In the US House, Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon introduced a modest amendment to help veterans discuss medical marijuana with their doctors. As the Washington Post’s Colby Itkowitz puts it, “The amendment would free veterans in the 21 states and Washington, D.C., where medical marijuana is legal to consult with their [Veterans Administration] doctors about using it to treat, among other things, their post-traumatic stress disorder.”
Although 22 Republicans voted Yes, a majority of 204 Republicans voting No defeated the amendment this week, accompanied by some twisted logic from anti-amendment voters in both parties. 173 Democrats voted Yes. Sadly, two of Massachusetts’ representatives — Joseph Kennedy III and Bill Keating — were among the only 18 Democrats to vote No. In fact, they were the only congressmen in all of New England to do so.
Having already voted to decriminalize small amounts of pot in 2008, majorities in almost every town in Massachusetts voted to legalize medical marijuana in 2012. Any Mass. congressman who votes against medical marijuana is rejecting his own constituents’ wishes.
Even some conservatives are doing better than that. This week, Florida’s Republican legislature passed a moderate medical marijuana bill, and no less than Tea Party favorite Gov. Rick Scott vowed to sign it. Other conservative support for moderate medical pot has come from the Alabama legislature and Pennsylvania’s Republican governor Tom Corbett.
(In Kennedy’s case, it’s additionally ironic to note that he’s the successor to Barney Frank, a renowned leader in early Congressional efforts to legalize marijuana.)
Let’s send out a thank you to Mike Capuano, Niki Tsongas, James McGovern, Stephen Lynch, Katherine Clark, Richard Neal, and John Tierney for their Yes votes. Our state is one of those 21 states this amendment would’ve covered. Its passage would’ve been a great help to Massachusetts veterans.
By contrast, Bill Keating and Joseph Kennedy III let down our veterans.
And they are standing on the wrong side of history. We have reached a point where not only has medical marijuana won a consensus, but society is moving closer to full legalization of pot. We must have more from Massachusetts’ politicians than outdated opposition.
Unless we want Rick Scott to take all the credit…
Christopher says
I haven’t heard much in terms of the AMA’s views on this or other actual experts. I am very uncomfortable with this being the latest ideology test du jour of the progressive side of politics and I’m not ready to concede right vs. wrong side of history yet.
theloquaciousliberal says
The AMA continues to oppose both marijuana legalization and medical marijuana: http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AMA/43043
Which is why those who join me in supporting outright legalization, in my opinion, are not particularly well-served in putting all their eggs in the “medical marijuana” basket. The medical/scientific evidence that marijuana is an effective “medicine” is mixed at best and there’s certainly no consensus that it is the best and only alternative in most cases.
BUT, this is (or at least ought to be) beside the point for those of us who support legalization. Whether marijuana possession and use should be a crime is a *legal* matter. In 1917, the AMA also strongly supported Prohibition stating that alcohol’s “…use in therapeutics as a tonic or stimulant or for food has no scientific value…”. Some doctor’s disagreed and continue to prescribe it’s use even throughout prohibition. Just like alcohol, the use of marijuana as “medicine” is opposed by the AMA itself even as some doctor’s support it’s use.
That’s why we should turn to the real *legal* experts for their opinion about the *legalization* of marijuana. While many remain reluctant to make legalization a priority these days, the following true *legal* expert organizations support legalization:
– The American Bar Association
– The National Lawyers Guild
– The American Civil Liberties Union
Lawyers are the real expert here. Not doctors.
JimC says
n/t
Bryan says
Honestly, the AMA is as political as any organization. At their last meeting the California delegation wanted language supporting marijuana, the body as a whole rejected that proposal. Sound familiar?
In my opinion, it’s about the patients. Some of them say marijuana is the only thing that makes them feel better. To me it’s that simple.
roarkarchitect says
In some cases I believe too strict – especially when it comes to drugs that help people with terminal diseases. Some cancer drugs approved in the 1960’s that are very effective and are grandfathered in – but would not get approved now.
I just don’t see the case for “medical marijuana” – and personally – I couldn’t think of anything worse than smoking a joint when you are extremely ill.
llp33 says
you might think differently.
roarkarchitect says
just recently – way too familiar with toxic and anti-nausea drugs.
I’ve got not a problem with people smoking pot – but it’s not a medical drug.
mimolette says
One of the difficulties with medicine is that not all people respond alike to all drugs. There are people for whom marijuana (or some strains, at least) is an effective anti-nausea agent when nothing else works. That doesn’t mean that it will be effective for any individual patient — any more than the studies done that demonstrate the effectiveness of the newer anti-nausea meds to come on line mean that any one of them will be effective for any individual patient. Sometimes they’re not, either.
The point with medical marijuana is to make it available to the people it can help. That doesn’t have to be every prospective patient for the endeavor to be worthwhile.
roarkarchitect says
or we should make the FDA less strict – why just single out marijuana.
mimolette says
The FDA has just fast-tracked a couple of marijuana-derivative-based meds: one that’s intended for seizures and one that seems promising w/r/t pain associated with cancer.
But we need to recognize that FDA trials are extraordinarily expensive, and those costs are only worth it for private parties if they have some hope of emerging from the process with something that can be patented. Meanwhile, we’re talking about a plant that contains a good many compounds, in different proportions, and it’s not necessarily clear to anyone which are or might be effective, in what combinations. What is already well known to professionals working with cancer patients is that it isn’t necessarily the best approach to isolate one compound and purify it: marinol is FDA approved and prescribed, but the medical people on the front lines will generally tell you that it doesn’t work as well as marijuana itself does, even for patients it helps.
So to me, it comes down to a question of why we should maintain an absolute prohibition on a substance that doesn’t appear to do much genuine harm, is difficult to prohibit anyway, and appears to be medically effective for at least some patients with otherwise-intractable conditions. Moral panic isn’t helpful to anyone, and moral panic seems to be at the bottom of almost all the objections I see.
sue-kennedy says
given to a large number of seniors, children and other institutionalized populations against their will as a chemical restraint.
The damage caused by long term use of these chemical restraints can be severe, dehumanizing, and can be permanant.
Although illegal or severely restricted in many countries, the pharmaceutical lobby has had great success here in the US.
If big pharma could make money from marijuana it would be legal.
Christopher says
I’m sorry, but the vast majority of patients are not themselves medical experts. I don’t want to make something legal just because patients say it makes them feel better. In fact, those patients are probably in the worst position to objectively judge whether something is good for them on balance.
roarkarchitect says
There should be a medical underlining reason for the drug – but the Doctor is only their to assist you.
Frankly this holds true with all medical care – as an individual or as a family – you need to make medical decisions with your doctor. Do not assume all doctors are correct or even competent.
Christopher says
They don’t know if something is safe. Harder drugs can make you feel better too – it’s called getting a high. Doesn’t make it safe. Getting a second opinion is one thing, but my doctor has a medical degree and I don’t so I’ll take his judgement over mine anyday.
kirth says
I had a-fib. The cardiologist kept telling me that I was going to need a pacemaker, and had me on Coumadin. He never mentioned catheter ablation, a procedure that cures the condition in a high percentage of cases. I had to find out about it on my own. This was not as simple as getting a second opinion; another cardiologist was just the same. Once I did find out about it and asked, the cardiologist set me up with a surgeon who did it, and I have been symptom-free for several years. The damning point is that the cardiologist studied with the surgeon, and had to have known about the procedure. The second cardio doc said he’d heard of it, after I asked. They made a lot more money off of me when I was taking the rat poison, though. Talk about dangerous drugs!
Trusting your doctor unquestioningly can be hazardous to your health.
roarkarchitect says
a-fib runs in my family – our doctor presented the choices – and we took ablation – not being on drugs for the rest of your life is great. While I might complain about the cost of medicine – procedures like this while very expensive – I believe 20K+ are such an improvement in your life – that it is well worth it.
I don’t think your other doctor would make any money selling Coumadin – but maybe he/she had a personal reason for not recommending ablation. It is a risky procedure.
kirth says
The risk is pretty low:
It’s hard to imagine (and difficult to discover) that the risks of a medicine cocktail that includes rat poison are less than the risks of ablation. Certainly, the side-effects are much greater for the medicines, and the cure rate of 0% does not compare favorably with the 90% cure rate of ablation.
The doctor didn’t profit directly from selling me Coumadin, but there sure were a lot of office visits and tests. As long as I still had the condition and was still taking the meds, I was a steady source of income. A pacemaker would have been even better, from his point of view.
The whole experience has got me examining all my doctors’ advice for possible profit motive. I think everyone should.
kirth says
Anyone considering ablation should find a doctor who’s done a bunch of them. The rate of complications is much higher when the surgeon is just starting to do the procedure. After even a few, the risk drops precipitously.
It’s surgery, but not the big-incision, expose-your-innards kind, and you can usually go home the same day or the next day.
roarkarchitect says
Don’t hire your brother-in-law trial attorney – to handle your patent application.
The results from ablation are great – but there is a very low risk factor – but the risks are very serious.
Christopher says
…we need to take money out of the equation. Doctors should not be recommending based on cost, but only on what is best for your health. You do need to be your own advocate and it sounds like in this case your doctor was willing to acknowledge another option once you brought it up. I should circle back to the original post since I reacted to the legalization issue. I do think doctors should have a right to discuss all viable and legal options with their patients. Otherwise its just as bad as legislation that tries to prevent doctors from honestly discussing reproductive options. I did note your other comment with what look like credible organizations favoring legalization and those are the ones I would consult if I were in a position to have to make a public policy decision on this.
(Given the context of doctors not being forthcoming, I had to read your comment above thrice before I realized that “a-fib” referred to a medical condition and not “a fib” as in “a lie” – oops!)
HR's Kevin says
If a doctor has a choice between an expensive medicine that may cost the patient thousands of dollars and one that is cheap but slightly less effective, why shouldn’t that be a consideration?
I don’t see why doctor’s should not be able to consider any factor that may be in the patient’s interest.
kirth says
And to the point of my own case, the doctor should have considered the expense of a program of maintenance drugs requiring constant monitoring and leading eventually to an implanted electronic device also requiring maintenance, monitoring, and drugs. He should have compared that to the one-time cost of a fairly minor surgical procedure curing the condition, which procedure he was well aware of. His comparison appears to be biased toward maximizing his income, as opposed to achieving the best health outcome or minimizing my expense.
Had I taken Christopher’s original position, and accepted the doctor’s recommendations without question, I would today still be taking rat poison and other meds (which constituted a hazard to my liver even when dosed properly) – or maybe I would have a device implanted in my chest that made me vulnerable to malicious hackers.
Christopher says
The doctor should give information about the options, including safety, effectiveness, and cost. I thought the previous comment referred to the doctor taking into account costs to the doctor.
roarkarchitect says
Kennedy was correct (which is hard thing for me to say) We need to stop playing that marijuana is some sort of wonder drug. It is a recreational drug with minimal side effects and should be legal. I’m sorry I voted for the Medical Marijuana law in Massachusetts – it’s become a classic case of crony capitalism. Ex-DA runs a “dispensary”- just sad.
A secondary issue – is the very strict requires for getting opiates in Massachusetts – some patients can only take one or two types of pain killers – and the regulations can mean – you can’t get them for days.
pogo says
..and you call that very strict?
roarkarchitect says
Takes days.
And I would say ever member of my family has a prescription in the past 2 years for an opiate – from wisdom teeth to broken bones.
pogo says
…explains why the state and the US has a skyrocketing fatal opiate epidemic. Whatever happen to end-of-life and chronic pain for opiates. There are many effective non-opiate alternatives for short term pain needs like wisdom teeth/broken bones.
Also confused about your headline regarding getting morphine. As dangerous as the new generation of opiates are, their time-released nature provides long-term (12 hours) relief without the dopiness. Both my parents had end of life pain issues…my mom in the 1980s and they gave her morphine and my dad 10 years ago and he took oxcy. My mom was in a fog the last 3 weeks of her life and my dad’s quality of life in the end was 1000 times better.
roarkarchitect says
Doctors have a very hard time prescribing opiates, even for terminal patients – and they are very useful in lots of situations. Abuse is scary – but you have to take the good with the bad. I don’t know about you – but having recently broken a bone – Tylenol wasn’t going to kill the pain at all.
pogo says
…but seeing a 400 % increase in opiate deaths in the last decade is a completely different story. Your claims about the difficulty of getting opiates are not supported by the fact that 40% of MA residents have been prescribed benefits. You claim doctors have a hard time prescribing them for end of life situations, yet you got them for a broken bone. This does not add up. Seems like your heavy on the hyperbole and light on the facts.
HR's Kevin says
The regulations for prescribing opiates are meant to be strict. You have to have a separate license from the FDA and they do actively try to identify doctors who prescribe narcotics inappropriately. Most doctors will not prescribe narcotics without seeing you in person and you typically have to have an actual paper prescription that you have to hand-carry to the pharmacy.
Having said, that some doctors do tend to be overgenerous with prescribing pain pills. Every time I have gotten surgery, I ended up going home with 40 or so percosets, which end up getting thrown away. Anyone who has had any kind of major or minor surgery is probably going to get some variety of narcotic. There is no question that there are too many excess pain pills floating around.
Christopher says
Or polling individual doctors. This sounds like a kneejerk anti-expertise attitude that I usually associate with the right. Safety should be a key factor in this decision and I for one would like to hear from people who actually know what they are talking about. What ulterior motive would doctors have to keep it illegal if its benefits outweigh the risks?
kirth says
NORML has a long list of “Health Organizations Supporting Immediate Legal Access to Medical Marijuana.”
SomervilleTom says
The recreational use of marijuana is among the most benign of the vices that folks may acquire in the course of their pursuit of happiness.
I’m struck by the contrast of your antipathy towards this relatively harmless diversion with your often-professed disinterest in government-sponsored gambling.
The negative impact of gambling, especially on our least affluent population, absolutely dwarfs whatever risks are associated with marijuana — not to mention tobacco and alcohol.
The motivation for the prohibition of marijuana had everything to do with simple economics (rope manufacturers seeking to make their competition — hemp — illegal). Whatever “evidence” of harm from marijuana has been mostly after-the-fact rationalization of the absurdly draconian and indefensible regulations against it.
An overwhelming portion of the claimed “consequences”, to both individuals and society, of marijuana use is a direct result of its illegal status. A party of ten or twelve college kids getting stoned is far less likely to create issues for themselves or their neighbors than that same party getting sh**-faced drunk. Stoned kids don’t throw themselves or household objects out of windows — drunken kids do so with great regularity.
The impact among young people is especially dramatic. In the time after marijuana use became common among the young (during the late 1960s), MANY more lives have been taken by out-of-control adolescent drunk drivers than by stoned kids. A drunk driver tends to drive faster; a stoned driver tends to drive slower.
Other than an essentially religious objection to people getting high, I see no rationale for the surprising contrast between your apathy towards gambling and your antipathy towards legalized marijuana.
roarkarchitect says
Legalize it – but not for medical use – and can the stupid dispensaries.
I got a big laugh about a new bus service in Colorado – that lets you smoke pot on the way to go skiing/riding – I can just imagine them getting off the top of the lift and skiing down the mountain at 1mph. I also find it scary that people do the same thing while drinking – with no doubt the opposite results.
HR's Kevin says
Then those who want it for some medical use can go ahead, just like they can for any other herbal remedy.
Christopher says
A drug that puts your physical health at risk and possibly the health and safety of others, compared to a form of entertainment – no contest in my mind! I’d much rather be in the company of someone gambling than someone smoking. Do you think I care what products are used to make rope? There is all kinds of evidence of what it does to your body and brain, and my objections to getting high are entirely medical, not religious (which interestingly seems to be your go-to projected rationalization for my views – what’s up with that?)
Speaking of the 60s I have to say that often seems like the decade you are stuck in. Whether it’s your views on drugs, sexual liberation, government overreach, or civil rights progress so much of what you write here seems to be very much out of the 1960s.
kirth says
You keep saying things like this. Please provide some evidence that marijuana is harmful, from sources other than the narco-enforcement complex.
SomervilleTom says
“puts your physical health at risk”?
“possibly the health and safety of others”?
There is precious little medical research on marijuana, especially in comparison to the multitude of other legal substances we can purchase in any CVS. Please cite the sources for your “all kinds of evidence of what it does to your body and brain”.
If your objections really are “entirely medical”, then you surely will have no trouble dropping those objections when their medical basis is shown to be non-existent.
While I appreciate your feedback, the comparison between the behavior of stoned and drunk teenagers remains unchanged by my particular attitudes. The very real risk of danger from drunk drivers is enormously higher than the risk from stoned drivers.
Christopher says
I’m usually the one called out for this, but Google was very quick here. I wasn’t even finished typing the word “marijuana” in the search bar before the autocomplete came up with the only option “marijuana’s effects on the brain” and there is plenty of information on the brain and for that matter other organs. It is a combination of factors for me. In an age when smoking tobacco is becoming more and more restricted and rightfully so it blows my mind we want to loosen restrictions on smoking something else. I am open to medical use and decriminalization, as well as rescheduling at the federal level to give states more flexibility, but to tell people affirmatively it’s OK to intake a drug just ’cause is the wrong message and I have yet to hear a compelling reason to do it, and no, tax potential doesn’t cut it. If all you’re left with is libertarian arguments there’s a lot of harder stuff you might as well legalize too and I for one do not want to live in such a society.
SomervilleTom says
If you read the hits you found (ignoring Fox news), I think you’ll find that the evidence of long-term harm is at worst mixed. Yes, like any other intoxicant, marijuana should be restricted to some minimum age like 18 or 21.
I’m no libertarian, but the phrase “pursuit of happiness” was not randomly inserted in the Declaration of Independence. In my view, burden of proof is on government to demonstrate that a particular intoxicant is harmful — the government has failed that standard with marijuana.
When I characterized your opposition as “religious”, I didn’t mean in a literal sense. I meant, instead, that it appears you are relying on your own internal belief system. It appears that you believe that being intoxicated is “wrong” somehow — not just for you, but for anyone.
I don’t think I’m making a “libertarian” argument when I suggest that government regulation should meet a higher standard than that. I think it has more to do with “republicanism” (with a small “r”). In a republic, we start free. We then delegate to government certain power that we explicitly choose to transfer.
My argument is that the original grounds for delegating the control of marijuana use were utterly inappropriate (it was originally prohibited to protect the business interests of rope manufacturers from help suppliers). It was arbitrarily and incorrectly classified in a way that legally prohibited ALL medical research, and so for decades zero research was done about its effects.
In spite of its illegality, it has been widely used by large segments of the population for more than four decades, and there has NOT been an epidemic of reefer madness.
Christopher says
…and yes, I ignored the Fox News one. I also clicked on the “positive effects” link under related searches and read a few of those. It should be researched and all information balanced on a cost-benefit scale when it comes to medical use. There is enough harm to keep the status quo regarding recreational use IMO, but what I don’t get is the motive behind the push (which seems sudden and recent, BTW) to legalize it. What’s true now that wasn’t before? Legality DOES effect availability and frequency of use. I still encounter cigarette smoking on a fairly regular basis, but not pot. Plus even though it is illegal for minors to smoke tobacco they get their hands on it anyway because every convenience store sells them to adults. There are just so many factors and I think unintended consequences that have not been thought through or supporters seem to think won’t be a problem that I would prefer to just not deal with. I am on board, however, with decriminalization and otherwise dialing back the “war on drugs” component of enforcement.
kirth says
But you didn’t bother to give us links to any of them, or to the results of your search, so we can’t really judge whether any of it is credible. That amounts to second-hand hearsay. When I searched, I found a lot of ambiguity, except from those organizations with a vested interest in keeping MJ illegal.
Linking on this site is really easy (unless maybe you’re still using IE and the scripts don’t work with that, or something).
I agree with Tom’s assessment that your opposition resembles a religious dogma. You appear to have faith that it’s just wrong for anyone to use the stuff for any reason, and are not willing to question that faith. That numerous sufferers of disease have found relief using marijuana doesn’t seem to matter to you, because you object to it on moral grounds. For my part, I believe they should be allowed to use whatever makes their lives more bearable; because my morality allows that.
Disclosure: I have smoked pot, but it was long ago. I’ll bet I stopped using it before the Clintons did.
Christopher says
That I did not take time to put in the links that simply a quick trip to Google would have revealed themselves. I object on HEALTH grounds – I could not care less about morality. Plus I have said I am open to medical usage in the right circumstances. Here’s the link to my search. Besides, I have yet to see evidence or reason for a non-valid agenda beyond assertions here and I don’t think all who object care about blocking hemp growers from making rope. I know plenty of people have used, including the current President, and nothing is served by throwing them all in jail (but I again repeat myself – I’m starting to wonder whether people read my comments.), but giving the green light for recreational use is still a no-go for me and being a democracy last I checked I am entitled to my opinion.
jconway says
Meant to be an uprate. Good post.
kirth says
If you’re concerned about readily-available substances that are hazardous to health, then you might consider Tylenol (r). It (along with other brands of acetaminophen) causes 56,000 emergency room visits a year, just in the U.S. 458 deaths. Acetaminophen overdose is THE leading cause of acute liver failure. It’s included in lots of medicines, so it’s easy to double-dose. There are safer alternatives. Why is it not a prescription drug?
I could find zero instances of death or organ failure from ingesting cannabis. If you can find an account of such a thing, I’ll be interested.
Christopher says
My guess is the stats you cite are a miniscule portion of the overall intake. What I do know is that it is not smoked and I don’t have to inhale it if someone next to me took it.
kirth says
The incidence of liver damage and death from Tylenol is so miniscule that the FDA recently recommended limiting a dose to 325 mg. Note that one Extra-Strength Tylenol contains 500 mg of acetaminophen. Of course, it doesn’t affect you, not the way those hordes of potheads you encounter every day do …
Christopher says
…to not start encountering more potheads, thank you very much.
SomervilleTom says
Jeesh.
You do understand that a sizable portion of the people you encounter every day are recreational users of marijuana — “potheads” — right?
Christopher says
No, I have no way of knowing if someone I encounter on the street might occasionally use, but I’m fairly certain nobody with whom I have regular interactions with are regular users.
SomervilleTom says
I have to say I’m reminded of the complaints from people grossed out by public displays of affection between gay and lesbian men and women.
I’m not sure how you go about noticing whether someone you encounter is a “pothead” or not. I’m pretty sure that the perfectly legal cigars that I occasionally smoke in public are far more noticeable than somebody walking past with a lit joint.
Christopher says
…but let me know when you plan on lighting a cigar and I’ll be sure to keep my distance:)
HR's Kevin says
The AMA these days mostly represents older doctors in high-paying specialties. Very, very few young doctors join the AMA these days, and very few general practitioners and internal medicine docs do. AMA membership has been declining for years. I don’t know why the media keeps going to them for quotes except pure laziness.
jconway says
He clearly didn’t learn from Professor Warren in Law School and he isn’t learning from her now.
llp33 says
When Kennedy was first running, I think he made some polite chat praising the retiring Barney Frank to a newspaper, words to the effect of, “Let’s face it, no one can replace Barney.”
Maybe not, bud, but how about giving it a try?
doubleman says
All he had going into the race was a last name and some very mainstream Democratic talking points (and very little experience as a DA, which is probably the least comforting kind of public service there is for hoping the person will be progressive). There was no real indication he was a strong progressive.
fenway49 says
There’s only one office, of course, that would require running beyond Massachusetts. Joe Kennedy, at 33, is not even old enough to seek it. I don’t see him as a future President without some growth. Joe strikes me as a “don’t-rock-the-boat” kind of guy, which is not what I want in a President.
By the time he’d be ready to consider such a run, nobody would care about this vote. IMO 20 years from now his vote will seem anachronistic. Even today, I don’t see what’s controversial about allowing patients to consult with doctors about treatments that are legal in the state where the consultation is taking place.
John Tehan says
Warren and Markey are both older, one or both will likely retire in the next 10-15 years. This opens a Massachusetts senate seat for Joe, if he runs for it, he’ll likely win it. From there, it’s on to the presidency. Am I the only one thinking this?
Christopher says
…he has had family with addiction issues, one of whom, Patrick, has spoken against legalization based on his experience. I wish we weren’t so quick to label people disappointments when they fail a purity test. That’s what the “Tea Party” is for.
llp33 says
Expecting your congressman to make a good vote is now a “purity test”?
Did he merely fail a “purity test” when he voted for NSA spying, too?
As for Patrick Kennedy, his problems with cocaine, alcohol, Oxycontin and sleeping drugs don’t justify prohibiting marijuana.
Christopher says
I just brought up his family to point out what might be his thought process. We all bring our own experiences to the table.
mimolette says
If we would stop electing people primarily for having the right last names. I seem to recall that when he first showed interest in the seat the mere fact that he was a Kennedy was more or less sufficient to clear the field for him. It was depressing then, and it’s even more depressing today.
John Tehan says
Prior to Kennedy’s entry into the race, I interviewed Pete Heroux on my cable TV show. Pete was running for the seat – he dropped out when Kennedy got in, he said the fundraising just dried up completely, so yes, the field did indeed clear when he got in. Pete’s now a state rep from Attleboro, and he’s doing a good job for his district.
undercenter says
I certainly hope you didn’t identify this first-term rep as “Pete” Heroux on your cable-TV show, since his name is “Paul” Heroux, I mean.
John Tehan says
Sorry Paul!
thegreenmiles says
Also voted against the Progressive Budget & seems to spend much of his time fighting to protect subsidized flood insurance for wealthy waterfront homeowners. Weak.
HeartlandDem says
I cannot understand why Bill Keating is elected to Congress from Massachusetts.
stomv says
I don’t understand the logic of the bill. Why would we legalize medical marijuana for vets but not for any other group of American adults?
roarkarchitect says
I think it’s at the VA hospitals.
I believe it’s a Federal Crime to prescribe marijuana.
Patrick says
Makes me think less of them.
fenway49 says
Right now, under federal law, it’s illegal for VA doctors even to talk to vets in the system about medical marijuana, even if it’s legal in the state where they’re located. The amendment was to change that, so doctors could raise another treatment possibility that’s legal in their state. I don’t understand the logic of voting against that.
AmberPaw says
Then let us watch Pete “season”. I now take my time and do due diligence with any candidate who seems to feel entitled, and who has not served in other governance positions, learning what it takes to govern before grabbing for high office [in which I include congress, governors positions, and the like] – I owe NO ONE my vote. After the burn marks from supporting John Edwards and the number of elected officials who have just plain quit to make $$$$$$$$$ aslobbyists or other things after I worked hard to elect them, I am a lot slower to commit and an enormous amount more cautious. Many of these folks stepped into a first elected office at a high level or jumped off to a level where really, they did not have either the seasoning or the experience. So both Juliette Kayyem and Don Berwick have explaining to do about why they have not been city counselors or selectment or state reps or even state party electeds before seeking to be governor. They have not made the sell with me.
JimC says
Personally, I have mixed feelings about marijuana legalization. I don’t use, and I hope my daughter never does (well, I know she’ll try it, but I hope she stops there). I do think it’s an entry drug, simply because your supplier will almost certainly expose you to his/her other products.
But forget what I think, this is a public policy question.
Given all we know, can anyone seriously argue that marijuana (medical or nonmedical) should be illegal?
fenway49 says
This is far less likely to happen if your supplier is a legal, closely-regulated business, instead of a criminal entrepreneur.
jconway says
De-criminalization just means the dealer pays a fine, legalization means he can set up a legitimate shop, pay taxes, pay payroll, pay healthcare to his workers, and actually have his supply regulated by the state to ensure it’s safety. We already have de-criminalization in MA and I would argue it doesn’t go far enough. WA or CO style regulated regimes (and they use totally different regulatory processes so there is a benefit to waiting and seeing which model is better, though I suspect it’s CO’s).
But you can still go to jail for a long time for selling pot, or having more than the decriminalized amount, and the goal of the movement should be to create a country where nobody goes to jail for buying or selling a relatively harmless drug 70% of Americans have used. And you are far more likely to go to jail for pot if you are poor or black. Ending that injustice while also ending the massive amount of money we are wasting while looking at the massive amount of money we could be earning, should be a high public priority for progressives and conservatives alike.
fenway49 says
Colorado-style. Pot’s not my thing at all but I think the legal regime we’ve had is absurd.
jconway says
In Colorado or Washington you can just buy pot, the money goes to much needed rehab programs for real drugs, and there is no entry to a drug worse than that. My own experience is one where I have never used the drug, I was too scared to try in high school and felt I had outgrown it by the time college rolled around. But plenty of friends and roommates in high school and college used it, and they seemed content with it that they didn’t try anything else. I do know people who smoked so much that they missed class, missed work, and had issues interacting with people sober-but they were the exception to the rule and alcohol which is legal can certainly cause similar things.
Frankly, alcohol to me is a far more dangerous drug. I have seen too many friends and family members suffer from alcoholism and it’s effects seem far more devastating than the pot ‘addiction’ I described above. In terms of making people harm others as well as themselves, get chemically dependent, and spend all their time and money searching for the next fix-pot has nothing on booze. The irony is lowering the drinking age while raising the alcohol tax would probably be a good combination to reducing college binge drinking which is a more serious health concern.
jconway says
I highly recommend everyone watch Anthony Bourdain’s Parts Unknown episode focusing on Mexico. He really dives deep into getting at the bottom of our failed war on drugs and how that has nearly destroyed the soul of our southern neighbor. The same neighbor whose people we vilify for fleeing our war we started in their country for a better opportunity in ours. It’s both a compliment to Bourdain and an indictment to CNN to state that he (a chef and food journalist) is their best reporter at the moment.
dbloch says
There is literally no rational argument against medical and/or recreational use of marijuana. Those who vote against it should be seen as no better than those who are against equal marriage and reproductive rights.
Christopher says
You were awfully generous with your downrates on this thread. Your attitude against those who disagree with you is out of line. I for one do NOT want another substance fully legalized for recreational use and want to make sure there is a valid cause for medical use. I don’t even like that tobacco smoke is legal and the last thing I want is for people to be using another substance the rest of us have to be exposed to and does lead to health and safety problems.
HR's Kevin says
Many of the proposed medical uses have not been scientifically validated sufficiently (if at all) and it most definitely can cause harm when overused.
Still, I see no reason why it shouldn’t be legalized and treated like alcohol. Then anyone can use it any way they wish, as long as they do so responsibly.
jconway says
I think many simply view it as a stepping stone to greater legalization while a sizable number of activists think it is beneficial and should be treated like a prescription drug. Colorado is running into some hurdles since many who need it for medical purposes are finding it harder to get a good supply since the recreational market is now competing with it. On the other hand, some people were getting a better deal on the medical marijuana than they would on the free market.
The New Yorker also had an interesting profile of how WA is actually probably tougher on enforcement than MA is precisely because it wants to defend the government licensing monopoly and ensure a robust free market is protected from black market competition. Ironically it may be easier to be an underground dealer here where the state has little incentive to stop the operation.
Overall though, I think full legalization is the best policy to pursue. It will be fascinating to see how different states choose to regulate it, but my hope is that we eventually have 50 state uniformity in the basic legality (again much like alcohol which does vary from state to state).
Christopher says
For me medical is much easier to swallow than recreational. IFF the benefits outweigh the risks I would be open to allowing medical use on a tightly controlled basis. Unless you mean a tough decision since for medical my decision would be tougher whereas I know my answer for recreational use – don’t do it!
jconway says
When paired with a regime that allows for recreational use. And it’s exactly because of folks like you that back sensible marijuana policies when you put the word “medical” in front of it that this fight is harder. On the one hand I am all for the glaucoma sufferers and kids with chronic seizures using this medicinally-on the other hand it can be a corner that legalization efforts get stuck in-either by creating a two tier situation between medicinal and recreational or stalling action on full legalization. In short it’s the civil unions of pot policy-a good start not a finish line.
Christopher says
…than any number of other medicines available only by prescription. Yes, some people abuse prescriptions too and the risks of greater availability is factor that would have to be considered. It may be civil unions, but I am clearly saying I want to go no further. I don’t have any sympathy for someone claiming a “right” to get high, whereas anything short of marriage equality is an unconstitutional denial of equal protection of the laws.
danielmoraff says
Because “christopher” thinks it’s bad and he is smarter than you.
JimC says
… are more effectively medically than marijuana. I have this on the authority of my wife’s physician at Dana Farber.
But, marijuana makes people feel better.
Christopher says
There are other things that can take care of any pain or discomfort.
mike_cote says
not to get all Libertarian on the issue, but damn, why can’t doctors just practice their profession.
Damn!
Christopher says
I believe I have said so above. I was only commenting on jimc’s particular anecdote to point out that there my not be as much urgency as some make out to be.