*Not as Christy herself, but as the voice of a conservative supporter who shares in her views and intentions, there’s no doubt that education has to be key should the necessary changes be made by way of defining and possibly redefining the Medical Marijuana Act; as such, re-learning about marijuana will be, in my opinion, the trickiest part of all.
The main players of the initiative recognize the importance of establishing and maintaining a professional front. This means advocating legitimate users (such as Irvin Rosenfeld) and putting them front and center at gatherings, lectures, and other media-attended functions to serve as spokesmen, rather than the young guy with dreadlocks and a Bob Marley t-shirt, though he may be a true patient as well. Image is perception is “reality”…and that’s where we meet another road block.
Should the movement seek to legalize marijuana with dishonest intentions to make it available to all who want it, then why waste time pitching it as medicine? There should be no contest to the point that an ideological subculture surrounds marijuana use, and it’s only perpetuated by users hiding beneath the umbrella of a “caregiver” or “patient” title.
As it currently stands, caregivers cannot call themselves “pharmacists”, nor will legal pharmacies touch medical marijuana in smoke form. Doctors don’t “prescribe” marijuana, they “recommend” it. Here we discover the semantic debate surrounding the issue, further contributing to the same ambiguity that has resulted in outright bans and many a moratorium around the state. If we don’t understand the full bill language, then we cannot abide by it.
Comparing marijuana to alcohol is a dangerous strategy, because alcohol is clearly recognized as a recreational drug and not as “medicine”. When one drinks they do not say they are “medicating”, at least not in seriousness.
Unfortunately the movers and shakers within the health care industry, such as the Department of Health, haven’t been visible enough to add the necessary credibility this case needs. There have, however, been a number of legitimately sick people who’ve come forward to provide testimonials.
When Cannabis can be recommended by a physician, there needs to be checks and balances just as there are elsewhere. Regulating distribution sites, listing them on a database accessible by law enforcement and the health care providers, requiring that distributors are insured for property and liability damage (at minimum), ensure caregivers are claiming their earnings; these are just some of the ideas that have been thrown out for legislators and lobbyists to mill over.
Much has to be done, but again, this is not a partisan issue. Health care, however, is not a right, it’s a choice. We must have a say in our own health care; it’s about personal accountability.
Privacy, personal freedom, independence from oppressive government regulation, free enterprise, and competition in the market are just a few conservative values, but they all accompany checks and balances. Problematic without definition is the idea that federally speaking, marijuana is still categorized as a schedule 1 narcotic. Conservatives value a strong legal and justice system, including punishment and recidivism. These values go hand-in-hand with faith and family, which are being considered heavily in the marijuana debate too.
How will families be affected? Will children be at risk with marijuana in the home? These are real issues, and Child and Family Services and attorneys alike are dealing heavily in marijuana related cases in light of the passage of I-148.
And faith… Many claim that we should be free to use marijuana for medical purposes because it is nothing more than a God-given plant, grown from the soil, untainted with chemicals or other dangerous components like those in many pharmaceutical drugs.
So I conclude by admitting that I, as a Clark supporter and fellow Conservative, do not have the answers…but am open the hearing all those proposed, just as I know Christy Clark is.
