Medical Marijuana

Steve has quite a take on the medical marijuana issue in his entry Medical Marijuana: It’s Bogus, Dude

So what’s the agenda here, dude? It’s pretty simple, actually. As with any liberal issue, incrementalism is what it’s all about. The legalized pot folks made great strides back in the 70s and as a former regular dope smoker, I was all for it. In Alaska in the 70s, where I lived and was aware of the laws, it was legal to walk around with as much as an ounce of pot on you. I know that’s the way it was in a few other states as well. In the 80s and early 90s, things changed a little bit — liberal pot laws were tightened up. With this backslide, the pro-pot groups had to regroup and the strategy changed from legalization of pot to legalization for “medicinal uses”. The idea is to get their foot in the door (as they have in 13 states) with the “medicinal uses” strategy and expand from there to a push for full legalization.

Now one could argue that the are far worse things than smoking a joint or taking a couple hits off a pipe or bong. But with all the troubles we have in our society these days with the vices that are legal — booze and gambling, etc — the last thing we need to do is add legalized pot to the mix. And that’s where we’re headed when we head down the bogus “medicinal marijuana” road. Don’t buy it, dude.


The issue in the latest Supreme Court decision, which upheld federal supremacy, is about using the constituional commerce clause as a means to override state authority in the matter of marijuana legislation. That is an example of just how convoluted the argument has become. Stories from San Francisco make clear that the medicinal pot argument is bogus and it is being met with a convoluted application of the commerce clause in an argument about state’s rights.

The look at Gitmo: create controversy based on allegations then assert it needs to be closed because there is too much controversy.

Is there any way we can get back to an honest argument on the merits?

Comments are closed.