for which those who recommend, sell or use it couldn’t be sued or arrested if something goes terribly wrong.

Does not this “blanket immunity” make marijuana a drug of privilege? How about that? It goes from illegal to a status of privilege in only one election. The fact is that legalizing marijuana will be as detrimental to Florida as it has been to any other state. People will be amazed at how many citizens are suddenly “helped” by smoking it—“for medicinal reasons,” of course.

Marijuana is not difficult to obtain now, let alone if it is legalized for any reason. This writer knows of an individual who is already using marijuana for a legitimate medical purpose. He has no trouble obtaining the substance, and probably neither does anyone else. If pot is that easy to obtain while it remains illegal, what will happen if the voters decide to approve this amendment? The answer is obvious. It will be available to an even wider base of users, and (not surprisingly) much more of it will be grown here or imported from a nearby state.

Only one clear choice presents itself in voting on Amendment 2: “Should we vote to expand the number of users of marijuana in Florida?” A “yes” vote will most assuredly accomplish that goal. A “no” vote will not eradicate marijuana use; the buying and selling of it illegally will continue to be done. Chances are that those who need the drug for health reasons are already getting it. Society does not need another element of corruption. No one is employing scare tactics in recounting what will happen. They have just examined what has happened elsewhere and are simply acknowledging reality.