"LDS Church: Legal analysis raises concerns about Utah medical marijuana initiative"

[Kenngo1969]

https://www.cnn.com/2012/06/27/us/florida-cannibal-attack/index.html

Like I said ...

It's ...

An ...

Herb! 

[Tacenda]

On 5/11/2018 at 5:46 PM, provoman said:

• Fear mongering. And notice that the information is from States with recreational marijuana. Why not just provide the information of usage in States with only medical. 

Thanks provoman, this is eyeopening for someone not too good with information like this. I don't get it, just can't believe how unbalanced this anaylsis is! Why do they compare how our state would be to states that have recreational marijuana.

I've read so many who are literally dying that need something like medical cannibus, yet the church is looking at basically how we'll look IMO! Because if a kid wants to try pot, they can and do. 

[RevTestament]

52 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks provoman, this is eyeopening for someone not too good with information like this. I don't get it, just can't believe how unbalanced this anaylsis is! Why do they compare how our state would be to states that have recreational marijuana.

I've read so many who are literally dying that need something like medical cannibus, yet the church is looking at basically how we'll look IMO! Because if a kid wants to try pot, they can and do. 

Yeah, don't get too hot to trot about those statistics. Colorado still makes recreational use of marijuana illegal for minors, but since it has become otherwise legal, the illegal use of minors has gone up.

I don't approve of recreational use of marijuana, but I think that is up to the states individually. My concern with this marijuana initiative proposal in Utah is that it seems to seek to legalize "medical use" of what would otherwise be recreational marijuana - that is strains with sufficient THC to make us high. Since I don't really approve of that usage, except maybe in cases of the terminally ill, I see problems with this marijuana initiative.  Allowing in true medical marijuana or high CBD strains may be able to avoid such problems, but since even they would not be processed and standardized in a pill, etc, I still see some potential problems of getting what is intended for the general public to have. I don't see all the issues brought up by the McKonkie law firm as being problems, but I do think some would be legitimate concerns for the state. For instance I don't see doctors getting much if any required training in prescribing opiods. But, I believe in this day and age, dosage information as well as data on contraindications is widely available via internet, etc. i assume the same would hold true for medical marijuana - the main issue is there being so many strains.

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/11/2018 at 3:39 PM, pogi said:

If medical marijuana is to be legalized, it needs to be treated like all other prescription medications.  For example, if you are being treated for pain, no doctor is going to give you a medical opioid card that is good for X amount of months to be used as desired.  No, you are going to get a prescription with a very specific quantity, dosage, and frequency.  That will not be the case with these medical cannabis cards.  It will be up to the user to take it as desired basically, with no follow up visit required.

 

This has been my objection to “medical” marijuana from the very beginning of the campaign to legalize it here in Washington. In my opinion it is merely a convenient ruse to get recreational use legalized. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/11/2018 at 4:46 PM, provoman said:

• Fear mongering. And notice that the information is from States with recreational marijuana. Why not just provide the information of usage in States with only medical. 

Fear mongering? It took me 2 months and letters to all kinds of politicians and public officials to get a huge billboard removed from its location directly across the street from a large high school. It featured a map of all pot shops within a 5 mile radius of the school. It’s naive to think kids are not going to be targeted by sellers. Washington started with legalizing “medical” pot and then recreational pot was piggy-backed. We now have a pot growing, processing, and distribution facility approved by the county in our residential neighborhood. 

[cacheman]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Yeah, don't get too hot to trot about those statistics. Colorado still makes recreational use of marijuana illegal for minors, but since it has become otherwise legal, the illegal use of minors has gone up.

Based on the statistics provided by the Kirton McConkie memorandum, the rate of usage in the 12-17 age group has decreased significantly since recreational was legalized.  

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Fear mongering? It took me 2 months and letters to all kinds of politicians and public officials to get a huge billboard removed from its location directly across the street from a large high school. It featured a map of all pot shops within a 5 mile radius of the school. It’s naive to think kids are not going to be targeted by sellers. Washington started with legalizing “medical” pot and then recreational pot was piggy-backed. We now have a pot growing, processing, and distribution facility approved by the county in our residential neighborhood. 

I have some questions I would like to ask to better understand your point in having the billboard removed near the high school.  

1. Do you think that now the billboard is down that the high school children won't know where to get illegal marijuana?  

2. If the high school students know where the dispensaries are, would that mean they could now buy marijuana even though they are underage?

3. Do you think that the billboard would convince the students to start smoking marijuana?

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have some questions I would like to ask to better understand your point in having the billboard removed near the high school.  

1. Do you think that now the billboard is down that the high school children won't know where to get illegal marijuana?  

2. If the high school students know where the dispensaries are, would that mean they could now buy marijuana even though they are underage?

3. Do you think that the billboard would convince the students to start smoking marijuana?

Do you believe advertising has impact on usage of products?  Would you think it wise if the billboard showed drinking or smoking tobacco?

Nonadvertising portrayal of use does appear to increase usage among youth,  for example tobacco.

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/movies/index.htm

Edited May 13, 2018 by Calm

[california boy]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Yeah, don't get too hot to trot about those statistics. Colorado still makes recreational use of marijuana illegal for minors, but since it has become otherwise legal, the illegal use of minors has gone up.

I don't approve of recreational use of marijuana, but I think that is up to the states individually. My concern with this marijuana initiative proposal in Utah is that it seems to seek to legalize "medical use" of what would otherwise be recreational marijuana - that is strains with sufficient THC to make us high. Since I don't really approve of that usage, except maybe in cases of the terminally ill, I see problems with this marijuana initiative.  Allowing in true medical marijuana or high CBD strains may be able to avoid such problems, but since even they would not be processed and standardized in a pill, etc, I still see some potential problems of getting what is intended for the general public to have. I don't see all the issues brought up by the McKonkie law firm as being problems, but I do think some would be legitimate concerns for the state. For instance I don't see doctors getting much if any required training in prescribing opiods. But, I believe in this day and age, dosage information as well as data on contraindications is widely available via internet, etc. i assume the same would hold true for medical marijuana - the main issue is there being so many strains.

I have never been in a dispensary before, but I have talked to people that have. In California you are not allowed in a medical dispensary without a medical marijuana card.  That is actually still true today even though it is now legal for any adult to buy marijuana.  They keep the medical dispensaries separate from the recreational stores.  Those that have been in the medical dispensaries tell me is that the different strains of marijuana are clearly labeled giving the information on each strain and what it is most helpful in helping with.  For example some strains help with not being able to sleep. Some strains increase appetite.  Some decrease appetite.  Etc.  

Concerning the dose, what they tell me is that everyone reacts a bit differently, much like any other drug.  The doctor and dispensary would advise taking a small dose at first and then see how that goes. Once the patient figures out what dose works for them, then they can continue on that regime.  Smoking is much faster acting than edibles because it goes directly into the bloodstream.  So a person who smokes marijuana would be able to regulate the proper amount for them as they take the drug.  Of course, smoking increases the risk of lung cancer.  In some cases, that might not be a factor if they are already dealing with a terminal illness.  

Edibles are much safer, but also much slower to kick in.  The advantage is that the dose is clearly marked on each package.  So for example a patient after an initial trial period might determine that they only need 1/4th of a brownie each night. I think most doctors would start the patient on a fairly small dose and then see how that goes.  

Hope that gives you some guidelines on what can be expected.

[california boy]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you believe advertising has impact on usage of products?  Would you think it wise if the billboard showed drinking or smoking tobacco?

Nonadvertising portrayal of use does appear to increase usage among youth,  for example tobacco.

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/movies/index.htm

Advertising absolutely has impact on usage of the product. There is a reason companies spend billions of dollars on advertising.  It is to increase sales.   

Directional advertising is a different kind of advertising.  It tells the consumer where to buy the product.  And something like marijuana, knowing that is key to helping people in their purchase since it is not readily available at every corner drug store..  So an advertising campaign directing people where to buy the product would be a very worthwhile campaign.  Generally directional advertising is almost always done on billboards close to where the product is sold.  (Think McDonalds, next exit.)  It functions similar to POP (point of purchase) advertising. These are displays set up right where a product is purchased.  Think movie posters in a theater for example.  

But that is a completely different kind of advertising than say a campaign with a cowboy on a horse showing how manly and cool it is to smoke or how glamorous it is to drink alcohol or even a campaign to build brand awareness.  That type of advertising is designed to create an image that people hopefully to the advertiser the consumer wants to emulate.  That is why smoking in movies is so effective (per your link) But telling consumers were to buy cigarettes in a movie has no value.

I doubt very much that a campaign telling where someone can buy cigarettes or alcohol would be of much value since it is readily available.   This kind of campaign is comparing apples to oranges.  

Who you target is also very important.  For example, me seeing an ad for women shoes would have zero value to the advertiser.  I have never bought a pair of women's shoes in my life.  But that doesn't mean I have never seen an ad for women shoes.  Since high school age students can not buy marijuana at any of the locations on that billboard, then there is no value to the advertiser.  They may see the billboard,.  They may find out where the dispensaries are if they didn't know already.  But it doesn't give them the ability to buy the product.  

Hope that answers your question.

Edited May 13, 2018 by california boy

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

... Edibles are much safer, but also much slower to kick in.  The advantage is that the dose is clearly marked on each package.  So for example a patient after an initial trial period might determine that they only need 1/4th of a brownie each night. ... 

Now you tell me?   I already ate the whole thing! 

Edited May 13, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[provoman]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Fear mongering? It took me 2 months and letters to all kinds of politicians and public officials to get a huge billboard removed from its location directly across the street from a large high school. It featured a map of all pot shops within a 5 mile radius of the school. It’s naive to think kids are not going to be targeted by sellers. Washington started with legalizing “medical” pot and then recreational pot was piggy-backed. We now have a pot growing, processing, and distribution facility approved by the county in our residential neighborhood. 

Yes, the KM letter is fear mongering. To use stats from an apple and appky it to an orange is fear mongering.

The apples are stats from states that have legal recreational marijuana. 

The Orange is the proposal for Utah that is about medical only. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

Yes, the KM letter is fear mongering. To use stats from an apple and appky it to an orange is fear mongering.

The apples are stats from states that have legal recreational marijuana. 

The Orange is the proposal for Utah that is about medical only. 

Looks like you missed my point. We’ve already been through this in Washington. It’s reality, not fear mongering for me. 

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

1. Do you think that now the billboard is down that the high school children won't know where to get illegal marijuana?  

They’ll have to do their own search rather than gaze out the classroom window. 

 

4 hours ago, california boy said:

2. If the high school students know where the dispensaries are, would that mean they could now buy marijuana even though they are underage?

Apparently yes in some places, but the black market is still thriving. We were promised that legalization would eliminate the black market, but all they have to do is undercut the shop prices. And grow it in their basement. Or bring it in from Mexico. 

4 hours ago, california boy said:

3. Do you think that the billboard would convince the students to start smoking marijuana?

Of course not. No one in their right mind would pay for a huge billboard and put it on a busy street across from the main entrance to a large high school hoping to recruit more buyers. How dumb would that be? Only a fool would expect advertising to bring in more profit.

State law is that pot production and retail cannot be within 1000 feet of a school or youth center. The billboard advertising loophole will be eliminated in the legislature soon. Dumb laws. How would any of that stuff encourage kids to smoke pot?

[cacheman]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Apparently yes in some places, but the black market is still thriving. We were promised that legalization would eliminate the black market, but all they have to do is undercut the shop prices. And grow it in their basement. Or bring it in from Mexico. 

I would support efforts to limit advertising of Cannabis.  I also support increasing advertising and services designed to raise awareness of the risks of teen Cannabis use.  Fortunately,  the percentage of 12-17 year old Cannabis users are decreasing nationwide, most dramatically in legal states. Hopefully,  we won't go back to the high rates of teen use that we saw in the 90's when the drug war was in overdrive. 

As for the black market,  things have changed dramatically.  In the recent past,  the majority of Cannabis sold in the US was sourced from violent Cartels in Mexico. That traffic has decreased significantly as evidenced by Mexican field eradication and border seizure statistics.  In legal states like Washington, most black market Cannabis is exported to prohibition states.  A black market grower had much more incentive to move their product to a state where they'll get 4 or 5 times as much money for their product.  Yes,  there is still in-state black market deals happening in legal states, but it's hard to make it worthwhile when you have legal prices as low as $40 an ounce in washington,  and can get $2-400 an ounce in a neighboring prohibition state.  As more states legalize Cannabis, prices will continue to drop reducing the profitabilty of the illegal trade.  People are more willing to take risks when high profit margins are involved.  We saw a similar trend after alcohol prohibition ended.  The criminal element in the alcohol trade stayed involved for a time,  but eventually decreased to negligible levels.

For me,  the violence associated with the illegal Cannabis trade had always been a big issue.  I've never understood why our drug policy would penalize someone who grew an ounce of Cannabis in their backyard much more severely than someone who purchased an ounce sourced from a violent drug cartel.  I don't believe I've ever heard a supporter of the drug war ever suggest that we change the penalties in a way that would de-incentivise Cannabis users from supporting violent drug cartels.

[Kenngo1969]

Cacheman

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

...  Fortunately,  the percentage of 12-17 year old Cannabis users are decreasing nationwide, most dramatically in legal states. ...

CFR.  Thanks in advance.

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Cacheman

CFR.  Thanks in advance.

https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHsaeShortTermCHG2016/NSDUHsaeShortTermCHG2016.htm

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/12/11/following-marijuana-legalization-teen-drug-use-is-down-in-colorado/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8da0d937b6f4

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by Calm

[cacheman]

26 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Cacheman

CFR.  Thanks in advance.

Since this thread is about the Kirton McConkie memo, let's look at the data they drew their teen-use conclusions from.  https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHsaeShortTermCHG2016/NSDUHsaeShortTermCHG2016.htm

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, this only shows 2 years worth of data.  However, I seem to remember that the 12-17 year old usage in the last month reached the lowest point in 14 years in 2016 (the most recent data that I'm aware of). 

 

Calm is fast!

Edited May 14, 2018 by cacheman

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, cacheman said:

I would support efforts to limit advertising of Cannabis.  I also support increasing advertising and services designed to raise awareness of the risks of teen Cannabis use.  Fortunately,  the percentage of 12-17 year old Cannabis users are decreasing nationwide, most dramatically in legal states. Hopefully,  we won't go back to the high rates of teen use that we saw in the 90's when the drug war was in overdrive. 

As for the black market,  things have changed dramatically.  In the recent past,  the majority of Cannabis sold in the US was sourced from violent Cartels in Mexico. That traffic has decreased significantly as evidenced by Mexican field eradication and border seizure statistics.  In legal states like Washington, most black market Cannabis is exported to prohibition states.  A black market grower had much more incentive to move their product to a state where they'll get 4 or 5 times as much money for their product.  Yes,  there is still in-state black market deals happening in legal states, but it's hard to make it worthwhile when you have legal prices as low as $40 an ounce in washington,  and can get $2-400 an ounce in a neighboring prohibition state.  As more states legalize Cannabis, prices will continue to drop reducing the profitabilty of the illegal trade.  People are more willing to take risks when high profit margins are involved.  We saw a similar trend after alcohol prohibition ended.  The criminal element in the alcohol trade stayed involved for a time,  but eventually decreased to negligible levels.

For me,  the violence associated with the illegal Cannabis trade had always been a big issue.  I've never understood why our drug policy would penalize someone who grew an ounce of Cannabis in their backyard much more severely than someone who purchased an ounce sourced from a violent drug cartel.  I don't believe I've ever heard a supporter of the drug war ever suggest that we change the penalties in a way that would de-incentivise Cannabis users from supporting violent drug cartels.

Would you agree that criminalizing a product such as alcohol or marijuana gives a monopoly to the violent criminals that sell the illegal product? This seems to be an obvious fact missed by the prohibition crowd.

Other than advertizing regulation, how would you regulate the industry? It seems to me that if it is legalized, licenses should be relatively easy and cheap to get otherwise the incentives for corruption are still there.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Exiled

[ksfisher]

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900018475/in-our-opinion-the-false-choice-of-utahs-medical-marijuana-initiative.html

"It is possible to be for the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes and be absolutely against the Utah initiative. To suggest otherwise is a false choice."

"The initiative is flawed and would produce far-reaching, and potentially devastating, unintended consequences. In the rush to potentially alleviate the suffering of some, it is crucial to ensure that solutions do not create suffering for many."

"Perhaps most disturbing, the initiative is worded so poorly that it may weaken the penalties for causing an injury while driving a vehicle under influence of the drug."

"Doctors could provide patients with a medical cannabis card after just one visit without the need for any follow-up visits."

"It cites figures from other states to show Utah could expect medical marijuana users to be mostly young, just as it could expect overall usage to increase over current low levels."

"The initiative would allow dispensaries to operate 300 feet from a residential neighborhood and only 600 feet from a school."

"Absent in much of the nationwide push toward legalization of marijuana is a serious discussion of its harmful side effects, from respiratory problems and memory loss to its impact on the minds and motivation of young people."

"We are aware of no other instance in which the public has been asked to vote on whether to approve a new drug for prescription use. The Food and Drug Administration is tasked with such things, using qualified scientists and doctors."

 

 

Edited May 14, 2018 by ksfisher

[Gray]

Reefer madness strikes again!

[pogi]

47 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

"It is possible to be for the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes and be absolutely against the Utah initiative. To suggest otherwise is a false choice."

Very true.

48 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

"We are aware of no other instance in which the public has been asked to vote on whether to approve a new drug for prescription use. The Food and Drug Administration is tasked with such things, using qualified scientists and doctors."

Unfortunately, the schedule I rating that the DEA has preposterously placed on the relatively benign drug has forced the nation to take unorthodox measures to get the medicine approved for use. 

The right way to go about this is to remove cannabis from the schedule I rating, so that we can go through more orthodox measures to test and approve the drug for use in certain conditions that have been well-studied in clinical trials.   

My message to the DEA - What the hell is wrong with you?  This whole mess is your fault!  There is no valid scientific reason that cannabis should be included on the schedule I drug list!  There is no valid reason why drug companies and scientists should have to jump through so many restrictive hoops to study the drug!  Get off you high horse and let us study this drug better so that it can be treated like every other prescription medication.  Instead, states are taking more dangerous measures, ironically making your schedule I drug more available to the public with much easier access.  Well done!  Your plan has backfired completely and you STILL wont remove it from the list!  

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Very true.

Unfortunately, the schedule I rating that the DEA has preposterously placed on the relatively benign drug has forced the nation to take unorthodox measures to get the medicine approved for use. 

The right way to go about this is to remove cannabis from the schedule I rating, so that we can go through more orthodox measures to test and approve the drug for use in certain conditions that have been well-studied in clinical trials.   

My message to the DEA - What the hell is wrong with you?  This whole mess is your fault!  There is no valid scientific reason that cannabis should be included on the schedule I drug list!  There is no valid reason why drug companies and scientists should have to jump through so many restrictive hoops to study the drug!  Get off you high horse and let us study this drug better so that it can be treated like every other prescription medication.  Instead, states are taking more dangerous measures, ironically making your schedule I drug more available to the public with much easier access.  Well done!  Your plan has backfired completely and you STILL wont remove it from the list!  

California Boy addressed this. He blames it on a paper magnate who stirred up a scare against cannabis in order to protect his huge investments in lands and trees for paper production which he believed was threatened by hemp. He got it listed as a schedule 1 substance in order to make it difficult to introduce. The old money and congress tactic - very old. I believe we are seeing the same thing in congress by the oil and gas industries which are threatened by cheap, reasonable alternatives such as newer, better nuclear technologies. For this reason these technologies never seem to attract any gubbermint money. It goes to horrible ideas such as ethanol from corn, and expensive ideas which aren't too practical a source of competition such as wind power. The MSR/thorium experiments at Oakridge National Labs? Shut down. So we are left with one of the most inefficient and dirtiest/most dangerous forms of nuclear power there is to compete against fossil fuels. It's a shame. The Department of Energy has a huge discretionary budget, and imho it is mostly wasted. If it were to propose expenditures on thorium, MSR or alternative fusion ideas (other than the hugely impractical ITER)) it would be interesting to see whose hands would get lifted against it.

[Tacenda]

"We need medical marijuana to be legal so we can have standards and not be in the wild west." Quote from the video mentioned in this article called 'Weed the People'.https://hypothyroidmom.com/reefer-madness-or-a-promising-treatment-for-thyroid-disease/

I am a living example that cbd oil cured me of my hypothyroidism. I hope it lasts! This article is a good read, and video too. They mention how weed can prevent cancer, stop inflammation, too many to list. 

I wish Utah would take the time to do the research. We can't continue to deny it's properties outweighing the harm of getting high recreationally. I believe in the stats that say it's use went down in youths recently in states that allow recreational use. But that doesn't mean I want it legal to use recreationally in my state, but I'm open to it depending on how the law will treat it.

I believe anyone that uses it to get high and then drives should be ticketed or get a DWI, for sure. I don't believe people should have to allow billboards near schools advertising it. I do think we need to be careful of where it's sold medicinally. I do believe an apartment owner should have the right to tell the renter they cannot smoke it in their apartments. I'm sure that people smoke it for medicinal purposes but hopefully they will figure out a way so that the smell will not overwhelm those nearby. 

I do see the concerns, I have them myself. 

ETA: Just saw this...a rebuttal to the Kirton McConkie analysis: https://libertasutah.org/personal-freedom/a-rebuttal-of-kirton-mcconkies-analysis-of-the-utah-medical-cannabis-act/?utm_source=Libertas+Institute+Newsletter&utm_campa

Edited May 14, 2018 by Tacenda

[cacheman]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

California Boy addressed this. He blames it on a paper magnate who stirred up a scare against cannabis in order to protect his huge investments in lands and trees for paper production which he believed was threatened by hemp. He got it listed as a schedule 1 substance in order to make it difficult to introduce. The old money and congress tactic - very old. I believe we are seeing the same thing in congress by the oil and gas industries which are threatened by cheap, reasonable alternatives such as newer, better nuclear technologies. For this reason these technologies never seem to attract any gubbermint money. It goes to horrible ideas such as ethanol from corn, and expensive ideas which aren't too practical a source of competition such as wind power. The MSR/thorium experiments at Oakridge National Labs? Shut down. So we are left with one of the most inefficient and dirtiest/most dangerous forms of nuclear power there is to compete against fossil fuels. It's a shame. The Department of Energy has a huge discretionary budget, and imho it is mostly wasted. If it were to propose expenditures on thorium, MSR or alternative fusion ideas (other than the hugely impractical ITER)) it would be interesting to see whose hands would get lifted against it.

The scheduling actually came during the Nixon administration.  It was temporarily put as a schedule 1 drug pending the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (Shafer commission) report.  This commission was put together by President Nixon and consisted of physicians,  psychiatrists, lawyers, academics, and politicians (governors, senators, and representatives). The final report recommended taking it off schedule 1 and decriminalizing it.  Nixon ignored the report and kept it as is.

The Nixon tapes have confirmed that the war on drugs was a political tool meant to target blacks and the antiwar left.  It had certainly done that,  and in the process created a massive prison industrial complex.  Absent from a lot of the discussions about Cannabis legalization is the astounding amount of violence that had resulted from creating this 'forbidden fruit', and the many many stories of lost potential and ruined lives due to drug related incarcerations and broken families.

I understand the concerns for people's health and safety,  particularly with young people.  But,  we've got to look at the whole picture and ask ourselves if the way we've structured our laws and allocated our resources is in the best interest of society.  Knowing how ineffective the drug war has been, and the negative consequences of it,  I can't imagine why people wouldn't want to explore a drastic shift in our drug policy.  Add I've said before,  this is a moral issue in my opinion,  and lives hang in the balance.