Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Ameren reports 76 percent quarterly profit increase
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
A grow your own bill which would legalize medical marijuana was defeated in the Senate yesterday…
Illinois lawmakers rejected a proposal Thursday that would have legalized medical marijuana, snuffing the first attempt in nearly 30 years to allow a drug some say is their only relief from the painful symptoms of debilitating diseases.
The measure failed 22-29 in the state Senate […]
As proposed, anyone with cancer, multiple sclerosis, AIDS or similar weakening conditions would have been able to use the drug. Caretakers could have access to it for their patients as well.
* The rationale and a bit of history…
Many such patients have reported marijuana eases pain, spasms and encourages appetite. A 1978 Illinois law allows using medical marijuana but it’s never been implemented. Today’s tally was the first floor vote for the issue in three decades. Cullerton says he will talk to members who weren’t present to rally support.
* The floor vote and debate…
Only one Republican, Sen. Dave Syverson, R-Rockford, voted for the bill, while 21 of the 37 Democrats voted for it.
“(This bill) relies on a false premise. It treats marijuana as a medicine,” said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. “We don’t know what the long-term effects of smoking marijuana, in whatever quantities to be allowed under this bill, may be, in which case, I think calling this a medicine is very much a misnomer.” […]
“I don’t think sick people should be treated like criminals,” said Sen. Mike Jacobs, D-Moline. “This is a choice a doctor ought to have” if there’s demonstrated benefits of the drug for patients.
* There are some nonsensical reasons to oppose the bill, including Sen. Righter’s comments. The Illinois Family Institute supplies another red herring…
With drug addiction a serious moral, criminal and social problem in our State, legalizing marijuana even for certain medical conditions is the wrong message for the Illinois General Assembly to send to our young people.
Hooey.
(UPDATED, see below) But the IFI does make a valid point in the next sentence of its position paper…
12 cannabis — marijuana plants can produce with each harvest up to 12 pounds of marijuana that can produce 14,112 joints/cigarettes! A person would have to smoke 38 marijuana cigarettes a day, each day for one year to use all of those!
If that’s true, and I have no idea whether it is or not, then the bill went too far.
The rollcall can be found here. Thoughts?
*** UPDATE *** I should’ve know better. Evidence seems to indicate that the IFI’s estimates on crop yield are hugely overblown. Never mind.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, May 11, 07 @ 9:30 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Ameren reports 76 percent quarterly profit increase
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
It’s possible to grow a pound on a plant, but it would take a hell of an effort and the right breeding. That’s why number of plants is a silly way to measure. You can grow anywhere from a quarter of an ounce to a pound on a plant depending on the genetics, indoor/outdoor, etc.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, May 11, 07 @ 9:50 am
Whoever voted against this is simply dumb and pathetic.
Comment by Just Observing Friday, May 11, 07 @ 9:53 am
They are claiming one marijuana plant will harvest 12 pounds of marijuana. Try 4 ounces indoors of useable plant material, if you are lucky, which is where this bill required it be grown. That would be 1/4 of 1 pound, not 12 pounds. 12 plants might harvest a total of 9 pounds per year if harvested three times. 12 pounds if you go 4 harvests. But its more like 6 ounces unless you are an expert indoor grower with expensive equipment. That is roughly 6 marijuana joints a day, although medical marijuana patients will want to vaporize it or eat it. Eating it requires a lot more. And this assumes all the plants are all females since male plants are no good. Typically half of all plants are males and would be thrown out when they sex, so cut all those estimates in half.
Seems like the people at IFI missed the ten commandments lesson that says they are evil people when they bear false witness. According to the bible, God frowns much more heavily on liars than on people using one of his own creations peacefully. Maybe we should start locking up the IFI false witness bearers instead of sick people. God would want it that way.
Comment by Jeff Trigg Friday, May 11, 07 @ 10:08 am
My aunt smoked pot to feel better after chemo before dying of cancer. She was miserable without it. Oncologist had no problem with it and supplies were easy. Was it placebo? Don’t care and neither did our family.
IFI must have done extensive research and had a great growing system to hit those numbers.
Comment by zatoichi Friday, May 11, 07 @ 10:08 am
If this bill required they be grown indoors then the IFI is grossly incorrect. Not even close. Nice facts Trigg, very accurate.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, May 11, 07 @ 10:15 am
Are their any negative health consequences to smoking marijuana? Or is everything positive?
Comment by Leroy Friday, May 11, 07 @ 10:29 am
Jeff, they’re saying that each plant produces a pound, which is still an exaggeration if your numbers are right.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, May 11, 07 @ 10:46 am
“But its more like 6 ounces (this should be pounds not ounces) unless you are an expert indoor grower with expensive equipment.”
Roughly, they say 144 pounds per year from 12 plants when in reality its more like 6 to 12 pounds per year.
Thanks anon, I’m closer than they are.
Leroy, yes, smoking anything will probably damage your lungs. People with mental disorders shouldn’t use marijuana. Children, teens, and up to age 25 I would say shouldn’t use it because their brains are still growing. Not everything is positive and we need to study that more. But not everything is negative either. Most of the known health consequences come from smoking it, which can be easily fixed with vaporizers and brownies.
Comment by Jeff Trigg Friday, May 11, 07 @ 10:46 am
Hmmm, I read that differently Rich. They do have missing math in their equation to come to 38 joints: no number of harvests. Still, one pound per plant is ridiculous indoors. It’s 1/4 of that if you are lucky, and half of the plants will produce nothing since they are males, which brings us to 1/8. 4-5 joints a day. Reasonable.
Comment by Jeff Trigg Friday, May 11, 07 @ 10:52 am
I don’t know who’s rolling joints for IFI, but they sure must be stingy.
In my experience, you get about four doobies from a quarter ounce of weed. (Hey, do you wanna party or do you wanna party?)
That’s 16 joints per ounce, and 256 joints per pound. If you’ve got 12 pounds of weed, you can look forward to 3,072 fat doobies - no where near more than 14,000.
Now, divide 3,072 doobies by 365 days, and you’ve got 8.4 doobies per day.
That’s a lot of daily smoking, even by my four-joints-per-quarter-ounce standard. Hey, maybe the neighbors could use some pain relief, too.
Comment by SmokeMySpliff Friday, May 11, 07 @ 10:53 am
Everything has side effects. I’m not well-versed on the drugs doctors prescribe that would be replaced by marijuana, but I would be astonished if the list of side effects for marijuana is worse than for those drugs. Or worse than the effects of doing nothing - constant pain, severe malnutrition, etc.
Of course, there’s the political side effect - people might start wondering why, if marijuana is OK for sick people, it’s illegal for everyone else.
Comment by Underdog Friday, May 11, 07 @ 11:01 am
I think the IFI has been smoking this stuff for far too long. They are in desparate need of an intervention and long-term treatment. Maybe institutionalization.
Comment by Larry McKeon Friday, May 11, 07 @ 11:08 am
Can we swap Governor Blagojevich for medical marijuana?
Comment by Mixel Pixel Friday, May 11, 07 @ 11:18 am
On the medical marijuana front, I have dealt with patients receiving chemo. I found the Doctors to be completely insensitive to their discomfort. They prescribe a pill or two to address it (including marinol), but ultimately cared only about fighting cancer and not the patient’s comfort and quality of life.
I’m all for legalization across the board.
The US was moving towards legalization in the 70s for a number of good reasons. Then we elected Ronald Reagan and the US moved hard against pot. This led the drug dealers to switch to cocaine, which was more compact, easier to smuggle, and profitable. Next thing you know we had a coke and crack epidemic. Then the government created stronger laws on drugs, which disproportionately impacts lower income minorities. Now we spend a huge amount on prisons and create permanent pariahs (ex-felons) who can’t get a job or qualify for many public benefits. And from what I can tell, drug use has stayed about the same.
Comment by Objective Dem Friday, May 11, 07 @ 11:40 am
Cancer drugs and treatments are very, very expensive. The same goes for AIDS. When one sees a cheaper, possibly better alternative for some people, the burden AGAINST legalizing marijuana for medical/health issues should fall on the state. And while some companies will give free meds to needy patients, and both governments offer some assistance, a very affordable remedy remains right here in the state. I do not see a problem in allowing pharmacies to sell pot to patients with a doctor’s orders. Painkillers are already a subgroup of prescripts that people doctor shop for, so why not pot? And let’s also not forget that methadone is legal. What a weird issue.
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, May 11, 07 @ 11:58 am
My statement that I favor legalization across the board made it sound like I favor legalizing all drugs. I was only referring to pot. Even then I think some restrictions on access and the strength need to be put in place.
It also doesn’t make sense to me that we expect people suffering from cancer and undergoing chemo to grow their own pot. Why can’t it be supplied? Its almost like allowing people in serious pain to grow poppies and make their own morphine.
Comment by Objective Dem Friday, May 11, 07 @ 12:05 pm
After the last couple weeks he has had, Syverson could be thinking some pot-infused pain relief is not such a bad deal.
Comment by SmokeMySpliff Friday, May 11, 07 @ 12:06 pm
New revenue stream ——-~~~
Comment by Death & Taxes Friday, May 11, 07 @ 12:09 pm
Objective Dem, if you’re looking for logic in our marijuana laws I hope you packed a lunch, cuz that’s an all-day job.
For some really good info on how marijuana became illegal, check out the History channel’s series, “Hooked: Illegal Drugs.” Their research showing how racism, agency protectionism, and Hurst’s media meddling brought about this rediculous policy is pretty intriguing. I’d really like to meet someone who doesn’t support legalization and have them watch it. I don’t think you could find anyone in the state that wouldn’t say our treatment of marijuana is bs after learning how marijuana came to be illegal.
Comment by Gene Parmesan Friday, May 11, 07 @ 12:13 pm
Noland and Link vote yes, Kotowski votes no.
Very interesting, and sad.
Comment by amy Friday, May 11, 07 @ 12:17 pm
So, when do we like science?
When FDA says no line between Abortion and breast cancer.
But NOT when FDA says there is no proof that medical pot works:
no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use.
We like the FDA when it says “reduce pre natal ultrasounds” though.
We dont’ like science when it shows gun control doesnt work.
I am sooooo confused.
Comment by Pat Collins Friday, May 11, 07 @ 12:36 pm
Just legalize it for the masses. Think of the taxes.
It could be called:
Governor Blagojevich’s Weed For All plan.
Comment by Papa Legba Friday, May 11, 07 @ 12:56 pm
God bless Dale Righter. In an objective state, he would have a bright future.
Comment by T.J. Friday, May 11, 07 @ 12:59 pm
“no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general medical use.”
Is this quote from the 19th century or something? Numerous scientific studies from around the world have supported medical use of marijuana. Just last week a Harvard study was released showing THC reduced lung cancer tumors by up to 50%. In fact, the federal government still gives medical marijuana to the few patients grandfathered in to their medical marijuana program.
Comment by Jeff Trigg Friday, May 11, 07 @ 1:22 pm
Additionally, the study of endocannibinoids and other cannibinoids is in it’s infancy, and getting no help from the government and their restrictions on marijuana research.
Comment by Gene Parmesan Friday, May 11, 07 @ 1:40 pm
Jeff, don’t forget that the FDA wants to make creatine, ginseng, various multivitamins and nearly all supplements prescription-only. They are full of baloney. Plus, because the FDA and Congress has made a lot of OTC supplements illegal, companies have been forced to spend more on research and then pass along those costs to the consumer. I think the FDA needs an overhaul.
It is interesting to think that a good chunk of the supplements I took or had easy, legal access to when I was into weightlifting are now illegal. And I’m young. And no, I’m not referring to steroids.
Gene P., good reference to “Hooked”. The reason why cocaine was made illegal really spiked my interest.
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, May 11, 07 @ 1:40 pm
It is from the FDA website.
THC != medical pot. You can synthesize it and deliver it orally or via nose spray.
Comment by Pat Collins Friday, May 11, 07 @ 2:00 pm
Remember also the FDA criteria :
Safe AND effective. Many supplements may be safe, but effectiveness?
Comment by Pat Collins Friday, May 11, 07 @ 2:01 pm
Pat, THC doesn’t exactly equal medical pot. Marinol contains only THC and none of the cannabinoids, which is probably why it isn’t nearly as effective.
Why synthesize a weed that can be grown and eaten or vaporized for pennies?
Comment by Jeff Trigg Friday, May 11, 07 @ 2:28 pm
There is a well done study on the medical use of marijuna from the Insitute of Medicine http://www.nap.edu/books/0309071550/html/
Of note, they point out the dificulty in obtaining better data on the benefits of its use because of the various barriers in place. Also of note, the drug in marijuana, THC, is itself legal for ditribution. Thus, the addict arguments do not follow restricting smoking versus dosing. Also they found evidence that the beneficial effcts, such as oversoming nauseau and vomiting problems for cancer chemo and aids paitients, tend to be more effective and quicker acting from THC when you obtain it from smoke v pill.
Given its usefullness with cancer patients, glaucom and AIDS patitnets, I think we need a better policy then never. Especially since THC itsel is legal for ditribution by a doctor.
I would treat it like other controlled substances. Doctors should have to examine the patient on a regualr basis to determine the need. And limit it to certain diagnoisis from the doctor, such as cancer etc. Also we give unrestricited drug use to hospice paitients now as well. Given the severe medical conditions that this helps, I think the cancer/AIDS is more deadly/harmful then the use of a drug to releive symptoms. I would allow it, but tighter restrictions. Also I would have the govt grow and distibute it in an effort to maintain consistent levels of THC and to control distribution. Also limits allows for the monitoring of those to whom it is being prescribed and the doctors prescribing it to curb abuse.
Comment by Ghost Friday, May 11, 07 @ 3:09 pm
sanctimonious
Comment by i d Friday, May 11, 07 @ 3:34 pm
Just ask U.S Senator Obama…………………
Comment by Laugh out loud Friday, May 11, 07 @ 4:07 pm
What I don’t really understand is if there really is some documented medical benefits from using marijuana, why aren’t the drug companies onto it–processing and selling it back to us for an arm and leg?
Comment by NoGiftsPlease Saturday, May 12, 07 @ 7:27 pm