 |
|
 |
|
The Public Legitimization Of Marijuana by Greggory Moore | No Destination | 08.24.09 | | Text Size: +
In public and in private, in the media and off the record, in open and closed City Council sessions, marijuana—medicinal and otherwise—has increasingly become a serious topic of conversation. Serious because of the money that is involved and can be channeled as a revenue source for our ailing state and city. Serious because it alleviates the suffering of many sick and dying people who cannot find succor elsewhere. Serious because those favoring the status quo are loath to allow that the times, they are a' changing. I'm not even going to make a feint toward impartiality on this issue. Long before I ever so much as tried marijuana (yes, like our president, I have inhaled), its illegality struck me as the worst kind of government overreaching: invasive, uninformed, quasi-random, needless, dangerous. Increasing knowledge of the subject—marijuana's health and pharmacological aspects, how and why it was made illegal in the first place, its medicinal and therapeutic benefits, the costs and harms of the "War on Drugs"—only deepened this conviction. Yes, I'm far from impartial—but I believe this has nothing to do with prejudice and everything to do with rational analysis. Marijuana should be legal as a matter of pragmatics. It is not physically addictive and has known medicinal and therapeutic benefits; and it cannot cause the kind of harm known to be associated with legal products such as cigarettes and alcohol [1]. By most accounts it is the U.S.'s single highest-grossing cash crop. Its illegality has had no real effect on its availability. Our police force and courts are being clogged with marijuana arrests [2]. Etc. But even with Gov. Schwarzenegger and Assemblyman Tom Ammiano recently testing the legalization waters with an eye toward ameliorating our state's budgetary crisis, out-and-out legalization may still be a few steps away for a society that is sometimes agonizingly slow to right its wrongs. What is currently front and center in our little corner of the world is the issue of medicinal marijuana—specifically, medpot collectives. As Councilmember Robert Garcia stated at the August 4th Council meeting, "The medical-marijuana movement is here, and it's something we have to deal with and accept." The topic came up in the context of the Councilmember Tonia Reyes Uranga introducing a motion whose desired result is to require all collectives to acquire business licenses—something most primary caregivers (as collective operators are officially designated) welcome [3]—along with certain guidelines (zoning, etc.). Unbeknownst to Uranga, Councilmembers Garcia, Lowenthal, Gabelich, and Lerch had been for some months studying this issue and were offering a substitute motion. However, as Uranga pointed out, while it had been her intention to obtain public input before offering any recommendations—she herself had already made it a point to meet with a dozen collective operators—it seems the co-sponsors of the substitute motion were working in reverse order: providing the recommendations, then obtaining public input. Most of these recommendations are innocuous; but troubling among them is that collectives be required to "provide [to the City] a list of [. . . ] the qualified patients that belong to the collective." Frankly, that such an irresponsible, unethical, and very possibly illegal imposition was even being considered startled me, and I politely (well, if my calling it "absurd" doesn't transgress the bounds of politeness) said as much during the public-comment portion of the agenda item. Mayor Bob Foster answered me specifically that the City takes this concern very seriously; City Attorney Robert Shannon stated that his office "is very, very sensitive to the rights of medical patients"; and Gabelich asked that this portion of the motion be removed ("We don't need to have a list of the names of the patients"). However, for procedural reasons, the motion that was voted on and passed unanimously contains the recommendation in question intact. That is not to say it is on the path to becoming policy, for, in addition to Gabelich's aforesaid intentions, subsequent to the meeting I have it from two of the other three co-sponsors that actually they don't want compromising patients' privacy rights to be policy: • From Daniel Brezenoff, Garcia's legislative analyst: "Councilmember Garcia would never support forcing every collective to give the names of their patients to the City. They're entitled to privacy." • From Lerch: "[Collectives] should not have to give that over to anybody absent a court order. [. . .] This medical-marijuana thing should be handled exactly the same way as every other drug we dispense on a regular basis. [. . .] The issue should be that you keep the records, and the only way you're forced to give them over is a court order. Absence of a court order, you don't have to give them over." (Lowenthal was out of the country when I attempted to contact her, but in light of the unequivocal support she voiced for medpot collectives when late in 2008 I questioned her on the general issue, I would be quite surprised if she doesn't echo her cohorts' sentiments.) Presuming that such privacy concerns are moot, there's no reason why the motion shouldn't have passed. Marijuana is legal medicine, and medpot collectives are here in Long Beach, so having some level of regulation by the City is neither illegitimate nor unreasonable [4]. But because we are living in a still-unenlightened culture concerning marijuana, because we have yet to adopt the informed, pragmatic approach in play throughout much of Europe (and to some extent in Canada), there remains the vestigial danger of propaganda fallout from "reefer madness" and from a casualty-ridden "War on Drugs" in which the federal government allows corporate America to make billions of dollars per year selling cigarettes and alcohol (never mind the huge variety of prescription drugs) while putting marijuana in the same class (Schedule I) as PCP and meth. And so we must remain vigilant that such dangerous ignorance and bias does not poison our process here [5]—that it does not dupe us into suggesting even for a moment such ridiculous notions as medpot patients being entitled to less privacy than those reliant upon any other type of medicine. Fifty years hence, when marijuana is legal, people in Long Beach then, like people in Amsterdam today, will wonder at the fuss made for so many years over such a relatively benign substance with clear medicinal and therapeutic uses. So let us be forward-thinking. In recent years we have moved in the right direction. Let us continue our journey, even if the steps are small. FootnotesClick here to read our policy on covering the Long Beach City Council. Comments
Click Here to Leave a Comment
John Greet Greggory: Very well said and in this we are in full agreement; when marijuana was outlawed, the federal government, overreached. Thus it is at the federal level that this error must be properly corrected. Current Presidential Administration assurances to the contrary, marijuana remains unlawful as a matter of federal law. So when the Obama administration attempts to assure us that there will be no further local raids by or in conjunction with federal DEA agents, that’s very nice indeed, and those assurances will be worth exactly *nothing* once someone else assumes the office and feels differently about it. Rather than direct his Justice Department to not enforce laws on our books (a direction that, by the way, is entirely abdicative of his Constitutional responsibility to enforce the laws as our nation’s Chief Executive to enforce the laws) he should be leading the fight to see those laws repealed. Until they are, nothing any State, county or city chooses to do to attempt to legitimize marijuana use or possession has any real meaning. Like so very many other social policy issues, the decision to legalize marijuana or not should be reserved entirely to the States. If California wants to legalize it, it should be able to do so. If Texas wants it kept illegal, it should be able to do so. Period. People are then free to live in the State(s) that best suit(s) their beliefs on the matter. The problem many have with legalizing marijuana is that cannabis is, inarguably, psychoactive and they don’t want to see people walking or driving about while under its influence. But we have many laws prohibiting being in public and under the influence of drugs. We don’t need to make marijuana illegal to help prevent that, any more than we need to make alcohol illegal to prevent public intoxication or drunk driving. Just as we are with alcohol, we, as a society, should be concerned with public marijuana *abuse* rather than its use. One other matter: On the approved recommendation to provide lists of legitimate patients to the City: This proposal would violate patient confidentiality rights under HIPAA which protects all *individually identifiable health information* held or transmitted by a covered entity or its business associate, in any form or media, whether electronic, paper, or oral. The Privacy Rule calls this information "protected health information (PHI) and such a “patient disclosure” requirement would have to be struck before attempting to codify any such ordinance. Matt Good article, but I think you should have included a history as to how it became illegal since you mentioned it. This is just a messy situation all around. I think that because of potential trade issues and the commerce clause of the US constitution it should remain a national issue, and yet in doing so any mention of legalization is very far off. It seems that some people don't mind the government overreaching on some things, so long as it abides by their strict moral standards, but heaven forbid we should regulate the sale of firearms. Pam Ah...if only rational thinking entered the political world! The legalization of marijuana is so simple, so rational, so common sense that I doubt that it will ever be legalized! It should have been legal by now, but the views of the brainwashed "moral majority" seem to hold fast, no matter what the issue is. Sander I agree with everything you wrote, except one small item: "...it cannot cause the kind of harm known to be associated with legal products such as cigarettes." This, I'm afraid, is false. The inhalation of smoke from any burning product is detrimental to the health of the lungs. While many noxious chemicals pass easily through the filters in cigarettes, large molecules are removed. This does not happen with most methods of marijuana inhalation. That is why many medpot coops sell capsules and prepared food items with the medicine inside. Greggory Sander: While your point may seem to be common-sensical, I'm afraid it's not based on any definitive factual information whatsoever. In fact, there is not a single documented case - ever - of a person's contracting lung cancer, emphysema, etc., solely from marijuana inhalation. (In fact, there's a Harvard study suggesting that marijuana may be therapeutic where lung cancer is concerned.) That is not to say it cannot happen, but to this point no one can say for sure - in part because of the paucity of full-blown studies, a paucity that exists because, of course, of marijuana's federal illegality. Moreover, a common inhalation method in the medpot community (and elsewhere) is vaporizing, which (for reasons you can easily research online) pretty much moots this concern. Lastly, this concern is not the SOLE reason why coops create edibles; and it should be noted that, to my knowledge, capsulized cannabis has been found to be pretty useless all around. Allyson I do believe they should be required to maintain business licenses however I don't think their zoning should be reconsidered, only because liquor stores are not zoned any differently. Am I right in this assertion? Capster Excellent article! Also in regard to Sander's comment: unlike cigarettes, cigars, and pipe tobacco, which are manufactured for the sole purpose of smoking them, the THC in marijuana can be absorbed simply by eating it, and as mentioned, by vaporization, thus removing any possible risks of burning it and inhaling the smoke. And unlike alcohol products made by various methods of brewing and fermentation which cause chemical alteration of the ingredients used, marijuana is ready to use exactly as nature provides it, in its unaltered natural state. And then there is the HUGE potential for hemp fibers and seeds in food and dozens of commercial and industrial uses. The fibers are among the strongest and most durable found on earth.If we can undo the incredible fear and damage done by our government's "war on drugs", one of the most unsuccessful, useless and costly failures in our nation's short history, we might just find that light at the end of the tunnel! As Mother Theresa once stated regarding her invitation to attend an anti-war rally "I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I'll be there. We need to take the same approach to mentally and physically healthy choices, and it has to start in the home. No government's anti-anything program will ever succeed, period. History has proven that thousands of times over. John Greet Greggory: There are few truly “definitive” studies in medicine. Even the report I’m about to reference consistently employs terms like “may” and “could” simply because there exist so many variables in truly academic medical research (i.e. the more we learn the less we seem to know). Still, this report seems to lend considerable weight to the argument that inhaling smoke of any sort, including marijuana, is, at the very least physiologically detrimental and I believe that those who attempt to dismiss this very valid concern do the discussion considerable disservice. Please review and consider: “Effects of Marijuana on the Lung and its Immune Defenses” by Donald P. Tashkin, M.D., UCLA School of Medicine. March 1998. The study concluded, among other things, the following: Habitual marijuana use (about one joint per day, on average) may lead to the following effects on the lung: acute and chronic bronchitis; extensive microscopic abnormalities in the cells lining the bronchial passages (bronchial epithelium), some of which may be premalignant; overexpression of genetic markers of progression to lung cancer in bronchial tissue; abnormally increased accumulation of inflammatory cells (alveolar macrophages) in the lung; and impairment in the function of these immune-effector cells (reduced ability to kill microorganisms and tumor cells) and in their ability to produce protective inflammatory cytokines. Nicksmokes Small Steps are always the way to go. If we lept into Decriminalization there could be people at stores buying food and drinks and gas to go to the store. And we wouldn't feel that pain of having everything in our lives ripped from us. I guess Life can not exist without pain. It is good we are starting to figure out that the help was actually hurting us. Enslave our government. Do not let our government enslave us. Hope to see a brighter wo Good points. Almost all crime is drug based. Why support criminals? The drug war is a losing proposition. When I was in high school it was a hundred times easier to buy pot than beer! Nobody is being stopped! The whole thing is ridiculous and COPS are getting killed. Bad! Greggory John Greet: Well, again, maybe, but the evidence just isn't in; and the study you cite is all "may, may, may" - thus, "concluded" is really the wrong word ("conjectures" is better). Gotta get the data. Wanna make claims for pot being similar to tobacco on the lungs, gotta bring forward something in the way of similar real-world evidence - i.e., patients where the linkage has been established like it has concerning cigarettes. But right now that is quite obviously lacking. Elliot Gonzales God Bless California! We have some of the best wine, beer, produce, and marijuana and despite our country's fear of an immoral anarchial society, we seem to be doing pretty fine (except the budget,prison & school systems and our love of celebrity politicians). This is the promised land! John Greet Thanks, Greggory. 'May' is, indeed, a conclusion, if not a particularly conclusive one...lol. For those not inclined to seek out the actual abstract, I'll append the following summary from Dr. Tashkin's report: 'The evidence for the harmful consequences of marijuana smoking is preliminary and requires long-term study. In the interim, prudent advice must serve where substantial clinical evidence is lacking. Habitual marijuana use, as often as one joint per day, may result in serious pulmonary consequences. In the short term, breathing may be restricted, coughing may be increased, and resistance may be lowered to opportunistic infections of the lungs such as pneumonia. Respiratory cancer is a likely result in the long term. Heavier use of marijuana is likely to have more potent, adverse health consequences.' Now, in my opinion, people own their own bodies and have a right to abuse or damage them whowever they like but I'll repeat my contention that those who attempt to dismiss these very valid health concerns do the discussion considerable disservice. Bill Orton I support efforts by council to regulate and normalize businesses that provide marijuana to patients with legitimate referrals from state licensed doctors. Business operators in the "pharmagreen" industry are right to be protective of their patients' privacy rights. But the city is wholly within their rights to establish zoning criteria and regulating and taxing the dispensaries. That said, there remains a very real hurdle for pharmagreen businesses to clear, namely to show to political leaders, law enforcement and the general public that the industry and patients do not pose a menace to society. The rapid proliferation of dispensaries in Los Angeles and the high-profile marketing antics of bold operators do not help dispel the notion of a menace. I am a supporter of pharmagreen businesses, but the industry needs far more self-regulation to weed out the bad apples and in the absence of aggressive self-regulation, then cities need to step in, as we are seeing here. I support the efforts of council and wish them well in crafting their final policy. Douglas Frankenfeld Until the U.S. Congress passes legislature to abolish making marijuana and hemp a "Class 1 narcotic," medical marijuana will always have a federal versus states' rights battle royale. Another reason the U.S. Congress should legalize hemp--and I am using a broder definition--is so that farmers can grow an abundant fiber for clothing, fabric, and linen. Hemp grown in this matter has so little THC that it cannot even be considered a narcotic. Farmers in tobacco-growing states like North Carolina, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio could grow this fiber at a better return on investment than tobacco. I Live Here With freedom comes responsibility and so legalization should also include paramaters and requirements. Californians, including me, voted to allow marijuana for medicinal purposes. However, most of us probably didn't consider the potential free for all that would ensue. My neighborhood is now dealing with the negative impacts associated with numerous, unregulated dispensaries in our community - there are 4 of them on the same street within a 5 minute walk of each other. Our neighborhood is a transitional one - a Redevelopment Area. Those of us who purchased homes here understood that, but hoped to be part of the solution to improve the area. The dispensaries that have moved-in, so far have not demonstrated an interest in the larger neighborhood and its health. Instead, we find ourselves faced with increased incidences of loitering, trespassing, crime, at least one incident of breaking and entering, noise at all hours of the night (one of the places is open 'til 1am), marijuana being passed on to others waiting outside and littering (blunt wrappers and rolling papers). Many, no most, of the clientele my neighbors and I see patronizing these operations look like stereotypical "stoners" - in all there various representations. Most also happen to be young men in their 20's & 30's riding up on skateboards or driving up in cars with tinted windows and rims. Not the inferm that most expected would be helped by medicinal marijuana. From an aesthetic perspective, the operations do nothing to contribute to the visual appeal or positive image of our area. The storefronts of the operations are eyesores with darkened/covered windows and hand made signage. I am not saying that all places are like this or that all clients are like this, but many, many are. The City needs recognize and regulate this type of business. It needs to incorporate the use into the zoning code, issue Conditional Use Permits and business licenses. Oh yes, it also needs to levy a hefty tax as well. I would also suggest that the professionally run dispensaries speak out against the rogue operations and reach out to their neighbors and support efforts to improve the community and keep it safe. Like residents, patients too must feel safe when they travel through the neighborhood to reach the dispensary. San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland all heavily regulate and limit the number of dispensaries within their boundaries. We need to do the same. Diana Lejins, Advocates f Great article! Let us not forget that in the not so distant past med-pot patients were being regularly jailed and persecuted/prosecuted by the "powers that be" in this glorious city. Hopefully, we will continue going forward in this issue as you have suggested. The time is right; the time is now. Point Taken I live here! I live here, you're right. I don't want something that should be in the open continue to exist in the shadiness of drug abuse. We must monitor marijuana like we do liquor. We don't want drunks and alcoholics hanging outside of liquor stores in our neighborhood, but we don't mind a clean, well kept neighborhood liquor store. It's a cultural thing, you're reffering to and I'm not sure that the city has the power (or knowledge) to change that. It seems that neighborhood associations and communities should help policymakers decide the visual requirements for these facilities. We should also enforce laws preventing stoned driving. I get high all the time and let me tell you, that stuff does impair one's reflexes and quick thinking! It's amazing how "controversial" weed is and not one person has anything negative to say about it. The only thing close is people who don't want a society of unproductive potheads hanging out all over the place while the rest work and go to school. Diana, great comment. You're absolutely right politicians are always the first to ask for applause when the feds raid someone's indoor stash and now that the people are in favor these "progressives" will be sure to put themselves in the limelight again. Greggory, could you do one more article about social effects of legalization and include some of its history, including medical use and the common counterculture of glamorization? Citizen It is inhumane to take away someones freedom and lock them in a metal cage because they chose to ingest a plant that is safer than alcohol, its as simple as that. My grandfather is 82 and has used marijuana for over 40 years, and he is healthy and happy and loves his life, so there is no way I am going to believe that it makes you crazy or kills you, because Ive seen what 40 years of use does, or should I say doesn't do. AB390 Nice article! Marijuana should be legal for ALL adults, not just for patients. Visit http://yes390.org Jane You've all been made dumb by too much pot smoking or did Moore forget to tell you that was one of the side effects of marijuana? You really should read up on the history of substance abuse in America and probably China too, to understand why we need to keep these drugs illegal. Right now Russia's young people are suffering greatly due to heroin addiction. I don't care how harmless you think marijuana might be, it needs to remain illegal. Greggory Jane, perhaps you can point out to us where you have found medical evidence supporting the claim that "be[ing] made dumb [is] one of the side effects of marijuana"; because it would certainly be, well, dumb to make a claim about brain function based solely on prejudice and lacking any neurological evidence to support it. And we all know that, since you don't smoke marijuana, you haven't been made dumb. (I really like that phrasing of yours; it's so not-dumb.) inothernews did you see the news report about the grandmother who was fined for buying too much cold medicine. it seems in some states the pharmacies share customer lists to alert police when someone buys enough cold medicine to make meth.
No Destination
Greggory Moore examines Long Beach in light of his belief that the most pragmatic aim of a community and its individuals is not for a terminus but simply to be better, always to be better.
Trapped within in the ironic predicament of wanting to know everything (more or less) while believing it may not be possible really to know anything at all, Greggory Moore is nonetheless dedicated to a life of study, be it of books, people, nature, or that slippery phenomenon we call the self. And from time to time he feels impelled to write a little something. He lives in a historic landmark downtown and holds down a variety of word-related jobs, from HOA minutes-taker to copy editor and contributing writer for The District Weekly.
Greggory's Community
Greggory's Archives
March, 2010 03.14.10 Dear Mayor: Concerning The Medical Marijuana Ordinance03.07.10 More Westboro Protest Thoughts: Is It Ever Not About Us?February, 2010 02.20.10 Thoughts On A Protest02.15.10 Long Beach Dilemma: Protest Or Ignore The Gay Hate?02.03.10 More On Medpot (But Not Much More) -- Updated!January, 2010 01.22.10 Long Beach And Medpot: Where We’re At01.08.10 When To Give, And How Much?December, 2009 12.18.09 Why, How, And When Should People Be Hated?Show All Archives |
||
| About Us | Contact Us | Policies | ||
