More New York prosecutors grossly mischaracterize the proposed law
A new piece on ynn reports that upstate prosecutors have come out against the medical marijuana law.
There is nothing new in their arguments; indeed the recurrence of the identical arguments in every statement of opposition to the therapeutic use of cannabis [or any use, of course] ever more strongly suggests that the opposition derives its position statements, that is to say its lines, from one source. (I can only speculate it is the DEA.) There is the nonsense about the cannabis, grown in dispensaries licensed by the Department of Health, being laced with pesticides or PCP - why do we think that the cannabis grown in such facilities will be laced? Is that, like, the top shelf version of the product - the one that costs the dispensary its license and sends the operators to jail? Then there is the nonsense about more research is necessary before anyone should be allowed to use the drug because... well maybe it's so dangerous that terminal patients should not be allowed to use it... not until someone wants to come forward and put out $800 million for a clinical trial of cannabis. Perhaps there is an intrepid reporter who would like to ask why anyone would attempt to test the therapeutic uses of cannabis when the DEA has refused to license a new legal cannabis cultivator (which would break the federal government's monopoly on the legal cultivation of cannabis) that could supply cannabis for use in the clinical trial of cannabis which the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies attempted to conduct until it was forced to sue the DEA.
Again, when they say that more research is needed, they mean more research into the risks in allowing anyone to use cannabis ever for any purpose, not that the federal government should do the honorable thing and affirmatively FUND clinical trials of cannabis to evaluate its therapeutic utility.
The prosecutors have pumped up strongly this time the completely vacuous, nay - specious, nay - simply untrue argument that the bill will create an unregulated system. From where could they possibly have gone that idea? I addressed the essential logic of this article in an earlier post,("Save us from the doctors.") It's criminal drug prohibition at its atomic, bureaucratic level, so fascinating for us political science students: it is domination of the drug control bureaucracy, budget, and thought process by law enforcement. Don't let the doctors have control of drugs; societal collapse lurks.
You can see that position exemplified in the remarks of Mr. Fitzpatrick of Onondoga County (AKA Syracuse) when he says that the legislature failed to consult the DA's association about the bill - "the people most knowledgeable about the pros and cons of such a move." Fascinating. Why are the PROSECUTORS the people most knowledgeable about the medical utility of cannabis? Why are they the ones most knowledgeable about how to determine whether a patient is using cannabis responsibly or irresponsibly? Perhaps he means that the prosecutors are the ones most familiar with the problem of diversion. Fair enough, so on to my next question: how do licensed dispensaries, whose premises and records are open to inspection and which, under the bill, must document all their sales and report on them to the Department of Health, pose a threat to the public order by allowing seepage of legal marijuana into the illegal drug markets that is anything more than negligible?
Ultimately, all of the criticisms of the bill are just boring. It's the same set of vacuous arguments over and over. We know them all by heart now. They bear no relationship to the proposed law.