State Rep. Kay Khan (top) quietly kicked off her reelection campaign last week — a sharp contrast from her challenger, Alderman Greer Tan Swiston’s launch, back in March.
Who are you voting for and why?
Khan quiety kicks off campaign rematch vs. Swiston
by Greg Reibman | Jun 21, 2012 | Newton | 40 comments
I’d still like to know why Kay Khan has a Twitter account @repkay, (description: “State Legislator representing Newton MA in the House of Representatives,” so it’s not like it’s a personal account), then doesn’t let people follow her. I’m still “Pending,” it’s been months.
Although I wish each of Newton’s Beacon Hill contingent would spend more time solving real problems and less time on new initiatives that do nothing but create distraction and label Newtonites (is that the word?) as out of touch, Kay Khan fits our brand of informed, responsive and nieghborly (concerned)representative. Why change?
During last year’s local elections I pledged to not vote for any School Committee candidate who did not explicitly state their support for later start times at our high schools. I felt [and still feel] that issue is important enough for the health and well being of our high school students, to make it a prerequisite for my vote. I was thrilled that even in a small way it prompted a debate about that issue, and many of the SC candidates took a public position in favor of later start times.
On a state level, I will not vote for any candidate who does not publicly support the legalization of medical marijuana. Having been through the process of watching my wife suffer with terminal brain cancer, and seeing the relief marijuana provided from the negative effects of chemo therapy, I could never in good conscience vote for anyone who opposed [at least] legalization for that purpose. It is immoral and illogical to keep dying people from legally obtaining marijuana to relieve their pain.
In all likelihood the voters are going to put an end to this nonsense through an already qualified ballot initiative in November. But I want to know that even if that initiative doesn’t pass, my representatives on the state level understand the need and will work for this important change in the law.
Mike,
Why can’t pharmaceutical companies extract whatever it is in marijuana that relieves suffering and sell it as a prescription drug, without having to “legalize” it as they have in California and open it up to anyone with a phony prescription who wants to get high, as they have in California? I mean, morphine relieves pain also, but it’s pretty well controlled.
Unless, and I mean no disrespect to your wife’s suffering, your goal is to simply completely legalize even recreational marijuana, as I think you’ve advocated. Medical marijuana is easily step #1 towards full legalization. Even today, possession of smaller quantities is not criminal, isn’t that right?
@Mike. I’ve never smoked marijuana or used any other illicit drug, but I completely empathize with your position. I suspect that most people who have gone through the last months of caring for a family member with terminal cancer, as you and I have done, would grab at the opportunity to try anything that had even the remotest chance of alleviating the suffering to both the patient and family.
Marijuana for cancer wasn’t really on my radar screen during my mom’s last months with liver cancer during the late 70’s, but I’ve heard too many people who have been able to provide it to dying friends and family members. They all claim that the act of smoking the substance itself contributes a lot to the relief it provides. Maybe it can’t be proved conclusively, but if both the family members and patient are convinced it does and if it doesn’t harm the patient in any other way– what’s the problem??
Again, I’ve never used this stuff and I know from others that have used it that it has unpleasant side effects if smoked in large quantities over a long period of time. It can’t be any worse than the effects on those that abuse alcohol. This is not crack cocaine, meth or heroin we’re talking about. Let’s legalize and tax it, and use scarce enforcement resources for legitimate criminal activity.
BTW. I’m glad Kay is running and I support her fully despite my respect for Greer. She and Ruth have used their backgrounds to champion many great health related causes.
Hi Barry–
Yes, I’m totally in favor of ending marijuana prohibition in the US. It didn’t work with alcohol, and it hasn’t worked with marijuana. Of course that’s just my opinion, and everyone is free to have their own opinion on full legalization.
Worth noting, 17 of the last 18 pro marijuana ballot initiatives in various regions of Massachusetts have passed by wide margins. A couple of years ago voters statewide decriminalized possession of up to an ounce of marijuana, which now carries a civil penalty of a $100 fine. In my opinion it was a step toward a more sane marijuana policy, but a small step. It still unfortunately left sick and dying people who would benefit from marijuana to essentially go underground for help. Sick people should be able to discuss this option with their doctors, and obtain marijuana through a more reputable source than a drug dealer.
The pharmaceutical companies have been the primary opponents of medical marijuana. They have in the past extracted the principal active ingredient in marijuana [THC] and did manufacture it in pill form. For reasons I’m not knowledgable enough to understand or explain, the pills did not have the anticipated affect. People who were using marijuana for medical purposes rejected the pills and opted for the organic version, which can be smoked or incorporated into food or drink form.
That was particularly troubling for the pharmaceutical companies because they couldn’t control the market for organic marijuana. Another major factor was that pharmaceutical companies are heavily invested in their own anti-nausea medications and medications for other illnesses helped by marijuana. Nausea is the principle reason chemo patients use marijuana, as it has very effective anti-nausea characteristics. When my wife began taking chemo she was prescribed Zofran as an anti-nausea med. As ridiculous as it seems, the primary side effect of Zofran is… nausea. That’s right, an anti-nausea medication that actually causes nausea. Marijuana on the other hand has been repeatedly proven to offset nausea, and presents no such side effects.
The situation with California’s marijuana clinics is admittedly a mess, but most of the problem has resulted from a conflict in state vs. federal law. There is also an issue with people who do not have a legitimate medical need, tricking or otherwise convincing doctors to write them a prescription. This is because medical marijuana benefits are not limited to cancer patents or those on chemo therapy. Marijuana has been proven to help others suffering a variety of medical conditions, from glaucoma to anxiety. I must point out in defense of the doctors who write questionable prescriptions, that most would not do so if they felt it was harmful to their patient in any way. If it were harmful, you can imagine the malpractice insurance consequences. So I think the variety of ailments marijuana helps mitigate, has contributed to the bar being set much lower for marijuana prescriptions than for narcotics.
To my mind, the solution in California is to remove all ambiguity from the medical marijuana process with full legalization. Separate out the medicinal users from the recreational users. Allow people with a prescription to purchase marijuana from dispensaries, and force the recreational consumers into liquor stores where their purchase would be taxed.
Lastly, comparing marijuana to morphine is like comparing aspirin to heroin. There simply is no fair comparison. And while it’s true that morphine is a painkiller, most patients using marijuana for legitimate medical purposes are not using it for pain. As I pointed out, in my wife’s case she used it for nausea relief. Additionally most opiates and narcotics are not only addictive, they are potentially lethal if overdosed. Marijuana is not considered addictive by most experts. And There is not a single case on record of a person dying from a marijuana overdose.
Regards,
Mike
@Bob– I was writing while you were posting. Thank you for sharing your experience and for your comments. Someone who has not experienced caring for a loved one with a terminal illness, might have a hard time understanding this issue. I really appreciate your support for legalized marijuana. I have no doubt we will get there. Just hoping we get there soon.
Mike
@Ted: You not only missed a good TAB headline but an opportunity to be the subject of a many Mark Marderosian cartoons.
BTW, Swiston is now writing a column for Patch.
Greg – Imagine all the Marderosian cartoon possibilities for the dope.
Mike, I am 100% with you on legalization, both medical and generally. I am sorry for your wife’s pain and for your loss.
I watched my mom and my uncle die of cancer. Both of them had terminal illnesses, so medical marijuana would not have cured them. But they both wasted away because of the chemo and the nausea. My mother was always very thin and couldn’t afford to lose more weight. My uncle was a Navy man, strong, tall, lean, but muscular. When he was dying of cancer he just wasted away to nothing.
Even if it could not buy them more time, medical marijuana could have made their dying days more comfortable, and could perhaps have prevented them from wasting away to nothing in their final weeks and days. The big pharma anti-nausea drugs were worse than useless, but medical marijuana wasn’t a legal option, and they didn’t want to take the risk of breaking the law or asking family members to do it for them. I didn’t smoke pot and I certainly never bought it, but I would happily have taken the risk of buying it if they had wanted me to (imagine the TAB headline: alderman busted for buying dope).
By the way, I am supporting Kay all the way. She’s done good things for Newton and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Why mess with success?
I’ve been pleased with Kay’s work on Beacon Hill, but I’m glad Greer is running because I hate to see anyone run unopposed or with just token opposition. I will not make a final decision until I’ve heard more of what each has to say on the issues.
Yay! I’d like everyone to know that Kay Khan’s dormant (?) Twitter account has woken up. Hope she will tweet now! At least a little. It’s not like the other state reps I follow do that much.
This is one of the only races I’m genuinely undecided in. I’m voting straight-D the rest of the way down (with a probable nod to Charlie Shapiro for gov council in the primary) but on this I’m intrigued by Greer’s record as an Aldercritter. She’s done fantastic things for Newton, regardless of party. I want to learn more about her vision for the state and how she’d vote on key issues before making my choice.
Mike Striar — This is from Weds this week, DEAs analysis on how harmful marijuana is to us> http://tinyurl.com/medmaryjane
Hoss– Thank you for posting that link. It’s a stunning indictment of federal drug policy as it relates to marijuana. It’s so absurd, it almost reminds me of a Saturday Night Live skit. I highly recommend anyone who’s been following this thread or the marijuana debate in general, click on the link provided by Hoss above.
I’ll save folks the need to leave this site…
Here’s the set-up>> http://tinyurl.com/cohen-smokem
Mike,
Thanks for the trouble you went to to post that lengthy clarification.
My point still is that, if there is a medical benefit to smoking marijuana, from the chemicals that are inhaled, then a pharmacologist ought to be able to determine what those chemicals are and to create a prescription or even over-the-counter drug that does only what you are requesting, medically, without the recreational side, which may require an inhaler in order to enter the body most advantageously. In our so-called free-enterprise, competitive business environment I would think that someone would do that, in order to sell a product, and I wonder why it hasn’t been done. If that were done, then we could focus the discussion on only whether or not recreational drug use is good for individuals and for the greater society. Right now, you are mixing together two issues. Perhaps whatever causes the medical benefit also causes the high and one can’t separate the two. Then a prescription would be required to ensure medical use, even for the pharmaceutical drug, as is done with pain-killers now.
If marijuana were legalized completely, i.e., there were no controls at all, then how much do you think use of marijuana would increase, especially the exceptionally potent kinds that are now more expensive and harder to find, and that more severely alter one’s emotional state and level of perception. And would we then start down the slippery slope of arguing that, if marijuana is legal, shouldn’t opium be legal, or hashish, or cocaine, or LSD, or other drugs? If that were to occur, do you think that we might morph into a different kind of society? I’m not asking whether it would be a better or worse society. But, would we see a different kind of society?
I think it’s fair to say that society has changed a lot since recreational drugs, albeit illegal but widespread, emerged into the mainstream in the so-called sixties, which I think you’re old enough to remember. All of the changes are not due to drugs, but I think this has contributed to altered perspectives on a lot of social issues.
Barry Cohen — You seem to be saying if we replicate what nature provides in a more expensive pharma form it would help keep grass off the street. We have marinol and just like morphine, it’s not street popular. So we should pay more for something that doesn’t help control the street recreational equivalent? For what purpose?
Thank God the government keeps us all safe from mind-altering substances with potentially harmful side effects like caffeine, nicotine and alcohol. Oh, wait….
Hoss, that’s not what I said.
Ted, caffeine and nicotine are not “mind-altering”. Nicotine should be illegal. It’s way too harmful, and provides little benefit other than to reduce the discomfort of going to long without it. Caffeine is fine. Alcohol, unlike recreational drugs, although it causes people to become drunk, also has many other pleasures. The wide variety of beers, wines, liqueurs and liquors can taste good and can complement a meal, and if used in moderation are not harmful. People can use it to excess. But, recreational drugs have no purpose other than to alter the mind, and often in pretty severe ways.
It’s a logical fallacy to say that, just because one thing in society is harmful that we should introduce anything that is harmful. That’s my slippery slope argument about how legalizing marijuana will lead people with your lack of logic to argue in favor of the other drugs I cited, and more.
Barry– Past pharmacological attempts to duplicate the medicinal benefits of marijuana have failed. So the process you’re suggesting would leave sick and dying people waiting for a medication that has yet to be developed, may be technically impossible to create, would require years of government testing and approval, and undoubtedly cost far more than the organic version that is currently available.
I’m not sure why that would make sense on any level. It would do nothing to change the reality that recreational marijuana use is as wide spread as alcohol use. People who are opposed to legalized medical marijuana may feel a little better about the concept if the medication came in pill form. But the idea is to provide help to those in need today.
Separating the issue of full legalization for recreational use… First, let me correct what I think is a faulty assumption on your part. Legalized marijuana does not mean “no controls at all”. It actually would do just the opposite by bringing controls to an uncontrolled industry that is currently almost completely owned and dominated by organized crime. There are striking similarities to our national experience with alcohol prohibition and our current federal policy of marijuana prohibition.
I’m sure you would agree with me that alcohol prohibition was a failure. I doubt you would support reinstating alcohol prohibition. So I ask you this question in all seriousness… What is it you see that indicates marijuana prohibition has been successful?
Marijuana is the largest cash crop in the US and has been for decades. The volume of marijuana imported from Mexico exceeds even that which is cultivated domestically. Currently the product is completely controlled by organized crime. Our country has spent [literally] hundreds of billion$ specifically fighting marijuana consumption, and lost tens of billion$ in potential tax revenue. All this to keep a substance that is by most [if not all] standards far less harmful than alcohol, illegal. At some point we have to ask ourselves this question… Why?
My solution would be to legalize marijuana, implement controls similar to those in the alcoholic beverage industry, and tax consumers who use the product for recreational purposes.
Barry – there are benefits to nicotine. For one discussion, see
http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/drugs-alcohol/nicotine-health-benefits.htm
Among other things, nicotine may have benefits related to Alzheimer’s and to depression:
“In 2006, Duke scientists found that people with depression who were treated with nicotine patches reported a decrease in their depressive feelings. The results were perhaps not surprising for a drug associated with imparting a “buzz.” However, the research also showed a direct link between nicotine and an increase in the release of dopamine and serotonin, two vital neurotransmitters. A lack of dopamine or serotonin is a common cause of depression.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Psychoactive_effects
“Nicotine’s mood-altering effects are different by report: in particular it is both a stimulant and a relaxant. First causing a release of glucose from the liver and epinephrine (adrenaline) from the adrenal medulla, it causes stimulation. Users report feelings of relaxation, sharpness, calmness, and alertness…Nicotine appears to enhance concentration and memory due to the increase of acetylcholine. It also appears to enhance alertness due to the increases of acetylcholine and norepinephrine. Arousal is increased by the increase of norepinephrine. Pain is reduced by the increases of acetylcholine and beta-endorphin. Anxiety is reduced by the increase of beta-endorphin.”
It’s interesting that in this thread a few of us baited the line with “why change” and there was no response. Further interesting thisfree political media (the thread) was not used as a thank you — we have plenty to do message… Is this race simply not a race?
Mike,
I don’t know why pharmacological attempts have failed, if that is in fact the case. But, if something has an effect, our high tech society ought to be able to figure out why. I’m guessing it’s in the products of combustion, not in the plant, unless you say that something like eating the plant has the same effect. Anyway, I’m sympathetic to medicinal use, if it can be controlled.
You didn’t answer why I should accept that the slippery slope doesn’t exist. Even Ted used the argument that alcohol, etc., are legal, so why shouldn’t marijuana be legal, as you did indirectly. Okay, so if it were, why shouldn’t hashish be legal, and if so, why shouldn’t opium be legal, and if so, why shouldn’t cocaine be legal,……….???
The fact that enforcement has been a failure is sort of puzzling. I mean, marijuana, opium, etc., have been around for a long time. Yet, they were not used in the US much, as far as I know, until the “sixties”. How is that?
Alcohol prohibition seems to have been a failure, but it seems to work, save for a black market, in Islamic countries, right or wrong.
Legalizing something that is destructive to society, just because it is in widespread use, is a weak argument. One could extend that to any crime. I mean, tongue-in-cheek, if murder were widespread, we could say we are wasting too much money on enforcement and just let the strong survive. We do spend a fortune on police enforcement, and in trying and housing criminals right now. It’s a common argument, and probably why abortion is legal, and why casinos are propagating. But, is it leading us to a better and higher quality society?
And, mgwa, I really should have referred to tobacco smoking and not nicotine as a drug, although that’s how it was presented by Ted. I’d expect that no-one would advocate for cigarette smoking, but perhaps the drug nicotine has some beneficial effects. As a drug, it won’t cause lung cancer or emphysema. And second-hand smoke would not be a problem.
Barry, my comment was tongue in cheek. But since you took the bait, please enlighten us on the comparative death rates associated with marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. Just a guess here, but I am pretty sure marijuana has the lowest.
But wait, the Centers for Disease Control have actually counted: close to 25,000 alcohol induced deaths a year in the US; tobacco is the leading preventable cause of death in the US and the world, and is responsible for close to 450,000 deaths a year or one in five deaths in the US, of which 49,000 are from second hand smoke; number of reported deaths from marijuana poisoning – 0. Clearly, we have to criminalize and control reefer madness, or else all hell will break loose.
Ted,
Even if you are correct, without getting into the details that I’d debate, what is the point of adding another intoxicant that will see even more widespread use than it does now, and probably than all the others combined if it were legalized? What are you accomplishing? Do you want a Jamaican Rastafarian society where people smoke dope all the time, particularly the blast-your-head types that could easily be made widely available? Do you want people operating construction machinery stoned. Do you want your surgeon stoned? Do you want a “Brave New World” society where everyone is lulled into a neutral pacific state by a widely available and physically harmless heavy intoxicant? I think this is an irresponsible point of view. I’d rather figure out how to reduce or eliminate the drugs that you cite as a problem, than to spend a lot of effort adding one more that isn’t as bad as the rest.
And making wise-crack references to the movie “Reefer Madness” is inappropriate for a seemingly intelligent person such as yourself. It really detracts from your point of view.
And what about my slippery slope argument about the eventual legalization of all those other drugs using the same logic? No-one seems to want to address this, but your last post just adds further support to my point.
Barry, I would make sure that the government legalizes, regulates and taxes the sale of pot, just like the far more dangerous tobacco products. You seem to have a puritanical streak-that fear that somehow, somewhere, someone is having fun, and you must put a stop to it.
Here is my last word on the subject: marijuana is no more dangerous than same sex marriage. Sleep tight, and don’t let the bedbugs bite.
Puritanical streaks are very common in liberal Newton. Why else did we shun card games at commercial outlets?
I am voting for Greer Swiston. I have called her a few times regarding different city issues and she has been very HELPFUL and has gotten the issues resolved for me.
And the reason I am not voting for Kay Khan is because about 10 years ago when I desperately needed help with a legistlative issue for my infant son that was Health Insurance Related she and her office was very unhelpful. Actually they DID NOT help me at ALL.
I was able to get the situation resolved almost immediately thru a State Rep from another CITY that I did not live in. I was referred to this other state rep by a friend and even though I was not a constiutent her office was able to get our insurance company Harvard Pilgrim to understand that they were required by state law to cover my sons special formula. You would have thought that Rep Khan or her office should have been able to help me too. But they did not.
I hope Greer is our next State Rep as I know she will help her constituents.
Ted,
QED. Thanks for the simple, easy to understand conclusion to your argument.
I guess I’m the puritan, and you’re the really cool guy. Quite an honor.
Have a lot of fun and enjoy the world you’re creating for yourself, your children, your grandchildren, etc. It’ll be great fun for them to get really stoned and have sex with someone of their own gender, as I’m assuming you must do, or you wouldn’t be so committed to it. It’s not the world I want for my grandchildren.
Is this thread about Kay Khan and marijuana? Has she taken some strong position on legalizing marijuana?
@Barry, the difference between us is that you believe smoking marijuana and homosexuality are malum in se, that is wrong in itself, while I believe they are malum prohibitum, that is, wrong merely because they are prohibited by law. I am neither a marijuana smoker nor gay, but I don’t think there are particularly compelling arguments why either one should be illegal or unlawful.
L P O
The marijuana thing started near the beginning when Mike Striar, once a candidate for Mayor of Newton, said he wouldn’t vote for anyone who wouldn’t legalize medical marijuana, but really supports full legalization. That was a heavy discussion.
Our right honorable alderman, Ted, decided near the end, not liking my stance on recreational drugs, to infuse another issue, homosexuality, another thing about which he doesn’t like my stance.
Ted, your summary just misrepresented my stance on both issues, and, as usual, from the knee-jerk liberals on these Newton blogs, you and everyone except Mike Striar, never addressed any of the arguments I brought up, but rather preferred to disparage me. Mike didn’t address all my issues, but his arguments are thoughtful and worthy of consideration, though I don’t agree with a lot of them.
Ted is an embarrassment to me as an alderman in my city. I know he’s intelligent but his approach to these issues is juvenile and I think destructive. He can’t comprehend the negative societal effects of the legal widespread use of recreational drugs, nor of widespread intrusion into the lives of all of us of all the unnatural sexual practices that he supports, and refuses to discuss them in any way that makes any sense.
+1 for the Reefer Madness reference
@Barry, I don’t discount your concerns. Being stoned or drunk all the time is a life wasted, in my view. But when you compare the harmful impact of one recreational drug that is illegal, marijuana, with another recreational which is legal, alcohol, our laws just do not seem rational, fair or effective. Alcohol by far ruins more lives and causes death when used in excess. That is not to say one cannot abuse marijuana and use it to excess, but there is no reported death from an “overdose” of marijuana (insert a “munchies” joke here). Heroin, oxycontin, cocaine and other drugs have proven deleterious effects for which they are, rightly, regulated as controlled substances. You overdose, you die, just like thousands die every year from alcohol poisoning.
I minored in history in college and I have always been fascinated by the history of law. The truth is that marijuana got a bad rap because of a confluence of factors. It was the recreational drug of choice of people of color and, ironically, the “better classes” when it was first criminalized. It is also made from hemp, which is used to make rope and was seen as competition by American industrialists invested in nylon who sought to destroy the hemp rope making industry. Most notably, it was used in “home remedies” which were criminalized and regulated by the government as a result of the proliferation of the patent medicine industry, which thrived on the sale of dubious medical, miracle cures in a bottle (indeed, Coca Cola was originally intended as a patent medicine and contained a small amount of cocaine as a stimulant).
My allusion to same sex marriage was, in my view apt. I don’t believe it harms anyone and helps everyone who wants to marry and their children. Indeed, a recent poll showed that 61% of people opposed to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts admitted that it has had no negative impact whatsoever on their lives. In truth, it hurts no one, but it does validate the lives of millions of Americans who live as couples and as families with children who have been discriminated against for far too long. When DOMA is eventually repealed, it will allow same-sex married couples to share in all of the same benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy. So, my advice to you and other opponents is, if you do not approve of same-sex marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex.
I apologize for hijacking this thread, but the issues Mike Striar originally raised are important ones. Vote for representative Kay Khan.
Barry,
I understand and appreciate your concerns about whether marijuana is a “gate way” drug. With reference to its intoxicating effects, there does not seem to be any scientific evidence to suggest that the long term physical effects of the drug are any worse than or even as bad as the effects of alcohol or tobacco on the body. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in January of this year concluded that occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function even though smoking marijuana does expose the lungs to some of the same carcinogens contained in cigarettes. Furthermore, research studies conducted by both the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and the University of New Hampshire strongly dispute the conclusion that use of marijuana leads to further illicit drug use, concluding that the likelihood that an individual will move on to harder drugs is more likely due to environmental and behavioral factors and an individual’s tendencies than the actual drug itself.
Possession of one ounce or less of marijuana was decriminalized in Massachusetts in 2009 and is subject to civil penalties (possible fine, forfeiture and completion of a drug awareness program for offenders under the age of 18). See Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 94C Section 32L. Trafficking in marijuana (50 pounds or more) or possession with intent to distribute any amount of marijuana (including less than one ounce) still remain crimes in the Commonwealth. Thus, while it is no longer a crime to simply possess a small amount for personal use, it remains a controlled substance with criminal penalties attached to its sale or distribution. The importation and distribution of illicit substances, whether marijuana, cocaine or heroin, are still controlled by dangerous criminal enterprises. I personally believe that removing marijuana from the control of illicit drug enterprises through legalization and controlled distribution would be far more effective in the war on criminal drug enterprises.
I strongly support legalization. But my primary purpose in raising the marijuana issue on this thread, was to try and influence candidates for state office to publicly state their position, and support medical marijuana.
Kay Kahn is a clear supporter, having [I believe] co-sponsored a bill that would legalize medical marijuana in Massachusetts. A previous thread on this particular race for State Representative, left me a bit confused about Greer Tan Swiston’s position on marijuana in general, and specifically on medical marijuana. I like Greer, consider her a friend, and think she’s been a fine alderman. However, because of my experience watching my wife struggle with the side effects of chemo therapy, and seeing how effective marijuana was in relieving her suffering and [as a result] extending her life, I will not vote for anyone running for state office who does not support medical marijuana legislation. I will continue to urge other voters to take the same approach, and remind everyone that the issue will also be on the ballot as an initiative in November.
Lisap.
I didn’t say marijuana was a gateway drug. I said that the same logic that would legalize marijuana will be used to legalize other drugs and thus make them available in addition to marijuana. “It’s not as bad as alcohol and tobacco”. “It doesn’t cause too many deaths”. It’s a bad path for a society to be on. But we are on it, and I choose to speak out against it.
The arguments are all the same. The argument to remove it from criminal elements of course justifies legalized gambling and will justify legalized prostitution. I basically see a society that is more fervently applying itself to making what we used to call “vice” widely available legally. In the long run, I think it’s bad for our society, as it trivializes these things and desensitizes us to their negative effects. It happens little by little and step by step. We are living today in a far different society than, say, 40 years ago. But it didn’t happen all at once.
Call me old-fashioned or a “puritan” as Ted did, but really, vice has been around since time immemorial, and most societies have seen how ruined they became (same, Ted, for GLBT behavior). Then they make these things illegal or unavailable. But, because they’ve forgotten the damage they can cause, we see all these seemingly logical arguments for reversing it. We’ll find out again, and it won’t be pretty.