46 Comments - OneMan - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 9:59 am: Somewhere in this there is an Andy McKenna joke… - ivoted4judy - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 10:05 am: a little reefer for the voters would be helpful to get thru this primary. - PFK - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 10:05 am: …and the Green Party’s Rich Whitney is for legalization. - Sewanee - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 10:05 am: Brady makes a good point about medical alternatives. However, there are many legal prescription drugs out there right now that, when abused, are much worse than marijuana. I’d say any substance should be fair game if a licensed physician believes it to be medically necessary. I’m not against post-surgical Vicodin prescriptions because I believe people abuse it too much. - train111 - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 10:07 am: Get rid of the laws on the books and tax the stuff. Broke Illinois is tossing millions down the toilet enforcing and prosecuting marijuana usage. (Snark on) - wordslinger - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 10:23 am: I give Ryan and Proft points for straying from the reefer madness crowd and talking some common sense. More of that, please. It’s 2010 — the enabling law was passed in 1978. - Served - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 10:24 am: Amen Sewanee and train111. If someone thinks that Marijuana is worse than Oxycontin, Percocet, or any number of perscription drugs, they are a fool. Marijuana isn’t addictive, and doesn’t create a dependence like painkillers. It’s silly to ban it for medical purposes. Like, 1950s reactionary silly. Why are we keeping doctors from prescribing something that may be effective with few side effects? - Yellow Dog Democrat - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 10:30 am: Ask the GOP candidates, Hynes and Quinn for that matter, where they stand on medical opiates… - Justice - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 10:31 am: Always looming in the back of my mind and those of countless others is the potential of this to be a gateway drug. Regardless of how we might think it will be regulated, there is the very real potential that it will become easily accessible to many who will take the next step into the drug world. One can argue that it can be controlled, as are most drugs….but most drugs can’t be grown in your garden and used by every kid on the block. This is not one I would want to loose onto the population. It is best left in the box, and let our hippie generation sneak their smoke as they presently do. It’s bad enough to text while driving. Try rolling one while texting while driving. And yes, I know all the arguments about alcohol and tobacco and how they too are bad for you, as well as the abuse of prescription pills. Just see no reason to add another distraction to our young generation. We tried it and it screwed up a lot of folks. Well maybe not Wayne Newton…..and Dylan? - OdysseusVL - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 10:36 am: Interesting response from Brady. Isn’t he one of those right wingers who wants local control over everthing? - RobRoy - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 10:37 am: Lots of potential bad side-effects with RX drugs. I’m concerned that no one is talking about the health impact of smoking. Clearly smoking other things such as tobacco is bad, so why not pot? - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 10:38 am: ===Always looming in the back of my mind and those of countless others is the potential of this to be a gateway drug.=== Keep in mind that Oxycontin is perfectly legal with a doc’s prescription. That’s not a “gateway” drug, it’s the final destination. - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 10:39 am: ===Clearly smoking other things such as tobacco is bad, so why not pot? === Try reading a little before posting something like that, please. - zatoichi - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 10:39 am: Large article in the 12/26 WSJ. In 40 years of war on drugs and $1 trillion, supply and use have not changed. The article’s point was the ‘law and order’ mentality entirely misses the business model used by the cartels where 50%-65% of their revenue is marijuana. Limiting access simply drives up the price and profit, it does not stop the use. U.S. is the #1 marijuana producer with Mexico #2 at $20B. People are simply not stopping their use because of legality. Legalize it and tax it. - Moving to Oklahoma - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 10:40 am: Legalize it. Tax it. Budget Problem Solved. - shore - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 10:42 am: california is a state that bears watching on this issue. they are considering legalizing it and taxing it to raise revenue. welcome back from break rich. - wordslinger - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 10:43 am: Justice, what does this have to do with kids scoring some weed? That’s been pretty simple for many decades now (hippies? give me a break). You don’t know anyone going through chemo who’s relied on a family member or friend to get them some marijuana? I bet you do. I’m starting to see a defense strategy for the Gallatin County sheriff…… - Leroy - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 11:15 am: The more I read about marijuana on the internet, the more wonderful things I learn. Just curious though…are there any downsides or risks to its use? Or is it all solid upside? - Rich Miller - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 11:24 am: Leroy, there are downsides to breathing, crossing the street, talking on a cell phone, living in a big city, living in a small town, etc., etc., etc. The question becomes if the downsides, when looked at rationally, are enough to warrant the punishment of prison. - Arthur Andersen - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 11:25 am: Any post using Wayne Newton as an example of anything should be blocked as spam. Having said that, I have to agree that this step is overdue for Illinois and commend the two candidates who support it. OTOH, the Lite Guv has had how long to contemplate a position as he’s wandered around the State seeking or holding every statewide office (except comptroller, a position for which he clearly holds in low esteem) in the 22 years since the enabler was passed? PS: OneMan, I think you could make a great joke if you “rolled in” Kirk with McKenna, but I don’t want to be the first banned commenter of the year, so AA will stop now. - John Bambenek - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 11:50 am: I get the logic of calling Jim Ryan a “serious Republican candidate”, but someone explain to me the logic of talking about Proft and Jim Ryan as “the two” republican candidates and not mentioning Adam Andrzejewski? You’d think there was a media blackout ordered somewhere and it even extends to the blogs. - downstate hack - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 12:03 pm: legalize it for medical purposes immediately. - VanillaMan - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 12:05 pm: Legalizing medical marijuana is legalizing marijuana. Legalizing marijuana is legalizing another vice. Another legal vice means more societal and health problems. The justification for medical marijuana is medical mumbo-jumbo. It is about as modern as phrenology and as specious. People who question taking an aspirin or sitting in a cafe near a smoker, suddenly believe it is fine and dandy to smoke a weed with various levels of carcinogens, various levels of mind-altering chemicals and noxious second hand smoke that could kill a canary. These folks are not thinking, they are justifying a stand they would not normally take due to fears of being considered judgemental and closed minded. Since they cannot come up with a good answer to “why not?”, they instead slough off their intellectual discriminations and common sense in an act of surrender and appeasement. We know that the legalization of pot causes societal problems. We see it in places that have legalized it. We know it is fact. Now - just as each of us has decided to take a stand against smoking, and each of us can spend countless hours debating Chief Illiniwek, take those skills and talent and start defending our society against the legalization of a mind-altering vice, it’s ramifications, and start answering that question, “why not?” There is no modern medical reason for medical marijuana. The entire argument is a sham and a fraud. - Pat Collins - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 12:24 pm: Why are we keeping doctors from prescribing something that may be effective with few side effects? Because, unlike all other drugs that can be prescribed, medical pot has yet to be proven to be safe and EFFECTIVE via clinical research? - OdysseusVL - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 12:30 pm: Looks like VMan became VMan, M.D. over the New Year. Congrats! For what it is worth — I personally would ask that a smoking ban also apply to public places, so, if second hand smoke is the concern, I think we’ve got that argument covered. Now about Brady — he does not believe that that feds should decide how to pay for medical care, but he does believe the feds should have control of the list of things that we can and cannot consume. Isn’t that strange? - OdysseusVL - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 12:36 pm: “Because, unlike all other drugs that can be prescribed, medical pot has yet to be proven to be safe and EFFECTIVE via clinical research?” Actually, Pat, there are many clinical studies showing just that. Try using the old Google. Many will come up - Bill - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 12:44 pm: Don’t knock it until you try it, Vannie. A couple of numbers would do wonders for your disposition and outlook. - Pat Collins - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 12:47 pm: there are many clinical studies showing just that If so, why did the AMA in Nov. of 2009 (!) recommend that Fed laws be reviewed so that such research could be done? They also recommend development of “alternate delivery methods” to avoid the “dangers of smoking” when “development of cannabinoid-based medicines” is complete. One might hope the AMA would know about such things…. - 47th Ward - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 12:50 pm: VanillaMan, First happy new year to you and yours. Second, please back this statement up with a citation: ===We know that the legalization of pot causes societal problems. We see it in places that have legalized it. We know it is fact.=== Because unless you know something I don’t, you are grossly misusing the word “we” in that sentence. - OdysseusVL - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 12:59 pm: Pat, I don’t know. Maybe because the AMA is a very conservative group looking to punt on this issue? Just tossing ideas out there. Another interesting note — the same group of GOP hopefuls does not believe in either evolution or legalizing marijuana. Not exactly a bunch that is up to speed on much science. - Ghost - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 1:20 pm: On this one Proft has again surprised me with his seemingly logical positions. - YNM - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 1:32 pm: Someone listened very closely to Nancy Reagan … “marijuana is a gateway drug” … I believe marijuana could be considered a gateway drug *now* because it is illegal … it can serve as a gateway to an “underground” black market where drugs are bought illegally from individuals who are unregulated and have no rules or guidelines, etc. So, one might buy some pot from a dealer and that might lead to other criminal activity either to continue to purcashe the drug, to protect oneself, or to eventually purchasing other narcotics. A legal purchase of marijuana would not be anymore a “gateway” than alcohol. And I do find Brady’s response interesting, for a numebr of reasons. He doesn’t think the state has the ability to make determinations about what should or should not be consumed, and that should be left to the feds, except im his statement he says himself that *he* knows what should and should not be consumed because of some apparent “experts” that he has consulted? - Pot calling kettle - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 1:34 pm: Taxing marijuana would not solve the state’s budget problems. Because it is so easy to grow the stuff, many people would grow their own rather than pay for it. Even if a way were found to tax all of the users, the volume would still not be enough to cover our budget hole. I don’t think that doubling the cigarette and alcohol taxes would not solve our budget problem and sales from those two products are likely much greater than marijuana sales would be. - Lou Lang - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 1:42 pm: I am the SPONSOR of this bill and strongly believe in it for its intended use…to relieve pain and suffering. It is a bill about HEALTH CARE, not about DRUGS. For those who support my position, I urge you to call your legislators. - Served - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 1:59 pm: Prescription marijuana is often nebulized, so it doesn’t have to be smoked. So, let’s all say things without background knowledge some more. VMan, I hate to break it to you, but there are bottles and bottles of vices in cabinets around the state. Pills and booze, man, pills and booze. (And that entire post was a parody, right?) Marijuana would be the least addictive, and possibly most beneficial vice of these. (There isn’t a single episode of Intervention featuring marijuana.) Marijuana grown in the US by US farmers, taxed by the government, would be a massive net-positive industry. And the product less toxic than cigarettes. - VanillaMan - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 2:29 pm: “Medical marijuana” is an oxymoron. I understand that “medical” meth is also very beneficial to those who suffer from weight gain. There are several accounts of ladies using meth medically to control their weight. And medical moonshine has been used for centuries as a tonic and as an excellent anesthetic. Why do we fail to provide alcoholics with their drug of choice when undergoing medical treatments? Adding the adjective “medical” doesn’t make marijuana medical anymore than adding the adjective “tasty” turns a mud pie into dessert. This is 2010. We don’t need pot for medicinal reasons anymore than we need kerosine to kill head lice. If you think marijuana is harmless, than sell voters the idea of legalizing it. Don’t snooker everyone into legalizing it so that folks can justify their pot smoking by complaining about head aches or chest congestion. Don’t think that will happen? Take a look at what is happening in California. Not worried about it happening? Then that is a different story. Polls clearly indicate that even stoned-out Californians don’t think pot should be legalized. So, what we are seeing is a sham to get around those polls, via “medical” marijuana. - OdysseusVL - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 2:50 pm: VMan seems pretty firm in his positions. He doesn’t have anything to back his positions, but he’s holding on tight to them. At some level, that’s admirable. - 47th Ward - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 2:54 pm: “VanillaMan’s Razor” has been invoked! For those of you new here, the rule is that, in a conversation about marijuana, the first person that compares it to meth loses the argument. It is adapted from the “first person to use Hitler/Nazi comparison in a contemporary political discussion loses the argument.” VM, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Please stop posting on this subject. - Served - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 3:16 pm: Seriously, VMan, you’re making Reefer Madness look like Reefer Temperate. Do you know the various ailments MM would treat? Some of the current treatments for these problems have side effects or don’t work for some people, and don’t work for everyone. MM would be an option. And what’s happening in California that’s caused by Medical Marijuana? It sounds like it must be terrible. - Justice - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 4:32 pm: VMan, hang in there. Keep in mind that cigarettes will kill you, alcohol will kill you, and medical marijuana is safer and it will just barely kill you! - VanillaMan - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 5:03 pm: For those of you new here, the rule is that, in a conversation about marijuana, the first person that compares it to meth loses the argument. So, your line of debate seems to go like this: 1.) Claim that your opposition doesn’t have any facts. 2.) Create a rule on the fly in order to discredit them further. I have proven history on my side, while you pretend that there will be no side effects of consequences of your stand. You bet you used to sell asbestos, right? - 47th Ward - Monday, Jan 4, 10 @ 7:02 pm: VM, You have nothing on your side except rhetoric. I coined the VanillaMan’s Razor term months ago, when you first made the ridiculous comparison to meth. Simply stated, comparing marijuana to methamphetamine is similar to those who compare current politicians to nazis. It is over the top, emotional garbage that has no place in an informed debate of the issue. And I didn’t claim you had no facts, I asked you to cite them, which you still haven’t. Show me the data that says marijuana kills people, or is more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. Tell me about your “proven history” and show me the societal damage marijuana supposedly causes. I don’t need to discredit you. Your posts on this subject do that on their own. Rich posts on many subjects, and you seem to comment on all of them with equal passion and vigor. On this subject, you have nothing to add, so I simply ask you to not waste our time reading your rants on something obscure but important. Good day sir. - Ghost - Tuesday, Jan 5, 10 @ 8:12 am: There is a detailed study on the use of masrijuana from the feds comissioned by a republican president that acknowledges for chemo patients, aids and some other people who can not keep down food smoking marijuana alleviates this problem. ALso I am surprised no one has pointed out hospice porgrams. Once you enter hospice, we lift all kinds of strictures on the use of various narcotics etc; so we already recognize not all rules and regualtions on the control of drugs apply to all situations equally. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jan 5, 10 @ 9:34 am: Show me the data that says marijuana kills people, or is more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. And that is the entire jist of your argument. You don’t believe that marijuana is more dangerous than other vices, so you don’t have a problem with it being legalized. Says you. Stop pretending! This is 2010, not 1972. Pot isn’t the ditch weed once enjoyed. Get with the current data. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jan 5, 10 @ 9:35 am: Try that again - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 5, 10 @ 10:20 am: VMan, nobody is talking about legalizing marijuana for child use, which is the article you linked. C’mon. Be honest here. It’s easier for kids to get weed now. Dealers don’t check IDs. Walgreens will. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.