Prompted by “Apparently, the only doctors who know what they’re doing are legislators”: http://www.drugwarrant.com/2015/05/apparently-the-only-doctors-who-know-what-theyre-doing-are-legislators/
“I know we’ve got a lot of veterans here, and this one is really going to make your head explode…”
I am not a veteran, but a citizen thankful for their honorable service, and my head (thankfully only metaphorically) exploded.
“In a debate on the House floor over the Department of Veterans Affairs’ policies on medical marijuana, Representative John Fleming (R-LA) warned colleagues that allowing veterans to smoke pot could turn them psychotic or schizophrenic.”
“‘As a practicing physician and a veteran myself,’ Fleming stated during the April 29 legislative proceedings, ‘the way we approach health care is not to just allow any healthcare provider to do whatever he or she wants to do at the time. That is simply not the way health care works.'”
But apparently it is simply the way legislation (and the naturally oligarchical rule spanning the private and public sectors) works.
“According to Fleming, letting doctors and patients make their own decisions about marijuana could be dangerous, which is why the federal government needs to step in.” [emphasis mine]
Letting relevant folks involving law make their own decisions (e.g. Supreme Court boldly illegally redefining the Commerce Clause to, among whatever other arbitrary rulings formed merely by political pressures against unalienable rights, ban the mere possession of a certain plant that could be dangerous) is demonstrably dangerous (e.g. non-violent people having their lives ruined, people demonstrably benefiting from medical cannabis not receiving their medicine, taxpayers wasting billions of dollars annually to effectively pretend to address certain drug abuse, etc.)
What needs to happen is “We the people” step in with the understanding that law for risk management is ironically seriously risky (and greases the legislative machine to more promptly show us all how tyranny works).
“‘Smoking pot increases psychotic episodes by a factor of two to four times normal,’ Fleming elaborates.”
That is an outright lie. There is no science even credibly suggesting that cannabis use (or even “heavy use”, or abuse) causes psychosis, and the empirical data (e.g. the absence of matching data sets when comparing psychosis diagnosis and cannabis use worldwide) confirms the contrary.
What I hypothetically suggest increases psychosis is reason abuse (including lying and any form of the ‘partial truth = whole truth’ scam), which is the practice of distorting reality to form inaccurate mental impressions, so forms conflicting mental channels between reality and the result of abusive reasoning (including the dangerous mental burden involved in sustaining abusive reasoning — e.g. liars protecting themselves from being exposed to the serious loss of credibility logically necessary for survival). Any illness comes from unhealthy stress. Abusing reason and/or law forms unhealthy stress, so causes psychosis. Since law is broad in its reach, we are talking about mass causation of psychosis.
Cannabis indeed can be a seriously powerful psychedelic, and provides an enormous ocean of perception alteration possibilities due to a vast number of strains available. Recklessly consuming cannabis is risky and stupid (e.g. a new user slamming several bong hits of several wreck strains recklessly combined, and then hanging out in a publicly distracting place to likely freak out), when the user does not have the truly basic skill set to properly use cannabis. While use and abuse are clearly distinct by all measures (all science, empirical data, the Controlled Substances Act itself, etc.), abusing cannabis also causes unhealthy stress (especially psychologically), so logically also may lead to psychosis.
“‘Why in the world would we give a drug that is addictive, that is prohibited under Schedule I, that is not accepted for any specific mental disease or disorder and enhances psychosis and schizophrenia, why are we going to give that to our veterans, especially those with PTSD? That is just absolutely insane.'”
Because that drug is not more addictive than coffee, that is insanely prohibited due to the Commerce Clause, and that is accepted for specific mental diseases (e.g. my “caregivee” with Alzheimer’s disease doing literally astonishingly very well with the cannabis solution, both medically and financially, without even a hint of psychosis or even normalcy deviation). We give that medicine (proven to be such at least by thousands of international studies and ample experience reports convincing enough to increase state legality against ‘federal petty’), because cannabis is dominantly safe and effective (when used properly) compared to the harsh (and often less effective) pharmaceutical alternatives, and our veterans ordered to put their lives on the line for freedom in the “land of the free” deserve much better than ironically being horribly tragic victims of abusive favoritism entrenched in “law” against that freedom.
Moreover, another Schedule I psychedelic substance is MDMA (more commonly known as Ecstasy, and typically wrongfully believed to be more dangerous than cannabis), which in accordance with the Pentagon, is being used to treat some veterans suffering from PTSD.
What is truly insane is publicly allowing the demonstrable prohibition addiction that has caused enormous amounts of mass suffering (and continues doing so, while you read this) over a plant without any experimental science proving any harm from moderate use (not “heavy use” or abuse, as all suggestive science against cannabis states to the contrary of the tough-talking affirmations recklessly dangerously applied by legislators). To have liberty be unalienable on the one hand, and have ‘dangerous until proven safe’ arbitrarily entrenched in “law” on the other hand is undeniably hypocritically insane — based upon the whole truth and nothing but.
The war on some drugs is a war on veterans. That includes military and law enforcement folks putting their lives (and their loved ones’ lives) at risk from fighting the continuous war on some drugs for the mere sake of upholding abusive favoritism and its protective sanctioned thuggery to send the right message to children in the “land of the free”.
If you are truly patriotic in that (this) land, how can you not horribly cringe (if not also shed at least one tear) over the recklessly prominent disaster against everything our nation was established against (the abuse of law itself)?