A very smug article was published in the daily disappointment (The Oklahoman) of July 6th if I’m not mistaken. Rather, an editorial, which questioned the “qualifying conditions” of medical marijuana use. (Specifically, constitutional amendment 37 which would legalize marijuana for medical purposes in Oklahoma.)
I will quote a bit. “Other provisions of the proposal provide cause for skepticism about the initiative’s true goal. Under the proposal, anyone who lacks a medical marijuana license but is caught in possession of up to 1.5 ounces of marijuana (or up to six cannabis plants) would have only a misdemeanor charge if that individual ‘can state a qualifying medical condition…’
“In other words, as long as you can remember to say ‘dude, I have chronic headaches,’ marijuana cultivation would be only a misdemeanor, not a felony, even if you have no license. “
Funny how some people like to think they know what’s best for other people. Maybe the person in question (if we are to stoop to hypotheticals) actually thinks that marijuana has a positive effect on headaches.
I don’t personally think weed is all that good of an idea, but because I am not a doctor nor am a scientist, I can’t question its medical effectiveness. Nor can I say anything about possible harm.
But I can say that if you think weed is a good idea, and that you enjoy regular use of it, more power to you – just be sure to take the consequences of those actions, which could either be positive or negative.
While we’re here I would also like to make another point. Weed activists question why weed is illegal – the moderate ones question the illegality of medical marijuana, the others question the illegality of marijuana for normal use. But should they not be questioning – on an intellectual level at least – the power of a government to make such things illegal to begin with?
I hold that shouldn’t be within a government’s scope of power. Always eager to hear your thoughts on this, in the comment forum on this article, preferably –