see, you have already misinterpreted an incredibly well written article and gone down the boxed canyon road. I think it's a bad idea to _only_ legalize CBD treatments, because THC is also valuable. There are also hundreds of other unclassified compounds in cannabis which are valuable.
So what I'm concerned is, in some areas of the country where it is more difficult to pass legalization, some activists who probably know better will consider legislation that only allows very narrow compounds and in fact, it may be nearly impossible to create a plant that is not illegal under CBD-only legislation.
Cannabis has countless uses, but speaking as someone who has participated in the authoring and passing of legislation, it's not easily amended or revisited.
A lot of people who don't personally care about cannabis that much are willing to vote for cannabis legislation once in a while, but they just don't want to talk about it all the time. Passing legislation that is overly narrow on any issue that people don't want to talk about makes them feel as if they have accomplished something for another community, but they really don't want to have to go through all the details every year.
Medical Cannabis itself has been described as a box canyon, largely because there are tons of medicinal herbs that just happen to never have had a war waged on them which noone would _think_ of regulating in the slightest. The problem this creates, of course, is that, say, at a free concert in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco if I ask people to sign a petition to put a legalization measure on the ballot, they laugh and say:
"Dude, it's already legal!!"
Thanks, Captain unregistered voter, I totally hadn't noticed. But it's not.
That said, even with full legalization, medical cannabis will still be an important fight because it addresses the basic rights of people whose doctor have told them to use this substance. We're still fighting for legislation that prevents employers from being able to terminate a patient for cannabis use, and there are concerns about people on probation for non-drug offenses not being able to use it when in fact, it is often very helpful to them.
Anyway, Charlotte's Web is great, it's really amazing and beautiful that cannabis is able to provide this sort of relief to such young children, and it does need to be available, everywhere, right now, for everyone.
I'm just saying if someone is in a state and they think they can carry legislation across the finish line with stories like this, it's important to at least shoot for the bigger fight, because some children who have epilepsy may have parents, uncles, aunts, or grandparents with cancer or HIV and the munchies don't come from CBD. ;)
>What test are you going to force me to take to consume those herbs? Why do you have any say over what I can consume?
Before you say "I can do anything I want/it's my problem/ freedom comes first", please consider the following:
- There is an asymmetric relationship between a customer and a manufacturer with incredible marketing power.
- You live in a society which invested in you, and although you might not value your life, it actually has value for said society.
- You are not alone, the problem isn't the loner consuming <whatever> but the accumulated effect on society when the behavior is widespread.
- When I'm ill I expect the drugs/treatments I take to either replace my symptoms will less unpleasant symptoms or cure me altogether. The purpose of testing and regulations are for people like me. You can call me a square if you want, but I think my expectations are actually widespread.
- "But we know the effect of <whatever>, I use it all the time, and no problem". Allergic reactions, interactions with other drugs, long term effects, interactions with diseases... So many possibilities...
Do you know how many FDA approved drugs kill people every year due to adverse reactions? How times drug companies have been caught selling FDA approved drugs that they knew to be deadly? How do you justify alcohol and tobacco being legal? Both directly kill millions.
How do you answer the actual question. On what moral principle can one human seek to imprison another human for growing or possessing a simple flower?
Why not outlaw fatty foods like burgers and fries? That's the only thing that directly kills even more people than alcohol and tobacco. Why not arrest people for eating illegally fatty foods? Arrest illicit burger dealers?
If you had grown up in a world where fatty foods were illegal you would tell us all how our desire to eat fatty food is bad for society. You would be right. It is. It's also my right as a human.
Do you know how many FDA approved drugs kill people every year due to adverse reactions? [...]
I don't understand your point. You realize that mistakes or corruption happen, whatever system you have in place, it doesn't mean the system is wrong.
On what moral principle can one human seek to imprison another human for growing or possessing a simple flower?
With that kind of argument you could say such things as "On what moral principle can one human seek to imprison another human because it possesses a piece of metal?" (weapon possession).
The problem is the balance between public interest and individual freedom. My point isn't that outlawing <whatever substance> is the way to go, my point is that you have to put everything in perspective and avoid overly simplistic principles such as "what matters is my individual freedom".
You have to appreciate that your freedom stops where the freedom of others start and that your actions have an impact on society as a whole.
It's not just a childish "I'm free to do whatever you want".
Thanks for admitting that you "don't understand." I'll try a bit more, but you completely failed to refute or even adequately respond to anything I said so I'm not inclined.
How can you not understand that my freedom implies your freedom? How can I be free to live my life if society allows bad people to harm me? The world is not an abstract concept. Your attempt at speaking in riddles may convince you that you're right but it has no bearing on reality.
Calling freedom "childish" does not diminish it. Kings have been telling their subjects for millennia that they're not responsible enough to rule themselves. The fact that you feel this way is not surprising. It's a pessimistic and wrong viewpoint that is hard for many to even see let alone change their thinking on.
Your intellectually dishonest attempt at comparing an actual "simple flower" and a manufactured weapon (not "metal" as you pretend) is entirely specious. Deciding what should be regulated by society is not trivial, the question is how you make your decisions. Do you make your decisions based on maximizing personal freedom or someone's perception of what's beneficial for "society"?
...and this is where I realize this is probably an argument between a Constitutionalist American and a Chinese communist. We will probably have to agree to disagree.
So your point is that because it's a plant, it's not a drug and not under the purvey of the FDA?
If that's the case then it's still a federal matter and not a local one.
> What test are you going to force me to take to consume those herbs?
A test of knowledge of what they do, and in what situations they can harm. Not a morality test since I think that's what you are scared of, but a test to make sure you know what you are doing.
> Why do you have any say over what I can consume?
Because most people are idiots and will take anything without thinking if it's a good idea or not.
I don't want to tell people what to do, but at least demonstrate that you are doing it with knowledge and not with randomness.
You appear to be for legalization as long as the participants pass your test for "valid consumption".
I could also argue with a "new earther" or holocaust denier and try to give them a chance to make the nuances of their argument be known. But I choose not to because I know that they're wrong. As with you.
You have no grasp of the damage that has been done to society by the illegality of cannabis or the reasons that it's been done. Hint: it was never about the safety of those consuming it.
that's simply an ignorant response, you clearly have not read the news for twenty years.
these laws exist, they are being passed every year, congress is currently working on legislation to de-fund the DEA in medical marijuana states, but some states actually have completely broken laws that won't be revisited because the voting populace says, "we already did this!". See: New Mexico.
So what I'm concerned is, in some areas of the country where it is more difficult to pass legalization, some activists who probably know better will consider legislation that only allows very narrow compounds and in fact, it may be nearly impossible to create a plant that is not illegal under CBD-only legislation.
Cannabis has countless uses, but speaking as someone who has participated in the authoring and passing of legislation, it's not easily amended or revisited.
A lot of people who don't personally care about cannabis that much are willing to vote for cannabis legislation once in a while, but they just don't want to talk about it all the time. Passing legislation that is overly narrow on any issue that people don't want to talk about makes them feel as if they have accomplished something for another community, but they really don't want to have to go through all the details every year.
Medical Cannabis itself has been described as a box canyon, largely because there are tons of medicinal herbs that just happen to never have had a war waged on them which noone would _think_ of regulating in the slightest. The problem this creates, of course, is that, say, at a free concert in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco if I ask people to sign a petition to put a legalization measure on the ballot, they laugh and say:
Thanks, Captain unregistered voter, I totally hadn't noticed. But it's not.That said, even with full legalization, medical cannabis will still be an important fight because it addresses the basic rights of people whose doctor have told them to use this substance. We're still fighting for legislation that prevents employers from being able to terminate a patient for cannabis use, and there are concerns about people on probation for non-drug offenses not being able to use it when in fact, it is often very helpful to them.
Anyway, Charlotte's Web is great, it's really amazing and beautiful that cannabis is able to provide this sort of relief to such young children, and it does need to be available, everywhere, right now, for everyone.
I'm just saying if someone is in a state and they think they can carry legislation across the finish line with stories like this, it's important to at least shoot for the bigger fight, because some children who have epilepsy may have parents, uncles, aunts, or grandparents with cancer or HIV and the munchies don't come from CBD. ;)