We’re having a lively discussion in the comments on my most recent commentary, “Medical Marijuana vs. Legalization: When is a bad medical law worse than no medical law?“, which was prompted by the recent decimation of medical marijuana bills in MN, NH, NY, & NJ and introduction of a highly restrictive initiative in AZ.
Before anyone gets too far, let me make something perfectly clear: I will never oppose a medical marijuana bill. I may not offer enthusiastic support, I may remain neutral, I may point out flaws and ask backers to think about it, I may even not vote for it nor sign a petition for it, but I will never outright oppose a medical marijuana measure nor vote against it.
So as you answer the poll below, think of the question from that perspective. It’s not whether a bad medmj bill would cause you to vote against it, it’s whether you find some of these provisions too onerous to support.
What restrictions in a medical marijuana law would be a "dealbreaker" for your vote? (Choose as many as apply.)
- Patients are required to be fingerprinted and that information shared with the FBI. (54%, 195 Votes)
- Patients not allowed to be teachers, police officers, firefighters, or elected officials. (52%, 186 Votes)
- Medical marijuana is limited only to "terminal" patients. (50%, 179 Votes)
- Caregivers must submit to random urinalysis to ensure they aren't using cannabis. (49%, 178 Votes)
- Mandatory home inspections of home grows or to determine there are no home grows. (49%, 176 Votes)
- Patients' transactions at dispensaries to be tracked in a database searchable by law enforcement. (47%, 171 Votes)
- Patients must have doctor certify they've tried all other pharmaceutical remedies first before getting cannabis. (47%, 169 Votes)
- Patients not allowed to grow their own medicine at home / forced to go to dispensary. (36%, 129 Votes)
- Requirements that patients not medicate when other patients are present. (35%, 127 Votes)
- Requirements that patients can't gather in groups larger than five to medicate. (35%, 126 Votes)
- Anything. Medical marijuana is passé and it's time to focus on legalization for all. (34%, 124 Votes)
- Nobody with a cannabis felony in the past ten years can be a caregiver. (32%, 116 Votes)
- Only a patients' primary care physician may recommend; no "marijuana clinics" or specialists. (32%, 115 Votes)
- Patients are not allowed to grow their medicine at home outdoors. (29%, 104 Votes)
- Once this law goes into effect, patients have no "affirmative defense" if they are outside the specifications of the law. (29%, 104 Votes)
- A doctor can't just recommend marijuana, you must have a specific qualifying condition. (26%, 94 Votes)
- Patients are limited to less than four ounces of medicine per month. (25%, 89 Votes)
- Minor patients must have a recommendation from two separate doctors to qualify for medical marijuana. (21%, 77 Votes)
- Nothing. I will vote for any medical marijuana law/initiative, no matter how restrictive. Patients can't wait. (20%, 72 Votes)
- Patients required to have ID card with their name, address, photo, and indication that they grow at home, if they do. (19%, 70 Votes)
Total Voters: 361
Loading ...
I’m with daniel. In the end, I see it as progress and with the amount of effort, fortitude and “luck” that goes along with the process of a cannabis bill’s passage, I just couldn’t say no to it due to the medicinal requirement… its something and its a start. Go from there.
Yeah, I thought it would at least be in the top five favorites when I voted for it.
But I suppose it’s the nature of the subject/question and how the answer was presented. When it comes to the things we would not give in to in order to have legal medical marijuana in their state, the “it all or nothing” answer just isn’t feasible for some people. I guess folks are always willing to give up something.
Damn shame that legalization has to be one that would get thrown under the bus though… and on a pro-marijuana legalization blog (irony)! The plus side is that the “Nothing. I will vote for any medical marijuana law/initiative, no matter how restrictive. Patients can’t wait” answer is dead last.
What the heck is going on here? why in the world would people not check this box? “Anything. Medical marijuana is passé and it’s time to focus on legalization for all” Either I got this crap ass backwards or everyone is nut’s for not thinking it time for Legalization for ALL, I’m confused
Microchips are for dogs and People who do not care about Heaven.
Christians will resist any and all attempts to Microchip us…
We would rather die a horrible death than to ever be chipped. Do not ever mention this to a christian , without expecting a very violent reaction . I am a Peace loving Jesus Freak , but I will put anyone in the ground who would attempt to do that to me !!!
Just to further clarify,
Something like, “patients can’t gather in groups larger than five to medicate”
This is silly. This is language that not only would be impossible to enforce but would easily amended after the law gets passed. I would not care one hoot about this language or any similar language in a bill.
However, something like “Patients’ transactions at dispensaries to be tracked in a database searchable by law enforcement”
This is extremely scary language with all kinds of ramifications down the road. Extremely hard to ever get the language amended and any attempts would be met with opposition. Opposition with a war chest of money.
I might not have a problem with the database but I don’t want law enforcement having open access to medical records without a warrant.
Why would they (Law enforcement) request such language in a bill unless they intend to use it to harass the citizens, anyway?
Then, of course, there is the “Grow your own” question. State dispensaries are a deal breaker right out of the gate for me.
My problem is that I feel the government controlled dispensary is a “gateway” to tighter control of the plant.
State dispensary language would be near impossible to ever get amended as long as forces choose to champion it. Particularly after state systems of production and distribution are established and put into place. People are employed and the windows open for business. This is something that could refuel the engines of prohibition for generations.
I’ve already PO’d some of the medical people who want medical at all costs with my answer on this topic.
Yes I’d begrudgingly have to vote NO on a bill proposed in my state if it had a lot of language like this. I’ll not sacrifice the future just to have ‘any ol bill’.
I also wont side with one suffering group over another. The sick are not more deserving than the persecuted, in my view. I wont throw one group under the bus for the benefit of the other.
Of course one can’t really say without looking at a specific proposed bill and then deciding.
If it was perfect bill with the exception of any one or two bad things. Sure. If it was a bill comprised of all of those things. NO WAY.
It is hard to say without looking at a specific bill, contemplating all the language and then tipping the dominoes over in your mind to see the possible future.
Some things can be changed easily down the road, others not so much. If there are a lot of damaging things that can’t be changed easily, then I’d have to vote NO.
The poll indicates that stashers are more picky about it than perhaps some would want them to be.
Careful scrutiny of any and all bills is required before voting is all I can recommend to anyone. If you see something in a bill that gives you concern, write your leaders and let them know.
Wow, there’s a lot of check marks on my Stash Pot Quiz… but then again, I’m in the state where every place w/ potential MMJ laws are trying hard not to be like (California). What the hell do I know about restrictions? I’m just a freedom and liberty lovin’, pot smokin’ “hippy”, I guess.
I think everyone needs to remember that If a law came up in your state that had one of these crappy rules, wouldn’t you still vote for it just to gain some sort of progress?
I will only vote or a bill that requires a mandatory microchip…..nothing less than total big brother…..freedom is for losers….besides if I forget my card I
still wanna be cool…
a deal breaker for me is one that removes a constitutional right from a patient, such as privacy, or freedom to assemble. The other deal breaker is one that does not have a easy reasonable priced, legal way to acquire medication, what is the point if the act of buying your medicine puts the patient and provider out side of the law.
This one is hard for me. There are only a couple options here that are by themselves “deal breakers” for me but there are some that I really dislike but aren’t necessarily “deal breakers”, However some combinations of the worse options become too restrictive for my support.
For example: the mandatory inspections make me cringe but if they’re allowed to grow their own medicine I’ll tentatively support it.
If they’re not allowed to grow (This is a deal breaker for me in general) AND they’re subjected to mandatory home inspections; I would be borderline opposed to the bill.
Another combo that would be a deal breaker but not necessarily deal breakers individually are clauses that limit both to “terminally ill” and limit the total number of patients in the program. basically arbitrary denial of patients that are otherwise qualified.
there are others that bug me but this should be enough to accrue me plenty of criticism.