The “medical marijuana” charade

If you’re skeptical of the whole idea that smoking marijuana has medical benefits under any circumstances, if you believe as do I that marijuana has a high potential for abuse and no recognized medical purpose (if it did smoking it would not be the prescribed delivery system), it you’re suspicious that the proponents of medical marijuana are just potheads wanting cover for their addiction to pot (Oh I forgot, alcohol and cigarettes are addictive but pot isn’t), or even if you’ve bought the medical marijuana yarn in total, here are links to two takes on it you should consider.  These will either confirm and reinforce what you already believe or, if you drank the kool aid, might help to sober you up:

Bad Prescription by Jack Dunphy

Gone to Pot by Matt Labash

It’s not as if there is nothing to be said for the charade of “medical” marijuana.

With the Federal government attempting to enforce Federal forfeiture laws against the marijuana dealers that have been legalized by the farce of medical marijuana, there now exists lots of new allies in the fight against the travesty of Federal forfeiture laws.  It is possible to be agnostic about medical marijuana and still be a proponent of the principle of Federalism which our founding fathers enshrined in the Constitution. One may take offense at the notion of medical marijuana and yet believe the Federal government has no business interfering with state marijuana laws, no matter how strongly one disagrees with those laws.  That’s the position argued by Justice Clarence Thomas in his brilliant dissent in the California medical marijuana case of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).

See, Potheads Have An Unlikely Friend on the Supreme Court.