Question 5 -- Special Rights for Potheads

And the difference between this and other medications that people take. Doesn't this reduce the need for other narcotic drugs that may be proscribed?

No Dan, not if someone "claims" to need medical marijuana, but if they actually are found eligible to use medical marijuana. A very important delineation.

Larry: The difference is that this "medication" has not gone through the regulatory process for approval that is required for all other prescribed medications.

But you are ignoring the issue at hand. Can you seriously ignore or justify the sections quoted above?

Cigarsmoker: Not really. There are no accepted medical standards by which to make such a determination.

Putting that aside, there is no Maine law that provides special rights for the users of any other drugs. A judge may consider the impact of any other medication when determining child custody.

Why special rights for pot users?

Wow, what red herrings you hurl. Of course Pot hasn't gone through the same procedures as other medications, because the law prohibits those studies from happening in the first place.

do you deny the fact that a doctor must prescribe the marijuana prior to the person being able to legally use it? Your assertion that anyone can "claim" to be a medical marijuana user and get special treatment is bogus at best.

People are prescribed medication that is not approved for a specific purpose all the time. I think it is ridiculous that we treat this drug differently then other drugs. I also think it hypocritical when people who drink alcohol don't approve of the legalization of marijuana.

Wow Dan, I am not sure if you have known or do know anyone who has gone through chemo, radiation had MS or any other illness that pot helps. The family members I know were desperate for relief and to deny them this is wrong. As to the renting etc, if you are sick enough to need medical pot you are not out looking for a job, apartment or going through a divorce. As to being stoned half the time, have you seen public housing? Doesn't look like anyone is being refused an apartment for doing any kind of drug, heck we are probably giving them the money to buy their drugs.

This is ridiculous Maine has enough freeloaders soaking the system on every other drug do we really need to start paying for pot for stoners ?
Good Lord what is wrong with people !

How is the state going to be paying for medical pot?

I guess a broader question might be how many times would an situation arise where a person who is using pot as medicine would create this kind of "problem". I'll venture far and few between.
From personal experience I've dealt with people who have been perscribed "mood altering medications" who are more whacked out and unpredictable than any person I've ever been around who is just stoned on hooch.
In fact I'd be more inclined to rent to the pot smoker Having been physically attacked on several occasion by an ex -spouse on a presrcibed legal mood altering drug left a rather vivid set of experiences indelibly etched in my memory.
I guess I need some one to explain the difference between chronic alcohol abuse which is legal and chronic pot abuse which is not. Both drugs are used by the majority of users with little or no adverse effects.

Bottom line on all this windage.... whats the big deal if someone suffering the effects of chemo gets some relief from smoking pot?? Having watched several family members die from cancer ANY relief they could find is okay with me.

Well said.

Islander: You need to read about the California experience. People quickly starting get prescriptions for things other than chemo. Seemingly healthy period are getting it for anxiiety or headaches.

johnw: Right how you can rent to anyone you would like. This law would take that away from you. If your other tenants complain about the constant smell of pot smoke coming from the apartment -- and the renter shows you a card -- you could not do anything. Do we really want another protected class?

You are all dodging the question here -- why the special rights? There is no special law protecting the users of any other drug like the sections quoted above.

I agree with your "special rights" point Dan. For that reason I'm unsure how I'll vote on this one. I think it should be legal for all. Do you know anyone who smokes pot?

charlie

I used to work in radio. I have known lots of such people over the years.

#1 - Most people sick enough to need cannibis to control their nausea are in no shape to be working. I think that one is a non-issue. In addition, there's no smoking allowed in most buildings these days, and in many cases, not even on the property. "Smoking" means just that, no matter what the substance might be. Those laws already exist.

#2 - Likewise, most people sick enough to need cannibis aren't likely to be doing much unsupervised parenting. Ensuring the safety of children would also be up to the other parent, and I think it's likely that any court would be amenable to hearing testimony regarding an illness and the medication when considering custodial/visitation orders.

#3 - On the landlord issues, I doubt that situation would happen often, or be pervasive. Also, would existing no-smoking laws be superceded by this new law?

And in your life today!

charlie

How is methadone handled? Can anyone get it? If pot is regulated properly then I see no problem with it being used for medical purposes. As to special rights I do see your point Dan but having watched family members go through cancer treatment and pot being the only thing that allowed them to have some normalcy then I will vote yes. The pros out weigh the cons. As to renting apartments there are ways to avoid renting to anyone you do not want to, or just renew the lease, up the rent etc. Visitation rights, red herring.

Dan - how many of those people were (or are) receiving chemotherapy?

I agree with Islander - my vote on this legislation will be "yes."

Naran: You must be high to make such arguments.

1. If what you say is true, why did the authors put this in the bill? The proponents must have put this in there for a reason. They have something in mind.

2. The California experience shows that you are wrong that only really sick people convince doctors to say they need pot.

Islander: Red hearing? The pro-pot people put that in the bill. It must be there for a reason.

Dan, I can't imagine what the reason would be. Are you saying that there are Doctors in Maine who would just perscribe a drug just for the heck of it, no matter if there were specific guidlines as to what it can be perscribed for? I do not believe you can get morphine because you have a headache, or methadone because you have a hangnail. Maybe we should just allow the people who are on chemo to buy their pot on the street and risk being arrested. Also your headline is misleading, are you saying that because you may be terminally ill, have aids, going thriugh chem and you smoke pot that makes you a pothead, you are way misinformed on that one not to mention a little insulting to anyone who has watched a family member suffer.

Dan - clearly, you aren't high enough, since you failed to acknowledge the questions about the proposed law vs. existing no-smoking laws.

Again, I think the incidence of working folks and landlord issues won't be as pervasive as you allege.

Also, Maine is not California. I dare say our doctors aren't quite as blinded by the sun, smog, and dollar signs as some out there. The population numbers are also staggeringly different.

Keep trying, however... maybe you'll win a free joint from the local coalition.
lol

Islander: There is lots of evidence of doctors who over-prescribe and mis-prescribe medications. We have a major issue with prescription drug abuse that is related to such problems. The same is true with pot in California.

Naran: What no-smoking law has anything to do with an apartment? As I read the proposed law, if a landlord wanted to make all his units non-smoking, this law would prevent it.

As for Maine vs. California -- with Question 1, it looks like we are about to prove that Maine is more liberal than California.

The people who wrote this law put in those sections for a reason. They plan to flood our courts with suits over pot-smokers rights.

By the way -- if someone is truly disabled they are already protected by existing federal and state laws. If a landlord today tried to kick out a cancer patient due to their medications, existing law would protect the patient. The laws above would only be needed for pot-smokers who are not truly disabled. The authors know that and know that pot prescriptions will be obtained by many who are not really sick.

Drug "abuse" is a major problem in this state, be it alcohol, street drugs, or prescription drugs. Far be it from me to deny a needy patient access to a "drug" that would alleviate their suffering. My problem with a bill like this is the unintended consequences.

I have no confidence in the Maine "system" being able to apply sufficient controls to manage a new law like this. We live in a state that seems unable to manage anything. How do we expect this new law would be any different?

Dan you make a good argument, and if pot is perscribed to people who do not need it there are not laws to prosecute this? Are you saying law enforcement pertaing to illegal perscrption writing is not working, why ? And to equate perscrption drugs to pot is apples and oranges. I don't why those are put in the law and does make one think what the end game is. I just have more faith in our Dr's who are perscribing these drugs than to just hand them out willy-nilly. And can we repeal this law if it does get abused?

Doctors seem to be pretty free with perscribing, anti depressants, and other mood altering dugs. At my most recent physical I told my doctor that I was feeling kind of stressed because of my job demands and the next sentence out of his mouth was "I can perscribe something for that".... I politely turned the offer down as I have seen how dependent many have become on this type of medication My point is that I highly doubt doctors will perscribe pot to just anyone if it is designated as a cancer treatment type of therapy.The pharmacutical sales men are pretty well entrenched and selling new medicines is very lucrative so there is an incentive ...... would the incentive be as big for pot?

My Mom has had cancer three times and has been through chemo treatments...not a fun experience as I have been there to help my Mom over the years during all the different medication treatments. Both my parents and myself will be voting this down.

You keep coming down on Dan and asking if he has family or friends that have ever had cancer or any of these other diseases and figure that he must not and that is why he is opposed to this even though he has stated otherwise. Well, I thought it was time I through my two cents worth in this pot (ha ha) and said that we (my parents and myself) see this as an illegal drug and it has no business being used as a legal drug for medicinal use. Its short term effects have long term consequences.

Sadly, the lady for whom I did hospice work, and who used cannibis, eventually died. It wasn't the cannibis that got her, it was the cancer. However, the cannibis allowed her more good-quality time with her family, because when she used it, she could eat, and she felt much better. There isn't much quality of life when you're so prostrated by nausea that you can't function. I am firmly convinced that the cannibis helped to extend her life, and it certainly improved her remaining life.

She didn't smoke it, by the way. It was put into various foods that she could easily digest.

There wasn't much concern about the "long term effects" of her relatively short-term use, since she's deceased now.

And she was able to get the drug under existing law.

I can't say for sure how she obtained it, but it wasn't through a doctor. From what I understand, it was a "street" purchase.

I have no confidence in the Maine "system" being able to apply sufficient controls to manage a new law like this.

Then just leagalize it and control it like alcohol.

Phohibition was mostly for racist reason, not legitimate ones.

Maine can't just legalize it. That is a federal issue.

We also do a lousy job controlling alcohol.