Current Gaylord Weather
PhoneGuide
Search the PhoneGuide:
Directory
Archives
Calendar
Classifieds
Search Gaylord Herald Times Classifieds:
Off the Record: The case for Prop 1
Friday, October 24, 2008 12:07 PM EDT
The battle has been brewing for the past several months over Proposal 1 on the statewide ballot Nov. 4. The issue: Should the use of marijuana be allowed in Michigan for medical purposes?
Many support the measure, which they say could help some 50,000 Michiganians afflicted with various debilitating medical conditions. Others fear legalizing marijuana, well-intended or not, would open up new channels to illegal use.
Matter of fact, if you’re reading this Oct. 24 or 25, I’m in a hospital bed recovering from shoulder surgery, but I am definitely not a candidate for marijuana treatment as provided in Proposal 1 — nor should I be. My situation isn’t even close. People who would be eligible suffer an entirely different kind of condition and pain. They experience it around-the-clock, and in many cases their medical condition is terminal.
Medical experts say the measure would help people suffering from such afflictions as HIV/AIDS, cancer, Hepatitis C., Crohn’s disease, Alzheimers and multiple sclerosis. Twelve other states have similar laws in place, and it appears to be effective.
Opponents say similar laws have increased the illegal use of marijuana in some states, especially California where they allege “pot shops” have started up.
Many support the measure, which they say could help some 50,000 Michiganians afflicted with various debilitating medical conditions. Others fear legalizing marijuana, well-intended or not, would open up new channels to illegal use.
Matter of fact, if you’re reading this Oct. 24 or 25, I’m in a hospital bed recovering from shoulder surgery, but I am definitely not a candidate for marijuana treatment as provided in Proposal 1 — nor should I be. My situation isn’t even close. People who would be eligible suffer an entirely different kind of condition and pain. They experience it around-the-clock, and in many cases their medical condition is terminal.
Medical experts say the measure would help people suffering from such afflictions as HIV/AIDS, cancer, Hepatitis C., Crohn’s disease, Alzheimers and multiple sclerosis. Twelve other states have similar laws in place, and it appears to be effective.
Opponents say similar laws have increased the illegal use of marijuana in some states, especially California where they allege “pot shops” have started up.
- Advertisement -
Safeguards against improper use appear to be in place, at least in theory, under the Michigan proposal. First of all, marijuana use must be doctor-prescribed. Anyone caught lying about their medical condition or distributing marijuana to others would be barred from future participation in the program and face the existing state law against illegal possession of marijuana. That law calls for punishment of up to one year in prison and $2,000 in fines. Illegal dealers really get the book thrown at them: up to 15 years in jail and up to $10 million in fines - and that’s for first-time offenders.
The Michigan Department of Community Health would create a state medical marijuana registry. Each medically approved user would be given an identification card. A very high standard would be applied before anyone could secure a card. Proposal 1 would also protect those who are primary caregivers who handle/administrator to sick family members or friends. Currently, these caregivers are labeled as illegal drug dealers. The law would require all marijuana used for medical purposes to be under lock and key.
Marijuana card carriers would not be permitted to smoke in public places or near schools or prisons. Driving while using it would be prohibited, also. The workplace would also be off limits.
A poll in late September conducted by Lansing’s EPIC-MIRA professional survey organization found that residents supported the measure, 59 to 37 percent. Sixty-three percent of women favored it, compared to 51 percent of men.
In one corner, you have the Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care which states we need to help people in such dire situations. In the opposite corner are the Citizens for Traditional Values, a group that claims allowing marijuana for medical purposes could have long-range physical and medical consequences.
In one corner, you have medical organizations, individual physicians and other health care professionals supporting the issue. In the opposite corner, you have medical organizations, physicians and health care professionals in opposition.
Even Washington brought some big guns into our state in an effort to shoot down the proposal. John Walton, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, made a special trip to proclaim that Proposal 1 proponents are relying on sympathy, not hard facts. Scott Burns, U.S. Deputy Drug Czar, came out here, also, and he warned: “This issue is about dope - not medicine.”
The coalition for compassionate care responds by saying this is all about compassionate law to protect severely ill patients.
I should note that the 12 states that have similar marijuana laws on the books are in conflict with federal law, which prohibits marijuana use. It’s obvious where the White House guy and drug czar get their motivation.
I may be old fashion, born way ahead of the marijuana era, but I’m a realist. I have seen cancer, Alzheimers and other illnesses get a strangle hold on members of my family and my friends. For me, this is a personal issue, as it is for every Michigan voter.
Always remember, many of the patients who would benefit from this are terminal.
Believe me, no White House politico or federal drug czar will control my mind, or my heart.
I’m against illegal use of drugs, but I also know all about compassion. One more important and highly respected influence on me: my wife, Sue, who is a registered nurse.
I know where I stand on Proposal 1.
— Jim Grisso is publisher emeritus of the Gaylord Herald Times. You can contact him by writing to PO Box 598, Gaylord, MI 49734 or by e-mail, jim@gaylordheraldtimes.com.
The Michigan Department of Community Health would create a state medical marijuana registry. Each medically approved user would be given an identification card. A very high standard would be applied before anyone could secure a card. Proposal 1 would also protect those who are primary caregivers who handle/administrator to sick family members or friends. Currently, these caregivers are labeled as illegal drug dealers. The law would require all marijuana used for medical purposes to be under lock and key.
Marijuana card carriers would not be permitted to smoke in public places or near schools or prisons. Driving while using it would be prohibited, also. The workplace would also be off limits.
A poll in late September conducted by Lansing’s EPIC-MIRA professional survey organization found that residents supported the measure, 59 to 37 percent. Sixty-three percent of women favored it, compared to 51 percent of men.
In one corner, you have the Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care which states we need to help people in such dire situations. In the opposite corner are the Citizens for Traditional Values, a group that claims allowing marijuana for medical purposes could have long-range physical and medical consequences.
In one corner, you have medical organizations, individual physicians and other health care professionals supporting the issue. In the opposite corner, you have medical organizations, physicians and health care professionals in opposition.
Even Washington brought some big guns into our state in an effort to shoot down the proposal. John Walton, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, made a special trip to proclaim that Proposal 1 proponents are relying on sympathy, not hard facts. Scott Burns, U.S. Deputy Drug Czar, came out here, also, and he warned: “This issue is about dope - not medicine.”
The coalition for compassionate care responds by saying this is all about compassionate law to protect severely ill patients.
I should note that the 12 states that have similar marijuana laws on the books are in conflict with federal law, which prohibits marijuana use. It’s obvious where the White House guy and drug czar get their motivation.
I may be old fashion, born way ahead of the marijuana era, but I’m a realist. I have seen cancer, Alzheimers and other illnesses get a strangle hold on members of my family and my friends. For me, this is a personal issue, as it is for every Michigan voter.
Always remember, many of the patients who would benefit from this are terminal.
Believe me, no White House politico or federal drug czar will control my mind, or my heart.
I’m against illegal use of drugs, but I also know all about compassion. One more important and highly respected influence on me: my wife, Sue, who is a registered nurse.
I know where I stand on Proposal 1.
— Jim Grisso is publisher emeritus of the Gaylord Herald Times. You can contact him by writing to PO Box 598, Gaylord, MI 49734 or by e-mail, jim@gaylordheraldtimes.com.
12 comment(s)
Irishblue wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:09 PM:
" Thank you, Mr. Risso, for your insightful article on Proposal 1. My 24-year-old daughter, Caprice Wagner, recently passed away from T-cell lymphoma. The pain she endured was indescribable. It was medical marijuana--not prescription narcotics--that helped ease her nausea, increase her appetite, and reduce her ongoing joint and muscle discomfort. Watching someone you love suffer is one of the worst experiences imaginable. Critically-ill patients need all the comfort and relief that we can provide them. Proposal 1 is a humane alternative to ineffective and addictive narcotics. Those who are dearest to our hearts deserve legal access to this plant-based remedy . Please visit www.stoparrestingpatients.org to read my daughter's story, and the stories of many other Michigan patients. "
PBigler wrote on Oct 27, 2008 12:23 AM:
" I think we've been 'protected' too long from the truth about this medicinal herb, the most benign and versatile in human history.
In 1936 a Polish anthropologist named Sula Benet established that cannabis--now known widely as "marijuana"--was actually kaneh-bosm, the Biblical Tree of Life, described therein as "a Healer of Nations".
Relief from pain and nausea are only two of the medical benefits of marijuana. In 1974, a study in Virginia found that it blocks tumor growth. U.S. officials suppressed this information.
Subsequent research in Spain confirmed that marijuana shrinks brain tumors. And a thirty-year population study by UCLA has concluded that smoking marijuana does not cause lung cancer. These tumor-shrinking, anti-carcinogenic properties have also been found effective against prostate and non-melanoma skin cancers.
Recent research in Canada indicates that, unlike caffeine, alcohol or opiates, marijuana actually encourages brain cell growth. And an Italian study on pain relief finds it superior to synthetic, non-synergistic, patented cannabinoids like Marinol.
If these reports were aired on the NBC Nightly News, we'd see zillions of Marlboro Men screaming for reform. The public is already ahead of the politicians on this issue. Elected officials are too afraid of being labeled 'soft on crime'. What say the Michigan voters?
Subsequent research in Spain confirmed that marijuana shrinks brain tumors. And a thirty-year population study by UCLA has concluded that smoking marijuana does not cause lung cancer. These tumor-shrinking, anti-carcinogenic properties have also been found effective against prostate and non-melanoma skin cancers.
Recent research in Canada indicates that, unlike caffeine, alcohol or opiates, marijuana actually encourages brain cell growth. And an Italian study on pain relief finds it superior to synthetic, non-synergistic, patented cannabinoids like Marinol.
If these reports were aired on the NBC Nightly News, we'd see zillions of Marlboro Men screaming for reform. The public is already ahead of the politicians on this issue. Elected officials are too afraid of being labeled 'soft on crime'. What say the Michigan voters? "
In 1936 a Polish anthropologist named Sula Benet established that cannabis--now known widely as "marijuana"--was actually kaneh-bosm, the Biblical Tree of Life, described therein as "a Healer of Nations".
Relief from pain and nausea are only two of the medical benefits of marijuana. In 1974, a study in Virginia found that it blocks tumor growth. U.S. officials suppressed this information.
Subsequent research in Spain confirmed that marijuana shrinks brain tumors. And a thirty-year population study by UCLA has concluded that smoking marijuana does not cause lung cancer. These tumor-shrinking, anti-carcinogenic properties have also been found effective against prostate and non-melanoma skin cancers.
Recent research in Canada indicates that, unlike caffeine, alcohol or opiates, marijuana actually encourages brain cell growth. And an Italian study on pain relief finds it superior to synthetic, non-synergistic, patented cannabinoids like Marinol.
If these reports were aired on the NBC Nightly News, we'd see zillions of Marlboro Men screaming for reform. The public is already ahead of the politicians on this issue. Elected officials are too afraid of being labeled 'soft on crime'. What say the Michigan voters?
Subsequent research in Spain confirmed that marijuana shrinks brain tumors. And a thirty-year population study by UCLA has concluded that smoking marijuana does not cause lung cancer. These tumor-shrinking, anti-carcinogenic properties have also been found effective against prostate and non-melanoma skin cancers.
Recent research in Canada indicates that, unlike caffeine, alcohol or opiates, marijuana actually encourages brain cell growth. And an Italian study on pain relief finds it superior to synthetic, non-synergistic, patented cannabinoids like Marinol.
If these reports were aired on the NBC Nightly News, we'd see zillions of Marlboro Men screaming for reform. The public is already ahead of the politicians on this issue. Elected officials are too afraid of being labeled 'soft on crime'. What say the Michigan voters? "
Becky688 wrote on Oct 26, 2008 3:19 AM:
" Cutty,
I've been reading the GHT online for years now, and I have to tell you.... the more I read your comments, the more I like you. It's not 1950 anymore (thank God). Thanks for bringing some logic to Gaylord
Go Obama! "
I've been reading the GHT online for years now, and I have to tell you.... the more I read your comments, the more I like you. It's not 1950 anymore (thank God). Thanks for bringing some logic to Gaylord
Go Obama! "
ludditerobot wrote on Oct 26, 2008 1:45 AM:
" "Common sense would say either you are registered or you are not."
So would the proposal. A single clause allows someone arrested for marijuana possession but in need of medical marijuana to mention this way down the road in court. That's utterly obvious, and you seem to hone in on this point as though you're looking for a reason to oppose Proposal 1. Are you? If so, is this really the best you can do?
In answer to your legitimate question, patients are using marijuana right now in Michigan. They are doing so out of necessity, and they are subject to arrest and prosecution just like your standard recreational user. I don't think that's appropriate. Good science indicates that this could be of use to very sick people; therefore, very sick people should have access to it, in consultation with their doctor. "
So would the proposal. A single clause allows someone arrested for marijuana possession but in need of medical marijuana to mention this way down the road in court. That's utterly obvious, and you seem to hone in on this point as though you're looking for a reason to oppose Proposal 1. Are you? If so, is this really the best you can do?
In answer to your legitimate question, patients are using marijuana right now in Michigan. They are doing so out of necessity, and they are subject to arrest and prosecution just like your standard recreational user. I don't think that's appropriate. Good science indicates that this could be of use to very sick people; therefore, very sick people should have access to it, in consultation with their doctor. "
CUTTY wrote on Oct 25, 2008 1:54 PM:
" Here is a great tie in to the abortion debate. I am going to be ideologically consistent here. I am pro choice regarding abortion and pro choice regarding this issue as well. Not only should medical pot be allowed, but pot itself should be totally legalized.
I wonder how many pro lifers would similarly come out against the legalization of pot? If they dont believe in any right to privacy or any zone of personal privacy, they likewise would want to continue with our present way of making the possession, sale, or distribution of pot illegal.
Personal freedom extends from one context to another. "
I wonder how many pro lifers would similarly come out against the legalization of pot? If they dont believe in any right to privacy or any zone of personal privacy, they likewise would want to continue with our present way of making the possession, sale, or distribution of pot illegal.
Personal freedom extends from one context to another. "
You Gotta Be Kidding wrote on Oct 25, 2008 1:44 PM:
" ludditerobot
Common sense would say either you are registered or you are not.
Common sense would say that the current language on the ballot creates a gray area as to who may or may not qualify under this proposal.
Wouldn't it be easier on our entire legal system say if you are registered than you are allowed to use marijuan, and if you are not registered, that using mairjuana is illegal?
Under this language an unregistered patient can be arrested, and prosecuted, and then must present evidence in court to prove their medical condition allows marijuana use.
Are these patients that desparate for marijuana that they can't take the time to register? If they are using it illegally, they will most likely continue using it until their registration is complete.
I am not against marijuana use for the patients that will benefit from it. I just feel the language in the proposal should clearly state who can use it, and who cannot. "
Common sense would say either you are registered or you are not.
Common sense would say that the current language on the ballot creates a gray area as to who may or may not qualify under this proposal.
Wouldn't it be easier on our entire legal system say if you are registered than you are allowed to use marijuan, and if you are not registered, that using mairjuana is illegal?
Under this language an unregistered patient can be arrested, and prosecuted, and then must present evidence in court to prove their medical condition allows marijuana use.
Are these patients that desparate for marijuana that they can't take the time to register? If they are using it illegally, they will most likely continue using it until their registration is complete.
I am not against marijuana use for the patients that will benefit from it. I just feel the language in the proposal should clearly state who can use it, and who cannot. "
uncledude wrote on Oct 25, 2008 4:45 AM:
" Grisso is so far left that I am surprised he hasn't fallen off "
ludditerobot wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:41 PM:
" Great column.
In answer to the previous commenter, that's not vague at all. The intention is obviously to protect a patient in the process of enrolling in the program but who hasn't yet received an ID card and situations along those lines.
If a cancer patient, for instance, has filled out the necessary paperwork and done everything required to be enrolled but the gears are still in motion and happens to be arrested, he or she should absolutely be allowed to mention this circumstance in court. Like the rest of Proposal 1, that's simply common sense. "
In answer to the previous commenter, that's not vague at all. The intention is obviously to protect a patient in the process of enrolling in the program but who hasn't yet received an ID card and situations along those lines.
If a cancer patient, for instance, has filled out the necessary paperwork and done everything required to be enrolled but the gears are still in motion and happens to be arrested, he or she should absolutely be allowed to mention this circumstance in court. Like the rest of Proposal 1, that's simply common sense. "
jway wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:23 PM:
" "This issue is about dope - not medicine"
Anytime a government official has to resort to emotive language to convince us he's right is a big fat red flag!!!
The ONDCP didn't come here to hold open discussions about marijuana policy so it could weigh up the benefits of all possible strategies and create the best solution for controlling it. No, the ONDCP came to blindly oppose anything that could possibly lead to legalization. That is its job.
"..take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize" marijuana. [s. 704(b)(12) Reauthorization Act of 1998]
This issue is NOT about "dope" as Mr. Burns claims, nor is it even about marijuana itself.
This issue is about which policy we should use to control marijuana.
And why do we, the people who don't use marijuana and don't want to use marijuana, care about how marijuana is controlled? Because it has a BIG influence on our lives!
The security of our neighborhoods is directly influenced by the policy chosen to control marijuana. Prohibition makes our neighborhoods inviting to criminals, it gives them a reason to come into our communities selling weed and putting our children at risk. The only way to permanently get rid us of them is to control marijuana with the same laws we use for alcohol.
We don't have bootleggers in our streets today because legalization protects us from them, and it'll do exactly the same thing to drug dealers! Keep voting YES until the prohibition is ended and legalization becomes reality! "
Anytime a government official has to resort to emotive language to convince us he's right is a big fat red flag!!!
The ONDCP didn't come here to hold open discussions about marijuana policy so it could weigh up the benefits of all possible strategies and create the best solution for controlling it. No, the ONDCP came to blindly oppose anything that could possibly lead to legalization. That is its job.
"..take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize" marijuana. [s. 704(b)(12) Reauthorization Act of 1998]
This issue is NOT about "dope" as Mr. Burns claims, nor is it even about marijuana itself.
This issue is about which policy we should use to control marijuana.
And why do we, the people who don't use marijuana and don't want to use marijuana, care about how marijuana is controlled? Because it has a BIG influence on our lives!
The security of our neighborhoods is directly influenced by the policy chosen to control marijuana. Prohibition makes our neighborhoods inviting to criminals, it gives them a reason to come into our communities selling weed and putting our children at risk. The only way to permanently get rid us of them is to control marijuana with the same laws we use for alcohol.
We don't have bootleggers in our streets today because legalization protects us from them, and it'll do exactly the same thing to drug dealers! Keep voting YES until the prohibition is ended and legalization becomes reality! "
You Gotta Be Kidding wrote on Oct 24, 2008 1:01 PM:
" I have a problem with one line on the ballot in regards to proposal 1.
"Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons
for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana."
So unregistered "patients" and unregistered "care givers" can assert "medical reasons" as a defense for marijuana use?
Seems a little vague to me. "
"Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons
for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana."
So unregistered "patients" and unregistered "care givers" can assert "medical reasons" as a defense for marijuana use?
Seems a little vague to me. "
If you have registered, enter your Member ID/Password to comment.
You must agree to the Terms of Use and registerwith a valid email address to post comments.
- One More Cast: ‘Fog so thick it plugged our gun barrels’
- To the Editor: No to McCain
- Off the Record: The case for Prop 1
- To the Editor: Locals are committed to finding a cure
- To the Editor: Beware of Dems’ false promises
- To the Editor: Voter backs Anthony
- To the Editor: Vote ‘No’ on Obama for guns
- To the Editor: Retired chief endorses McBride
- My Turn: Costume creations
- To the Editor: What happened to newsy news?
bjgaylord wrote on Oct 29, 2008 9:23 AM:
It seems that it is time for certain laws regarding this issue to be reviewed. As is common with our federal handlers, err, I mean federal legislators, it comes down to money. How can the federal government make money on this? This is a "crop" that can easily be grown by anyone, even grandma Mabel. After all, it isn't called "weed" for nothing. If they cannot control who grows and markets it, they cannot tax it. Furthermore, if the federal government wants to control all that is bad for us, I believe more people die each year in the United States in auto accidents, from accidental overdose by legally obtained pharmaceuticals, smoking legal cigarettes, drinking legal alcohol. Why are these things not banned for our good? This just reeks of HYPOCRISY. But note that they have a way of making money off all of the other legal things that kill us.
What is sad in our society today is that the citizens seem to be the only ones addressing the issues of today. The majority of the recent changes in our state laws regarding quality of life have been addressed through constitutional amendments as opposed to our elected officials actually addressing these things. Heaven forbid our elected officials doing something that might upset someone. "