You can almost see us in the corner there... heres my take: There are three basic arguments against A2. 1) The language doesnt limit what condition for which cannabis can be recommended; 2) the language doesnt place age restrictions on who can be recommended cannabis; and 3) this is a constitutional amendment which is very difficult to change (Dr. Spencer seemed to harp on this the most, which I think is key). 1) Sheriff Judd rattles off a list of issues he feels cannabis should NOT be used to treat. Why is his opinion more valid than that of a doctor who has studied human physiology and can actually weigh the positives vs. negatives in treating something like migraines with cannabis? Is that a patient-doctor decision or citizen-sheriff decision? Does this not place a limit on scientific progress but pre-determining the potential uses of a plant Dr. Spencer herself feels needs significantly more study? (More on that in #3) 2) This one is easy. Kids need medicine. DoH can easily regulate that dispensaries are 21+ establishments making it necessary for an official caregiver to obtain medicine for children. Age restrictions also do not exist for any other drug, despite the proven negative cognitive effects such psychotropics like adderall can have on developing brains. When weighing the positives and negatives as Dr. Spencer suggests we should, how can we simply eliminate viable options out of hand before starting the evaluation? 3) Changing the constitution is really hard to do. This is EXACTLY why we dont enshrine limits on medical treatment within them. Think about what that means. If we delineated in the constitution that Asprin can only be used to treat headaches we would not be able to use it to prevent heart attacks without ANOTHER constitutional amendment. It is outright admitting that we know all there is to know about a drug and further study is NOT needed (because if the results of that study were to show that cannabis treats something NOT listed in the constitutional language, then yet ANOTHER amendment would be needed to add it). Again, as Dr. Spencer pointed out, the constitution supersedes all local regulation. This is the antithesis of progress, of science, of medicine, of growth. Thanks for letting me get that off key chest. Pete
Posted on: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:44:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015