51 Comments - What the What - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:05 am: The Gov obviously wants this program to wither and die. Why else would he put such a dupe in charge of the program. https://www.linkedin.com/in/josephmwright Same approach he took with Historic Preservation and State Ethics. People who have no experience other than saying “yes sir!” - cdog - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:05 am: For Rauner, this is probably a two-fer. Protect Big Pharma and their interest in continuing to peddle deadly opiates. These opiates are massive profit centers and will be protected by Rauner. Secondly, as stated on CF last week by one of the regular commenters, until Big Pharma can roll out their only-legal-cultivar to replace the opiates, expect objection to any expansion, medical or recreational. Please question Rauner’s motives with any action he takes with the Medical Cannabis Pilot Program. He is obviously not putting the patients first. Expand MCPP. Legalize Pot. Save lives. - Precinct Captain - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:08 am: I’m sure this will be solved be “working together or executive management.” - AC - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:12 am: The givernor needs to approve the recommendations. Instead of comparing marijuana to some imagined ideal, we need to compare it with prescription drugs that are far more dangerous and addictive. - Business Unfriendly - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:17 am: Regardless of Rauner’s position, issues with the program go deeper than adding new ailments. I have MS and my doc won’t give me a MM script because his bosses won’t let him. - Anonymous - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:20 am: A guy so easy to dislike. - Mouthy - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:21 am: “Don’t hold your breath.”, “cause you’ll exhale nothing but hot air”… - Just Observing - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:29 am: Ridiculous. Call the Governor’s office and urge him to approve the new ailments: http://www.illinois.gov/gov/contactus/Pages/default.aspx - Saluki - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:31 am: This is perhaps the only positive thing to come out of this administration. The idea that we need to expand Med Mar, to the point that anyone can apply, is another step toward total legalization. Which is not a positive for society. - Mad Brown - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:36 am: Saluki- See Colorado. - Anonymous - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:36 am: If it is something a doctor prescribes it needs the same oversight. …FDA approval. - Gruntled University Employee - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:39 am: Saluki, Take the tinfoil hat off your head, carefully fashion it into a pipe, load it, light it, take a great big hit (in this case it’s appropriate to “hold your breath”), exhale and CHILL. - Blooms of Spring - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:39 am: The recent financial interests statements show the Govs interest in several pharmaceutical companies. It is against his interests to expand the program where cannabis use might lower the consumption of other legal drugs. - Anonymous - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:40 am: ===This is perhaps the only positive thing to come out of this administration. The idea that we need to expand Med Mar, to the point that anyone can apply, is another step toward total legalization. Which is not a positive for society.=== This is a truly ignorant statement. I suppose you know what’s in these patients’ best interests better than medical doctors and the patients themselves? Educate yourself on the issue. - Blooms of Spring - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:41 am: Anon. It’s a recommendation not a prescription so it doesn’t need fda approval or the studies of efficacy as fda might require. - Cubs in '16 - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:41 am: Sorry, Anonymous @ 11:40 was me. - Just Me - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:42 am: I’m actually with the Governor on this one. It is supposed to be a pilot program, but the program hasn’t even been fully operational for a year yet and people are clamoring to expand it already. - Earnest - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:43 am: >Lead, follow or get the heck out of the way You can elect the Governor to office, but you can’t make him lead, follow or get out of the way. Unless you’re the House Republicans. - Ms. SHEESH - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:48 am: :”office has said not enough time has passed to fully evaluate it. […]” Perhaps if he would tend to his governin’ duties instead runnin’ around the state for those photo ops. - Ghost of Thomas Paine - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:52 am: “so if we put medical cannabis research requirements at that level, of FDA drug approval status, we’re never going to get there” Because medical marijuana is not all about treatment - Federalist - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 11:59 am: It’s an illegal drug under federal law so if I were Rauner I would not approve anything to do with it. I know, certain laws are to be obeyed That should not be the point. Of course, unless it travels across state lines this should be a state issue and not a federal issue in the first place. That pesky Constitution and its 10th Amendment again trampled upon. - cdog - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 12:00 pm: Med mar vs opioids geez. Five minutes on the google and it is obvious what the safer and more effective winner is. Like other’s above, I question whether the impending shift from opioids could be the real story here. - Tone - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 12:03 pm: This is one issue that Rauner is completely wrong on. The state should make marijuana legal and tax it. We need the tax revenue as so many here repeatedly tell us. Much better source of taxes than most other taxes. - Homer J. Quinn - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 12:10 pm: cdog: don’t forget legalization also means a shift away from alcohol. not surprising the guy in the $100,000 wine club is opposed… - Archiesmom - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 12:13 pm: I just got back from Washington state a couple of weeks ago, and found it to be a wonderfully relaxed and peaceful state. Maybe it’s the legal weed… All kidding aside, I have MS and my neurologist was one of the big advocates for the initial MM bill. He is horribly disappointed at the lack of progress in both supply and extending it’s application. - cdog - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 12:22 pm: Exactly Homer. Both the alcohol manufacturers/distributors, and opioid manufacturers/distributors, have A LOT to lose. It appears Rauner is cozy with both. - Hit or Miss - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 12:35 pm: ===it’s hard to get top quality research on medical cannabis=== He should have also added that much of the top quality research that has been done shows that cannabis is harmful, has side effects, and/or is not effective for the condition being tested. - Vole - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 12:37 pm: OK. I am for legalization. But on the medical front I do have to wonder about approving cannabis for “panic disorder”. I’d like to read the board’s written justification for each of the ailments. Is this available to the public? Which strain of cannabis are they recommending for panic disorder? The one least likely to cause panic or paranoia? What dose? Just askin’. Because the hype seems to be gettin’ out in front of the truth on some of this. - Neophyte - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 12:48 pm: At the root of the mmj/legalization discussion should be an efficacy question regarding the law. Considering our most basic expectation, does the law keep marijuana out of the hands of our children? - illinifan - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 12:54 pm: Illinois once again wants to be last in the nation. MM in AZ is now moving towards general legalization aka Colorado and there is a big ad push on how to educate people so they fully understand. Interesting in a cpolitically conservative state. I do believe Rauners stance is more about his bottom line than what medicine recommends - Honeybear - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 12:59 pm: Couldn’t we generate a heck of a lot of revenue if we just legalized it and taxed it. This is a learner question. Why aren’t we talking about this? Sorry if I’m not keeping up. Just smack me on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. - Maximus - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 1:14 pm: The governor should pick his battles and expand the medical marijuana program. People are going to be using it anyways and if this moves us towards legalization so be it. The tax money gained from legal cannabis would not be small I suspect. - wordslinger - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 1:33 pm: –Considering our most basic expectation, does the law keep marijuana out of the hands of our children?– Is that a gag? What does legal med-mar have to do with kids getting weed? I’ll let you in on a secret. If you’re a kid who wants to get weed, it’s been pretty easy to do so since about Beatlemania. - Norseman - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 1:39 pm: Getting the heck in the way is all Rauner knows how to do! - Jeff Trigg - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 1:39 pm: It doesn’t matter what Rauner does, this medical cannabis program as written is doomed to fail without major reforms or a complete overhaul. If you really want to try the science argument against, the FDA has already approved Marinol, which is 100% THC. That should be good enough to cover the flower form that sometimes gets to 20% THC. I’m still waiting to see the science they used when they outlawed cannabis to begin with. “It gives you a buzz”, isn’t science. - Homer J. Quinn - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 1:44 pm: THC is not the only active cannabinoid in the flowers. for that reason, many find marinol inadequate. - Louis G. Atsaves - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 1:55 pm: The arguments here are really stressing me out. Time I get aboard, light up, chill out and ponder great thoughts and other things a bit! But seriously . . . An “advisory board” is making recommendations to promote compassion over medical research, since the appropriate medical research for prescription medication is incomplete, because the “drug” itself is illegal? So what, prescribe it anyway! Safe, unsafe, works, doesn’t work, so what! Just like the snake oil stuff from ages past! Add “goats blood” to the mix while your at it since that one is raging in federal court right now and turn Mr. Green into a money-maker just like that goats blood stuff! The Illinois Department of Public Health is supposed to toss science out the window in favor of “compassion” according to one loud critic. And the Governor is being ripped to pieces here for backing up his Department of Public Health? If this were a clean water (Flint, MI) issue, would the arguments be the same? Why do I get the impression that those demanding the science of global warming be respected are the same folks that are demanding that science also be by-passed for this particular test program? Tonight I will drive past a billboard on the Kennedy Expressway that urges everyone to get their doctors to prescribe medical marijuana for all of their ailments. And feel a headache coming on. Public safety be damned! - A guy - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 2:05 pm: On this one, I tend to err on the side of getting relief to people who really need it. Anything else could be described as cruel. I think you can be very conservative on this issue and still get some relief to people who really need it. That’s what I’m hoping for. In that process we will get more and more research. - Jeff Trigg - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 2:24 pm: Homer - yes, Marinol is awful and mostly ineffective. But THC levels really is the only “science” the opposition has learned enough about to even comment on. Mostly they bring up talking points like “public safety” to mask their ignorance on the topic. Public safety is worse because of cannabis prohibition, not because of it. Taking cannabis out of the control of the black market makes the public safer. We learned this during alcohol prohibition, and cannabis is less harsh and much safer than alcohol. - Vole - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 2:29 pm: “Why do I get the impression that those demanding the science of global warming be respected are the same folks that are demanding that science also be by-passed for this particular test program?” Louis, you are free to have that impression but it does not advance your argument. Which is that Med Mar, without a sound base in scientific research, currently must reside in the realm of anecdote and the testimony of patients and prescribers. In this, I do not see Med Mar as a compelling logical first step toward legalization. If public safety is your goal, removing the trade from the hierarchy of criminals and cartels might better achieve that target. - BIG R. Ph. - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 2:43 pm: It is amazing to me that this “drug” that has been around a long, long time is all of a sudden able to cure or help some 30-40 diseases! Wow that is amazing! Let’s all be real. This is back door attempt to try and get it out into the public before it goes full “blown”. Much like gambling was going to be restricted to the “River Boats” and now is legal in every tavern (but mysteriously not at the horse race tracks where people are already gambling but I digress) If the supporters of legalizing marijuana were just up front about it and said that is what they want to do rather than this round about way of doing things it would be much easier to either implement or reject. Sorry but I am with Rauner on this one. It is still DEA schedule C-I and until that changes it should not be legalized State by State. The stricter law should always apply and this issue is no different. - Anonymous - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 2:49 pm: –Let’s all be real. This is back door attempt to try and get it out into the public before it goes full “blown”.– Yeah, those chemo patients who testified for it are real schemers, aren’t they? I bet they got cancer on purpose, just to score weed. - frisbee - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 2:55 pm: For those who want science they could have attended the International Cannabinoid Research Society’s Symposiums in St. Charles, IL in 2009 and 2011 2009 http://www.icrs.co/SYMPOSIUM.2009/index.html 2011 http://www.icrs.co/SYMPOSIUM.2011/index.html Anyone who wants to keep cannabis illegal should be forced to stand by the arguments used to make it illegal in the first place. Namely, racism and protecting financial interests in the forestry and synthetic fiber industries were the driving factors in making this plant illegal. And the logic of making a plant illegal and those who cultivate, distribute or consume it goes beyond American values of liberty. Medical cannabis in Illinois is moving along, probably not as quickly as the investors would like but if the doctors on the advisory board feel a condition should be approved then there should at least be a medical reason from Director Shah to deny it, not just a political reason. - frisbee - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 2:57 pm: Medical cannabis science was on display in St. Charles Illinois in 2009 and 2011 when the International Cannabinoid Research Society held their symposiums at Pheasant Run. A quick google search will bring up those symposiums research which is very exhaustive. - Homer J. Quinn - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 3:00 pm: it was “full blown” legal from 1776 to 1937, and the sky didn’t fall then. - Anonymous - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 3:13 pm: Prohibitionists of legal med mar and recreational use the misnomer of easy access of marijuana to children as a drumbeat to continue a failed policy. You made my point much more succinctly than I did, thanks. - Neophyte - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 3:16 pm: @Word - that was me at 3:13 pm - South Illinoisian - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 4:14 pm: I believe Rauner loathes the MM program and, if the bill authorizing it would have been presented to him for his signature, he would have vetoed it before it ever got started. Besides, it doesn’t increase the wealth of his portfolio. - Jocko - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 4:23 pm: Someone needs to tell Brucie that Colorado pulled down an extra $1 Billion, in addition to booming population growth. - Mama - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 5:09 pm: Maybe Rauner is holding it up until he figures out how he can profit from it. - Ghost - Tuesday, May 3, 16 @ 5:53 pm: i am probably too late for Nyone to see this but walgreens just posted what amounts to support for medical marijuana. theu cover some of the down side but conclude it is overall beneficial. having a giant chain like that in board pulls this out of the shadows Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.