The senate in Connecticut legalizes marijuana for medical purposes, making it the 17th state, in addition to Washington D.C. to do so. The drug is still prohibited on the federal level and this new law is said to have provisions to prevent abuse.
"Under the bill, patients and their caregivers must register with the Department of Consumer Protection. In addition, their doctors must certify there is a medical need for marijuana to be dispensed, like in the case of debilitating diseases like cancer, glaucoma, AIDS, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis or epilepsy," reports Gawker.
Now, this means that marijuana is only legal for medical reasons and users must have a card prescribed by their doctor. This does not allow every Tim, Don and Harry to roll up a joint and smoke it recreationally. This could come in the future, of course.
Connecticut legalizes marijuana and it is hoped that other states will soon follow and allow those in medical need to reap the medical benefits of THC. Perhaps, after states have all legalized it for medical purposes, the government will see that this substance should just be legal all around. The government could certainly use the associated tax revenue.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 6
All the medication the doctor procribes to me includes a description (even the doctor explains many to watch for), includes what physical activities I must avoid while taking the medication, and even describes other medications I should avoid or that may create problems if taken togehter.
Why shouldn't "Marijuana for Medical Purposes" have to follow the same requirements?
Here's the ruling from DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young in 1988:
http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/medical/young/young.html
If you're argument is that the form of FDA approval is so important that without it sick people should suffer more than needed, please find a nearby lake and jump into it.
PS, I'll bet you don't know that aspirin has never been FDA approved.
Why are you so sure that Bayer another manufactures have not gone through the toxicology testing and made those findings available to the FDA? Just because it was 'grandfathered' when the FDA was formed does not mean it is excluded from the reporting.
Are you saying that a ruling by judge, other that the Surpreme Court, can't be challenges and over turned?
Do you think that there are not some highly toxic, highly addictive, highly desirable by recreational users drugs that are not approved and regulalted by the FDA?
The FDA has a protocol for drug approval, best I can tell that prtocol with all the required testing work has not been done on marijunna and submitted to the FDA.
Now if you feel it isn't necessary simply because it has been around so long and so many have used it, then we are on different paths. I like your comparison to asprin, because knew somenone that was allergic (life threatening) to asprin and benefited from all that toxicological testing that you seem to feel was never done.
My question is should marijiunna be treated like a FDA regualted medical treatment or should it be managed by the political process?