Skip to main content

Proposed Legislative Amendment:

A legislative initiative to permit the use and cultivation of marijuana for specified medical conditions.  (Proposal provided under a legislative initiative petition filed with the Secretary of State on November 20, 2007.)

The following is the language of the legislative amendment as it appeared on the legislative initiative petition.


An initiation of Legislation to allow under state law the medical use of marihuana; to provide protections for the medical use of marihuana; to provide for a system of registry identification cards for qualifying patients and primary caregivers; to impose a fee for registry application and renewal; to provide for the promulgation of rules; to provide for the administration of this act; to provide for enforcement of this act; to provide for affirmative defenses; and to provide for penalties for violations of this act.

Full Text here.

Here is a letter I've written in support of this proposal.

It is true that the legalization of medical marijuana specifically or drugs more generally is not the most pressing issue we face this year.  That is, we could stick with the status quo, and things would not get drastically better or worse in the world.  It's hard to get away from the "legalize, dude," image of some guy in high school going on and on about how it would be great if we could just get stoned all the time.  And on a more personal note, I've always felt that time, money, and energy is in short supply, and all three could be put to better use than providing for legal pot.

These concerns are, however, a major mischaracterization of the real issue.

FIRST, as the language above states, this is a bill to approve marijuana for medical, not recreational use.  Similar proposals have been approved and implemented in twelve other states without a noticeable increase in illicit drug use.  We need not conjure up images of two-dimensional stoners, nor do we need require that regulatory agency must be written in stone in order to pass meaningful legislation; the proposal is rigorous enough.  The drug will be closely regulated by this proposal and will be going to very sick people with their doctors' prescription.  Decriminalization is, alas, an entirely different conversation.

SECOND, a consensus has been emerging over the last several decades that marijuana prescription can be appropriate in a medical context.  Medical approval has been voiced by such a range of diverse and reputable organizations as the American College of Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Nurses Association, as well as the American Bar Association and the National Association of Attorneys General, and individuals ranging from Barack Obama and Carl Sagan to Milton Friedman and Ron Paul.  The Michigan Democratic Party supports this proposal, as have the Lansing State Journal, the Detroit News, and other news outlets.

The medical community is more reasonably able to assess the merits and drawbacks of medical marijuana, as opposed to the issue being decided in a political setting fraught with emotion and incentive.  Individual doctors are best able to make decisions in their patients' interests.

Originally posted to blueskiesfalling on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:14 PM PDT.


Do you support Michigan's Proposal 1?

42%60 votes
6%9 votes
50%71 votes
0%1 votes

| 141 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Don't forget the tax revenue (7+ / 0-)

    California has made tons of money in tax revenue off of this.

    Which helps especially now that times are tight.

  •  I don't support this initiative (0+ / 0-)

    It gets its strongest support not from the medical community, but from groups merely trying to decriminalize marijuana for their own recreational use.  Using sick people to get something passed like this is sickenening to me.

    All of the benefits of marijuana can be gotten through pill form or shot form, or even patch form.  And if there really were any benefits, the drug companies would already be selling the crap out of it.

    This, in my opinion, stinks of ulterior motive.

    "We have not got to allow the partisanship that has really been entrenched in Washington D.C., no matter who's been in charge" Some Moron

    by Detroit Mark on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:20:52 PM PDT

    •  I hear arguments like this, but no citations. (4+ / 0-)

      What is your evidence that the groups trying to decriminalize marijuana are doing so for their recreational use?

      That's not what I think of when I think of, say the American Nurses Association or the Michigan Democratic Party.

      "No one gets to be born a butterfly, not even butterflies." - Santa

      by blueskiesfalling on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:22:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So i assume you support criminalizing (5+ / 0-)

      alcohol and tobacco as well?

    •  And the pills, shots and patches (5+ / 0-)

      are available where?

      "Here we are, trapped in the amber of the moment. There is no why." - Kurt Vonnegut

      by Wayneman on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:30:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's been nothing but good for us in California (5+ / 0-)

      Smoker or not.  Extra revenue for the state, fewer nonviolent prisoners to pay for out of our tax dollars, and a significant upsurge in grooviness, baby!

      •  And by the way, pill patch etc are all available (3+ / 0-)

        here.  As is plant form if that is your preference.

        Just worth pointing out that it has happened in other places and society hasn't unraveled yet.

        •  Pills, Patches and Shots don't need a vote (0+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Hidden by:

          A drug company runs it by the FDA and gets approval and it sells like hotcakes if it indeed does anything of any value.

          That's how it works.

          The vote is to allow pot smokers to smoke pot.  Sorry.  That's not a medical necessity.

          There's another crap out there to fry our brains with.  Smoking pot just turns you into a Palin supporter.

          "We have not got to allow the partisanship that has really been entrenched in Washington D.C., no matter who's been in charge" Some Moron

          by Detroit Mark on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:47:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why would a drug company seek FDA approval (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Predictor, eldubb72

            for a drug that grows on trees?  How could they possibly stand to profit?  It has been proven to help sufferers of cancer and glaucoma, but it is far more profitable for the drug companies to sell you something that they can patent as their own.

            Smoking pot just turns you into a Palin supporter.

            If you truly believe this, you must be terribly misinformed.

          •  That's the dumbest f*&$ing thing I've ever heard. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            If you've got some sort of a cogent argument then make it.  If I wanted to read some reactionary bullshit by someone talking out their ass, I'd go to Free Republic.

            •  Wow...rage and anger... (0+ / 0-)

              that's the first symptom.

              "We have not got to allow the partisanship that has really been entrenched in Washington D.C., no matter who's been in charge" Some Moron

              by Detroit Mark on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:12:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You said you weren't trying to change my mind... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Predictor, m4gill4

                ... which is fine, but it does seem like you've posted a lot for someone who has little invested in this issue.

                If your main reason for voting against it is because you think the bill would provide for recreational and not medical use, I would like to know what that source is.  I cannot find any evidence of this.  My understanding is that pot is used illegally in states both with and without medicinal marijuana; allowing medicinal marijuana did not make it immediately available to the general public.

                Now I've smoked pot twice in my life, and both about a decade ago, and I'm currently youngish and healthy, so this isn't a timely issue for me (ie. I shouldn't have a lot of bias).  

                But it bothers me that a drug which is clinically found to be much less destructive than either tobacco or alcohol cannot be prescribed under select circumstances by a trained physician.

                I have never seen anything like an objective argument that stands up to that one, glaring discrepancy.

                "No one gets to be born a butterfly, not even butterflies." - Santa

                by blueskiesfalling on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:23:50 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  "Posted A Lot" (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm just responding to the inciteful and hateful insults which inevitably follow anyone saying anything other than "We Support You, Smoke Your Brains Out".

                  Kind of amusing.

                  As to your point, you are making the argument that it should be legalized because no one has shown it to be harmful.

                  That's why it's not legal yet.  Because it's a backward argument.

                  Try showing some science as to why it has BENEFITS ... and you'll have the drug corporations behind you, if not already out in front of you.

                  We already know corporations are in the drivers seat these days.  If there was a way to sell this crap ... they'd be selling it.

                  "We have not got to allow the partisanship that has really been entrenched in Washington D.C., no matter who's been in charge" Some Moron

                  by Detroit Mark on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:30:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not a backwards argument. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    First, my responses have been courteous, and I think my arguments have been more substantive than "Smoke Your Brains Out."

                    Second, I think I provided a pretty comprehensive list of both legal and medical authorities that back up the notion that marijuana has medical merit.  In fact, this isn't the argument that "it should be legalized because no one has shown it to be harmful."  Because I'm not arguing here for legalization but for legal prescription, and I'm arguing that that decision should be made precisely by the medical profession, which as the background to make such a decision.

                    So I'm not arguing backwards, and if you consider the evidence I've provided to be insufficient, please considered that I've already cited nine named sources, whereas you haven't named one.

                    "No one gets to be born a butterfly, not even butterflies." - Santa

                    by blueskiesfalling on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:45:00 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Rage and anger are a symptom? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                of pot?  Whaaa??  You must get some good shit up there in Detroit, man, because rage and anger are most definitely NOT a side-effect of the herb we smoke out here in California.

              •  Clever, but you still have no shred of evidence (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                for your argument, if it can be called that.

                •  I'm not arguing (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm just stating that I intend to vote against it.

                  Why is that so hard for you to understand?

                  "We have not got to allow the partisanship that has really been entrenched in Washington D.C., no matter who's been in charge" Some Moron

                  by Detroit Mark on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:17:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's a completely disingenous statement. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    Your whole thread has been one long less-than-salient attempt to argue against it this measure, from your statement that smoking pot makes you like Palin right on down to the part about corporations being in the "drivers" seat if they wanted to "sell this crap."

                    The real question is, why can't you admit that what you're really trying to do is make an argument against medical marijuana, and further that your argument is failing since you've done nothing but talk out your ass and give not one shred of evidence to support any statement you've made?

          •  "Smoking pot just turns you into a..." (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            "Smoking pot just turns you into a Palin supporter."


            I've seen some dumb statements lately, like riding snowmobiles or hunting elk turns you into a Palin supporter (both not true, by the way), but this is dumb on a whole 'nother level.

    •  You don't know what you're talking about (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Do a little research before commenting.  Thanks.

      Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

      by bythesea on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:49:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I plan to vote against this as well. (0+ / 0-)

        This proposal offers little regulation on Medical Marijuana.  I have no problem with the legitimate usage of medical marijuana, but this proposal allows the use of marijuana for registered and non-registered patients.  It also allows any defendant to use the excuse of medicinal use for a defense in a court of law.
        If Marijuana is to be legalized for everybody, then we should be allowed to vote on that, but if it is primarily for medical use, there needs to be more regulation.
        The way this proposal was worded is dumb, so I am voting against.

        "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -Plato

        by Snickers77 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 02:38:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Makes no sense (0+ / 0-)

          and why the hell would you care if it did legalize it for everyone?  It shouldn't be a crime, and I say that as one who does not use it, though I easily could if I wanted to, legal or not.

          Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

          by bythesea on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 02:41:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because I have a child (0+ / 0-)

            and I would like for things to be regulated.  Alcohol is regulated, tobacco is regulated and marijuana if legal should be regulated.  That's why I care, because I care about my son!

            "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -Plato

            by Snickers77 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:15:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              but do you really think your son is going to smoke medical marijuana and get away with it?  I agree it should be regulated as alcohol is, but I don't see how this initiative endangers your son.

              Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

              by bythesea on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:19:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I've read about these concerns in the Freep... (0+ / 0-)

              ... but I think it's something of a non-issue.

              A huge misconception here and elsewhere is that this bill amounts to making pot legal.  It does not.  Are you worried about the level of regulation on Vicodin?  I think most of us would agree that it is pretty stringently monitored (certainly moreso than tobacco or alcohol).  Yet the language in this bill implies a very comparable level of regulation for pot.

              Now of course kids can and do use Vicodin illegally, and they will (continue to) do the same with pot, but it isn't an issue of regulation.  Regulating things doesn't always make them go away, as witnessed by fact that a solid majority of teems smoke up at some point even in pot's current illegal state.

              I understand your concern, and the Freep at least would seem to agree with you, but I don't think it's either fair or effective to trade off a desired analgesic to qualified patients in exchange for regulations that have never worked and the loss of which do not impact drug abuse rates.

              That's what's known as a raw deal.

              "No one gets to be born a butterfly, not even butterflies." - Santa

              by blueskiesfalling on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 03:30:40 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Kids can't get vicodin (legally) without a (0+ / 0-)

                prescription.  I don't think it is wrong to require the same for use of marijuana.  I know some kids use pot, some of my friends used it when I was a teenager, but just because things are difficult to regulate sometimes doesn't mean that we shouldn't try.  A lot of underage kids get access to alcohol, that doesn't mean that we should eliminate the drinking age.  
                If pot is to be legalized (for medical use), it should require a prescription.
                If pot is to be legalized (for recreational use), it should require an age limit and a way to be sold legally.  It should be regulated like alcohol.

                "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -Plato

                by Snickers77 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 05:55:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Again, (0+ / 0-)

                  while I agree, I think that the proposal as it stands would lead to this kind of regulation.  Do you really think, in today's political climate, and in Michigan of all places, pot is really going to be less regulated than alcohol?

                  "No one gets to be born a butterfly, not even butterflies." - Santa

                  by blueskiesfalling on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 07:01:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The ballot reads: (0+ / 0-)

                    Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana.

                    That doesn't sound like much regulation to me!  If an unregistered patient can get it, and get away with it, where is the regulation?

                    Anyways, thanks for the debate.  I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  I have already filled out my absentee ballot anyway.  I just have to turn it in.

                    "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -Plato

                    by Snickers77 on Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 06:35:06 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Drug Companies (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...would love to get a piece of prescribing marijuana for medical purposes.  Unfortunately, they're in bed with those that push the "phony" drug war.

      That's why it's  patients' rights groups that are forced to push this type of legislalation.

  •  John Walters is a horse's ass (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alma, canyonrat, second gen, Predictor

    Walters, the U.S. "drug czar," was in Michigan spreading the same misinformation about medical MJ that he's spouted in other states where this issue was on the ballot.

    Bottom line: he thinks MJ is immoral, a threat to our culture, and shouldn't be discussed, let alone legalized.

    John McCain's Straight Talk Express runs on fossil fuels.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:21:35 PM PDT

  •  I'm a MI resident and will be voting YES (10+ / 0-)

    ...on Prop 1.   Unfortunately, my father is going to null my vote by voting NO.  He hears Marajuana and thinks "Demon Weed."

    I've still got two weeks to change his mind


    Today's Halloween Movie Viewing: The Terror (1964)

    by jds1978 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:21:57 PM PDT

  •  It is important (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alma, Predictor, joustchr

    I have a close friend who has MS and he has to have dealers deliver to him on a regular basis in order to withstand the pain he is going through. Fortunately he lives in NYC and even though there is no medical weed law(remnants of Guiliani's reign); they are very understanding about it.

    But its very expensive for him and what about people who are suffering in places across the country which dont have a liberalized viewpoint and both the quality is low and the price high.

    In addition, the police in places like Manchester, England or Madrid, Spain have advocated for legal marijuana as their job would be much easier and they never have a problem with 'football' (soccer) revelers in the town centers with people smoking weed but they have all kinds of trouble with the drunks who become violent and sick.

  •  medical marijuana is great (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    canyonrat, Predictor, joustchr

    It's higher quality and significantly cheaper than the recreational kind. Ever since I moved to Cali, I have enjoyed this as have many many others. If only the Feds stopped raiding the clinics. I wonder how long we need to keep up the charade before we can just say out loud, there's nothing wrong with us, but we like smoking weed and want it legalized. The medical thing is wearing pretty thin at this point, but I guess as long as it helps the laws pass.

    Law is a light which in different countries attracts to it different species of blind insects. Nietzsche

    by Marcion on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:33:18 PM PDT

  •  I have AIDS, I live in California (9+ / 0-)

    Medicinal Marijuana is legal here, as it should be everywhere, whether for AIDS or Glaucoma.

    It is a necessity to help for the following:

    1. Sleep
    1. Pain
    1. Appetite

    Anyone who votes to Criminalize Medical Marijuana should be ashamed of themselves.

    This Medicine should not be Illegal:

    My best Wishes that Michigan get on-board with Legalization!!

  •  Hawaii too has a pot issue on ballot (3+ / 0-)

    Pot initiative is a hot topic
    by Bret Yager  Tribune-Herald Staff Writer
    Published: Sunday, October 19, 2008 8:18 AM HST

    Editor's note: This story is one in an occasional series of articles examining some of Hawaii County's hotly contested election issues.

    Hawaii County voters will weigh in this November on whether police should back off their pursuit of marijuana users and small growers.

    The general election ballot will contain a proposed amendment to county code making adult personal use of pot the county's lowest law enforcement priority. This would apply to people with up to 24 plants and 24 ounces of usable marijuana. It would also prohibit the county from accepting federal money to eradicate the drug on the Big Island.

    The proposal got its start with an organization called Project Peaceful Sky -- a reference to low-flying helicopters used in marijuana eradication. The group gathered 4,954 signatures of people supporting the lowest priority concept, but the county found only 2,214 to be valid. A total of 4,848 signatures were needed to put the proposal to a vote of the people. The County Council then stepped in and accepted the petition in August for a public vote on a 5-4 vote.

    Adam Lehmann, Peaceful Sky Board director, said eradication efforts have wasted resources, have never been successful, and have kept marijuana on the black market while driving up the street value of the drug.

    Lehmann said he objects to taxpayer money being used to mistreat people.

    "It seems to me they do check anyone who has a medical card. It gives them a reason to fly their helicopters. So many people are not happy with the helicopters," he said.

    Hawaii County prosecutor Jay Kimura said anything that makes drugs more readily available is a bad idea. Kimura also doubted the council has the authority to tell its police chief how to deal with a substance controlled under state laws.

    "In my opinion, this is beyond the scope of what the county has the authority to do. There are some preemption issues," Kimura said. "I don't think it's a practical thing for the council to be directing the chief to pick one drug over another. It isn't workable. Police also take an oath to enforce the law."

    The pre-emption doctrine prohibits legislative bodies from micromanaging the operations of its individual departments. County Corporation Counsel Lincoln Ashida said he'll ask the state attorney general to rule on the legality of the proposal, should it pass the voters.

    Lehmann said the county had 20 days to notify him if there was any problem with the initiative being put to a vote. But he's not worried about conflicts with the preemption doctrine, saying the bill specifies that the provisions can be carried out only to the extend allowed by the Hawaii Constitution and state statutes, and other aspects of the bill that aren't enforceable shall serve as "an advisory of the will of the people."

    Lehmann said he's optimistic "there's a really good chance this is going to pass. If people read the details and really look at what this is, they'll support it."

    Kimura said that state Department of Health surveys continue to show alcohol and drugs as problems that students consistently identify. An annual youth summit also identifies marijuana as being readily available on campus and a problem for students, he said.

    In reference to protections in the measure for up to 24 plants and 24 ounces, Kimura said, "In my estimation, that's a large amount. If someone is growing that much, I don't think it could just be for personal use."

    "I think this is part of an ongoing effort to legalize use of marijuana. There is a popular culture of marijuana and a national movement to legalize it by calling it medicine," Kimura said. "But if you analyze it from a medical perspective, you see more negatives than positives."

    The initiative would protect the cultivation, possession and personal use of the drug on private property.

    "I'm primarily an organic farmer, and no one grows marijuana on this property, but the helicopters go back and forth and back and forth. It's so obviously unconstitutional and wrong," Lehmann said. "By making adult personal use their lowest priority, they'll give themselves more time to focus on other crimes -- teen use, public use, driving under the influence, large grower operations and trafficking."

    Kona Councilwoman Brenda Ford said she objected to the contents of the bill but supported the democratic principle of letting the voters decide.

    "When you have 5,000 people sign a petition, it's time to put it on the ballot," Ford said. "I don't like the bill, personally. I don't support the legalization of marijuana. But because this is such a controversial bill, I felt each voter should become their own councilor."

    Personally, after 8 years of rapacious corporate greed, I'm looking forward to a cold beer and a little relaxing socialism.

    by IonaTrailer on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:41:01 PM PDT

  •  I have a friend (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alma, Predictor

    who is politically apathetic (we live in MI).  As far as I know, he's only voted once.  Anyway, after he told me he didn't intend to vote this year, I brought his attention to Proposal 1.  He is now motivated to drive to the polls on Nov. 4th to vote for Prop 1.   Prop 2 and Obama will also get his vote, riding high on the marijuana coattails.  

    This comment has been crossposted at AT&T: 611 Folsom St, San Francisco, CA - Room 641A.

    by ManahManah on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:43:15 PM PDT

  •  Federal Drug Laws (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Won't federal drug laws overrule this?

    A state can do whatever they want as far as drugs are concerned but that still doesn't mean that the DEA won't be busting in your door.

    Michigan could legalize pot for everyone but that won't mean anything as far as I understand the issue.

    I support states right's (GASP!) on this issue and I think federal law shouldn't overrule the local will of the people.

    BTW, in California where do the clinics get the weed from?

  •  I voted today - for Obama and (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    canyonrat, Predictor

    Levin and Yes on Med. MJ and Yes for stem cell research.  I have two friends who both had cancer and med MJ was the only real relief they got from their pain and definitely helped their appetite after chemo/radiation therapy. Americans are so hung up on drug use and penalties rather than genuinely helping people. I'm for treatment over fines/imprisonment for addicted drug users.

    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK

    by moose67 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:46:13 PM PDT

  •  I'd really like to see a push (4+ / 0-)

    in the midwest for the growing of hemp.

    For what ever fucked up reason hemp cannot be grown as a cash crop.  But, hemp is incredibly versatile and good for the soil and would a good contribution economically to the midwest and to the ecology of the soil.  

    All right, everybody be cool, this is a robbery! -GW Bush

    by audiored on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:48:35 PM PDT

    •  Yesh. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      canyonrat, Predictor, meatwad420

      People tend to forget that it North Carolina was building its cities partially on revenue from the tobacco industry around the same time Detroit started hemorrhage people to the South.  So I agree, and it would be ironic if Michigan incorporated hemp into a rebuilt economy.

      After, tobacco doesn't really have a medical application, whereas pot does.

      "No one gets to be born a butterfly, not even butterflies." - Santa

      by blueskiesfalling on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 12:52:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The first diesel engines (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      were run on hemp.  Maybe Detroit could start making more diesels along with the new Volt and the others?

      "Republicans are good at campaigning, not governing." Sen. Barack Obama, Sept. 8, 2008.

      by meatwad420 on Mon Oct 20, 2008 at 01:07:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site