Marijuana as “Medicine” - Just what the M.D. / Ph.D. / J.D. ordered

Marijuana as “Medicine”

Just what the M.D. / Ph.D. / J.D. ordered

I am a Seattle lawyer with chronic back pain and a history of S.A.D.  I suffer from spinal arthritis and a genetic predisposition to alcoholism.  I have been prescribed Oxycontin, Hydrocodone, Prozac, and Wellbutrin and told not to mix them with booze.  Frustrated by my constantly knotted bowels, nervous terror, and desire to jump off a bridge, I decided to seek an umpteenth opinion.  On the advice of my metaphysician, I recently filled a medical marijuana prescription.  It’s made all the difference in the world.

It has been one year since we Washingtonians passed Initiative 502.  The medical marijuana industry stands to lose big from regulation when it finally kicks in next Spring; indeed, the only people I know who voted no were MMJ distributors.  We patients will be fine; the new scheme only expands our rights.  Vendors, on the other hand, must become state-licensed.  There are currently hundreds of untaxed, unregulated pot shop shops in Seattle.  Only 21 in-city licenses will be issued.  Here’s hoping that such a paucity of legal suppliers will indeed be able to decrease black market demand, and that industry experts (i.e., medical marijuana collectivists) will overcome their paranoia about having cameras recording every inch of their operations 24-7, and file the paperwork to go legitimate.

D.C. told Olympia: “We’ll back off and wait to see what happens if you promise to thwart the black market, and keep it from kids” – goals which the DEA has unequivocally not itself achieved in its protracted war on its own minority citizens.  The cost of zero-tolerance over the years has been incalculable.  But I digress.

The federal government continues to classify THC as a schedule 1 hallucinogenic.  It’s on par with LSD because the other Washington recognizes no benefits.  Anyone who witnessed San Fran in ‘68 can probably imagine a balancing test in which mind-altering (read: subconscious-outing) chemicals are perceived to be threatening to the establishment.  And to be fair, THC is de-square-ifying.  On the other hand it confers certain benefits. 

Because the debate lacks empirical evidence, I, as one of the few people in the world with permission to walk around with a joint in my pocket, feel duty-bound to relate my iota of experience. 

Here’s what my addiction looks like:  I come home from my job stressed.  My back and neck hurt.  I desire to unwind.  Rather than ten fingers of scotch, I pour myself a half-cup of chilled lemon water into a double-percolated glass-blown hookah pipe.  Then I select exactly the right strain of cannabis for my needs, play some evocative music, stretch out on floor pillows like the Cheshire Cat, and light up.  Occasionally (usually on weekends) I take a whole day to check in with myself; I find that self-psychoanalysis facilitates good mental health.

Why doesn’t Obama just order the FDA to conduct a clinical trial?  Because he knows what the results would be.  And then he’d have to comment.  But he doesn’t really give a darn – it’s only pot. 

Leave it to the states, says our judicious leader, re-delegating to we grantors of his power our 10^th Amendment rights.

Herb might adversely affect adolescents’ brains say medical professionals.  Okay, restrict it to adults; that (kind of) works with alcohol.  Prosecute street deals.

Black marketers are businessmen; they have bottom-lines, like everyone else.  Cut deeply enough into their profits and they cannot continue to function.  Take away their weed sales, and they will have to shut down their entire operations, including distributing to minors bath salts and meth. 

Now the only guys who will sell weed to kids are SOL.  Shucks, maybe they’ll have to look for a 9-5 gig.

Interestingly, prior criminal convictions for marijuana related offenses will not preclude entrepreneurs from applying for the grower, processor and distributor licenses now available.  Which seems correct – after all, what other job can a convicted brother get?

In my opinion, in this case, federal interests will be excellently served by regulation at the state level.  And the economics of the idea is sound: tax the profits; conserve – indeed, increase – our monetary resources for use on more pressing problems.  Furthermore, society in general will profit from the more equitable treatment of its tan men.  Legislation which produces discriminatory results is per se unconstitutional.[1]

We’ll have to wait and see how it all plays out.  But I for one vow to continue to use medical marijuana even if the federal government does step in.  Because bud is kind for what ails me, way mellower than anything else.  And as a citizen it is my right to civilly disobey unjust laws and try to catch a court case.

---

[1]  The appearance of anomalous district boundaries was sufficient to state a claim under the Equal Protection Clause for racial gerrymandering. [DeWitt v. Wilson, 856 F. Supp. 1409, 1412 (D. Cal. 1994)]. (Source: http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/racial-gerrymandering/)

Constitutional arguments for marijuana legalization

1. The 10^th Amendment reads:  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  Congress had to change the constitution to prohibit alcohol.  The 18^th Amendment was subsequently repealed, of course, because of all the violence and widespread civil disobedience.  Everybody knows: prohibition failed.  Nowadays, liquor is regulated by the states again, as it should be.  As is right.  Local governments have highly specific information, and far more resources on the ground.  Indeed, in Washington state, marijuana sales will actually be regulated at the city level (Kent has elected not to license retail stores, for example) – even better.  Small governments function highly efficiently.  The behemoth in the other Washington is blunt, clumsy and burdensome.

2. The 14^th Amendment prohibits  any government actor from making or enforcing a law  which deprives any person of her life, liberty property, or "privileges" without due process of law.   Due process of law means that police must follow procedures in making arrests (such as show probable cause and get a warrant, read Miranda rights, etc.).  But it has also means that federal, state and local governments should not make unfair laws.  Everyone knows that young ethnic minority men are incarcerated and rendered unemployable at an alarming rate for getting stoned.  Due process means that the state must prove that it has a strong interest in prohibiting such behavior; that is, laws which jail an adult for possessing a plant less potent than whiskey should be scrutinized strictly.  Citizens’ behavior is not to be restricted without good reason.  States especially cannot punish innocuous behavior in a discriminatory way, like they’ve obviously been doing.

3. Which begs the 1^st Amendment question, which runs something like this:  Native Americans are allowed to consume hallucinogens as part of their religious rituals; states have not been able to justify anti- peyote statutes because they have not shown how ingesting that plant ceremonially harms society (the Due Process argument has triumphed in the California and Arizona supreme courts); yet furthermore the free exercise clause of the1^st Amendment prohibits governments from dictating how one practices one’s religion (provided that one’s practices are not subversive to social order).  The Supreme Court denies that one man’s interpretation of God’s law trumps the law of the nation every time, it says that the free exercise clause does not allow human sacrifice, for example; a man cannot be a law unto himself; a man cannot use religion as an excuse to commit harmful crimes.  Fair enough.  Got it.  But if a man wants to smoke marijuana as a meditation aid, or to help him hear aum hum while strumming a sitar, whom is he hurting?  Isn’t peaceful 1^st Amendment religious practice precisely the type of “privilege” to which the 14^th Amendment refers?

Unfortunately, also according to the Supreme Court, laws with a "public purpose" which only "incidentally" (rather than intentionally) infringe upon religious practices are subject to a "rational basis" test.  To clear this very low hurdle, the government need only show that there is some conceivable purpose for the law, which is in theory related to the incident. 

The 1^st Amendment also guarantees free speech, freedom of the press, and the right to complain about and to petition one’s government, incidentally, which is why I can publish this essay, and we Washingtonians were able to pass Initiative 502.  The 1^st Amendment is perhaps the most important paragraph in the Bill of Rights.  It should be (and usually is) interpreted reverently.  

Except for some reason in Cannabis' case.

Response to the Federal Supremacy Conundrum: Civil Disobedience

I-502 conflicts with federal law.  Pot is still illegal.   So should we have waited for the feds?  Done nothing til they did, like good little boys and girls?  Or should we continue to lead by civil disobedience?

Civil disobedience, for those who don’t know, is a “public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government” (Rawls).  

The most likely upshot will be a bunch of media attention, a little backlash, then a laissez-faire federal attitude.  After all, D.C. is a long way away and very busy.

Governments rarely change from within.  They are conservative by design, even when led by nominally liberal administrations.  And so they should be, I think- we can’t be constantly changing our laws all the time without good reason.  But on the other hand -and this is vital- governments exist to serve the people.  

Like the states repealed alcohol prohibition one by one in defiance of a heavy handed federal mandate which clearly wasn't working at all, so too have we residents of Reverend King Country done what we wanted to on this one.  Since it is our demonstrated collective will that we should be free to ingest a non-dangerous substance (or not- you don’t have to be pro-pot to be anti-prohibition) our elected representatives (i.e., city council members) must act as we want.


"It is your moral obligation to disobey an unjust law."
-Dr. Martin Luther King

"Disobedience that is wholly civil should never provoke retaliation."
-Mahatma Ghandi