Ohio Lawmakers Vote To Allow Limited Medical Marijuana Use

[Geeto67]

Didn't see this posted but given the popularity of the other thread about this thought I would get the discussion going here:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ohio-medical-marijuana-bill_us_57469a95e4b03ede4413e1fa

 

 

CLEVELAND (Reuters) - Lawmakers in Ohio on Wednesday approved legislation that would legalize marijuana use for medical purposes under certain circumstances, less than a year after recreational marijuana use was soundly defeated by Ohio voters.

 

The bill, approved by both chambers of the state’s Republican-led legislature, heads to Republican Governor John Kasich for his signature as his office said on Wednesday that he will review the bill.

 

During the last few years, state legislatures and voters in the United States have been much more receptive to making the use of marijuana legal for medical purposes than for recreational use.

[RC K9]

I think it's pretty much a joke, but I guess "progress" is "progress" so whatever.

[mmrmnhrm]

Lawmakers in Ohio on Wednesday approved legislation that would legalize marijuana use for medical purposes under certain circumstances, less than a year after creating a recreational marijuana cartel was soundly defeated by Ohio voters.

FTFY

[greg1647545532]

When I told people I was voting against the monopoly amendment, some of them were pleading with me to reconsider because of the very important Medical issue, that I was preventing sick people from getting their Medicine, and that a medical marijuana bill would never, ever, go anywhere, that the monopoly amendment was the only way, and I shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

Fuck those people.

[87GT]

I called it. In almost every other state that had an amendment fail the next year medical marijuana passed.

[El Karacho1647545492]

When I told people I was voting against the monopoly amendment, some of them were pleading with me to reconsider because of the very important Medical issue, that I was preventing sick people from getting their Medicine, and that a medical marijuana bill would never, ever, go anywhere, that the monopoly amendment was the only way, and I shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

Fuck those people.

 

This. Fucking this. Ultimately, getting effective marijuana policy starts here. Allow clinical research, allow it to be studied widely, allow kids to live without seizures for once, and allow our veterans to throw away the cornucopia of pharmaceuticals IF THEY WANT TO in favor of a natural alternative that has proven to be effective in treating both physical and mental ailments.

 

Hell, maybe in a generation or two our law enforcement officers will be safer if we see a drop in violent crimes related to pills and heroin dealers if marijuana offers an alternative to the pharmaceuticals.

 

I know there's still a push to get personal growing on the ballot for November which Kasich is adamantly opposed to, but personally I am very proud to be an Ohioan. It's a great thing to see Republicans and Democrats both putting aside ideological differences to push through a law that IMO ONLY benefits our citizens. It's very easy to philosophically be against drugs because of the way Gen X was raised, but it's much harder to leave those assumptions in the past as new science comes out to support the limited, rational dispensation of a potentially life-altering drug.

[Miller]

This. Fucking this. Ultimately, getting effective marijuana policy starts here. Allow clinical research, allow it to be studied widely, allow kids to live without seizures for once, and allow our veterans to throw away the cornucopia of pharmaceuticals IF THEY WANT TO in favor of a natural alternative that has proven to be effective in treating both physical and mental ailments.

 

Hell, maybe in a generation or two our law enforcement officers will be safer if we see a drop in violent crimes related to pills and heroin dealers if marijuana offers an alternative to the pharmaceuticals.

 

I know there's still a push to get personal growing on the ballot for November which Kasich is adamantly opposed to, but personally I am very proud to be an Ohioan. It's a great thing to see Republicans and Democrats both putting aside ideological differences to push through a law that IMO ONLY benefits our citizens. It's very easy to philosophically be against drugs because of the way Gen X was raised, but it's much harder to leave those assumptions in the past as new science comes out to support the limited, rational dispensation of a potentially life-altering drug.

 

QFT

[zeitgeist57]

^^^Hear, hear!!!

 

 

Problem is employers can still fire you for marijuana use even if it's prescribed. Conflicting legislation that wasn't accommodated for by this passage.

[caseyctsv]

My glaucoma!

[Not Brian]

WEEEED MAAAAN

[Geeto67]

^^^Hear, hear!!!

 

 

Problem is employers can still fire you for marijuana use even if it's prescribed. Conflicting legislation that wasn't accommodated for by this passage.

 

That's actually the most fascinating thing about this, it is one of the rare instances where the states are trying to write laws broader in power than the federal government and they seem to be getting away with it. I can't think of another time in the history of this country where the federal gov't criminalizes something and the states said "nah, we don't agree so we are going to legalize that behavior" and the federal gov't backed off enforcing it. It's amazing.

[mmrmnhrm]

That's actually the most fascinating thing about this, it is one of the rare instances where the states are trying to write laws broader in power than the federal government and they seem to be getting away with it. I can't think of another time in the history of this country where the federal gov't criminalizes something and the states said "nah, we don't agree so we are going to legalize that behavior" and the federal gov't backed off enforcing it. It's amazing.

 

Really, this is how it's supposed to be. 10th Amendment specifically says "If we didn't give this power to the Feds, it goes to either the States or the people." Blasted SCOTUS has been letting Congress usurp that limitation, usually through the invocation of the Interstate Commerce clause, even when there is no crossing of state lines

[El Karacho1647545492]

^^^Hear, hear!!!

 

 

Problem is employers can still fire you for marijuana use even if it's prescribed. Conflicting legislation that wasn't accommodated for by this passage.

 

On the one hand, I'm all for protecting citizens' right to their medication.

 

On the other hand, I firmly believe in a company's right to set their own hiring practices and policies. If I'm a air traffic controller, I don't want my employees zonked out on weed, prescription pills, hell you could rationally say that over-the-counter drugs like dramamine/nyquil are sufficient cause to fire an employee because of the affect of those drugs on their ability to do their job effectively.

 

Ultimately I believe in the free market's ability to regulate itself. If some companies want to refuse to consider applicants who are legally prescribed marijuana, they are limiting the pool of potential hires and will thus not be as competitive in the marketplace as a company who includes legal marijuana users in its pool of candidates. That company will be seen as a more desirable place to work and will attract more qualified candidates.

 

When in doubt, let the free market decide. That's the principle America's economy and government were founded on.

 

EDIT: And don't turn this into a "well should companies be able to not hire a gay person because they think it's wrong?" No, that's discrimination. And I'm not sure I believe a company should be allowed to refuse a medical marijuana user on principle, rather they should be able to refuse to hire a marijuana user based on the requirements of the job. A gay man can do any job just as well as a straight man. A medical marijuana user may not be able to execute a task the same as a non-user, depending on their condition and whether it necessitates the use of concentrated THC or concentrated CBD, because high concentrations of CBD do NOT get you high in the way THC does. That's the substance that is particularly helpful in managing seizures, but I'm sure it will have more medical applications once there is some serious clinical research done in it.

[Geeto67]

Really, this is how it's supposed to be.

 

Sort of but not really. In areas where federal law is silent the states are free to regulate however they wish, but in areas where there is specific federal law prohibiting action, the state cannot overwrite the authority of the federal government (supremacy clause Article VI, Clause 2). In this case There are actual federal laws regulating drugs like MJ (under the Controlled substances Act of 1970 and the Food and Drug act of 1906 - not the commerce clause) and the states legalizing have continued to write their laws broader than the federal governments regulations on controlled substances in violation of the supremacy clause.

 

What's really fascinating is that the government is not enforcing the regulations with the full weight of their authority - meaning as a new form of federal protest this seems to be working. I think part of this may be the subject matter, if this were something more polarizing like gun rights or abortion I doubt it would be permitted. Not that it hasn't been tried in those areas, it has, but most attempts have been suppressed.

 

 

10th Amendment specifically says "If we didn't give this power to the Feds, it goes to either the States or the people." Blasted SCOTUS has been letting Congress usurp that limitation, usually through the invocation of the Interstate Commerce clause, even when there is no crossing of state lines

 

Careful there....."Tenthers" are quickly drifting toward the same fringe treatment as "birthers" and other crackpot groups. I am not saying there isn't some legitimacy to the underlying message (abuse of the commerce clause) but like many political groups in this realm it easily gets taken too far and interpretations become way more elaborate than are actually supportable.

 

The unfortunate part of state supremacy is that "states rights" as a political position has been used to advocate some pretty awful behavior. Specifically it's greatest hits are: support of Slavery, Support of segregation, support of the suppression of women's rights, support of the suppression of gay rights. In fact it is so closely linked to segregation (thanks to Strom Thrumond and George Wallace) that it was (and still is sometimes) considered a code word.

 

There is no historical precedent, nor modern interpretation, that the 10th amendment was ever meant to be read as narrowly as the "tenther" movement seeks to have it read. Many have tried to advocate this minority position, in fact we fought a war about it in the 1800's, and all have lost.

[mmrmnhrm]

The unfortunate part of state supremacy is that "states rights" as a political position has been used to advocate some pretty awful behavior. Specifically it's greatest hits are: support of Slavery, Support of segregation, support of the suppression of women's rights, support of the suppression of gay rights. In fact it is so closely linked to segregation (thanks to Strom Thrumond and George Wallace) that it was (and still is sometimes) considered a code word.

 

There is no historical precedent, nor modern interpretation, that the 10th amendment was ever meant to be read as narrowly as the "tenther" movement seeks to have it read. Many have tried to advocate this minority position, in fact we fought a war about it in the 1800's, and all have lost.

Ohh... calling me a "tenther" and getting your history wrong in the same posting... gotta love that!

 

Why do I say your history is wrong? Because the "support of slavery" argument is actually backwards. It was the North arguing that states should have the right to say "We don't have to return your runaway slaves, because your laws regarding slavery and the capture/return of runaways don't apply here in the first place," rather than the South/Confederacy saying "You can't make Federal law against slavery." Remember, slavery was indirectly written into the Constitution itself via the three-fifths compromise.

[Geeto67]

Ohh... calling me a "tenther" and getting your history wrong in the same posting... gotta love that!

 

"Tenther" is not a derogatory term, that group has adopted it as their own identifier and I am cautioning you that your statements regarding the tenth amendment are very much in alignment with "tenther" sentiments. But you know what, fuck it...those are some tenther statements and if the shoe fits

 

 

Why do I say your history is wrong? Because the "support of slavery" argument is actually backwards. It was the North arguing that states should have the right to say "We don't have to return your runaway slaves, because your laws regarding slavery and the capture/return of runaways don't apply here in the first place," rather than the South/Confederacy saying "You can't make Federal law against slavery." Remember, slavery was indirectly written into the Constitution itself via the three-fifths compromise.

 

yeah because no southern states made the "States rights" argument in support of slavery....oh wait....Virgina did as far back as 1788 when it refused to ratify the constitution unless the ban on slavery was removed. Many point to this as planting the seeds that eventually grew into the civil unrest of the 1820s and 30's which then led to the civil war.

 

If you had to rank the reasons on which the civil war was fought I would say states rights ranks somewhere in the middle (but it still ranks), since both sides used the position to justify their actions against each other. When the southern states asserted their rights to regulate slaves, the northern states asserted their state rights to free them and not return them. In the end the affect of states rights as a political position caused the southern states to see the "northern aggression" as an attack on their way of life and to close ranks. I didn't say it was the exclusive argument in favor of slavery, just that it had been used for that purpose as well as many others.

[Dafunk13]

Love that revisionist history here. Luckily the thing went down recently enough that the declarations of succession are easily found online and not in cave paintings and it ain't that easy to rewrite history with this "states rights" bullshit.