"I found your blog post about modern schools to be very interesting. I think you raised some good points, many of which after reading your blog I realized I’ve thought about, but never in depth until now. It is strange to consider what things kids were once allowed to do, and now they are somewhat funneled into this one-track only way.
On somewhat of an unrelated note, I thought you would appreciate the story about a child also being able to receive marijuana...for medical reasons. The story is about a 2-year-old who has a brain tumor and his parents are trying everything to help the little guy get better. I was reminded of this story as you spoke about the youth in your blog, and how the schools are more or less policed heavily. Then I wondered if children this young will be banned from getting medical treatment like this if the government steps in. It shall be interesting to see what happens. Nonetheless, here’s the link to the video, and I’d love to hear what your thoughts are about it!"
I support the use of medical marijuana. As with any law or situation, there is potential for abuse. The important thing is the freedom of choice for the individuals involved. In this case, the parents have to make the choice based on available information about the potential risks, and weigh that against the potential benefits for the marijuana use.
In this case, there is no real choice, if the child's life is at stake. The cancer will be fatal without the chemo. The chemo's side effects weaken the child to the point where he won't recover. The substances in the cannibis allow the child to have enough of an appetite to have a fighting chance. The parents have a moral responsibility to the child to maximize the chances of success of the therapy. To deny the child the medicine because of its potential side effects or it's potential for abuse is a ridiculous, immoral, and unconstitutional intervention of legislators into private matters. Laws preventing medical marijuana use say to you: "We (nonexpert) politicians know better than you what is best for you."
One of the worst aspects of modern government (run by Yankees) is the passage of laws and regulations that are based on the exception rather than the rule.
One bad incident with publicity (e.g. a mass shooting, an Enron, a Bernie Madoff, a kid using and selling his dad's medical marijuana) and you get a flurry of debate in the mainstream media, and then laws and regulations passed. The fact that the incident is one in several million does not enter into the calculations of a Yankee's mind. In the modern version of their holier than thou Puritanism, they know better than you, and save you from yourself. Drug abuse is likely to occur with or without a law.
What is the end result of laws and regulations based on the exception rather than the rule?
More of YOUR (tax) money spent implementing and enforcing the law,
less freedom (and more criminals created) for the several million that would never transgress the new law in the first place, and
the many things associated with the "law of unintended consequences."
Do you think that the outlawing of medical marijuana use prevents people from obtaining and using the marijuana? You know that it does not. It just makes criminals out of cancer patients.
How dare the state stand in the way of a citizen's physical and moral imperative?
If you were seriously ill or dying, and the only medicine known was an "outlawed drug" with certain risks, wouldn't you want the option to use it?