Pubdate: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 Source: Taunton Daily Gazette (MA) Copyright: 2012 Taunton Daily Gazette Contact: http://www.tauntongazette.com Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2750 Authors: Nancy Paull And Craig Gaspard MEDICAL MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION WOULD BE A SLIPPERY SLOPE Election Day on Nov. 6 will decide whether the commonwealth will establish a network of "medical marijuana dispensaries," allow marijuana growing houses to be sited in residential neighborhoods, and allow doctors to decide who would be eligible for lifetime medical marijuana cards beginning at age 21. For those still questioning whether this would produce a public health benefit (or risk), allow me to present some facts to help voters make informed decisions. California, Colorado and roughly 15 other states have experience with just such a law. While compassion for those living with a serious medical condition like cancer, glaucoma or cerebral palsy is a legitimate and often cited reason for allowing medical marijuana use, there have been few if any research studies linking improved outcomes for cancer or similar health conditions. In fact, as marijuana would be the only smoked medication with known negative health effects on lungs, this law, like similar laws in other states, sets a precedent. Federal laws on marijuana have not changed and it will remain illegal regardless of who wins the presidential election. This is, in part, due to the risks for abuse and dependency that comes with regular marijuana use. Supporters dismiss this important fact. I have a number of years experience in the treatment field, and I, along with many other professionals see evidence of abuse and dependency with marijuana: daily or regular use and stopping use causing actual withdrawal symptoms. The withdrawal symptoms include but are not limited to some physical discomfort, irritability and anxiety. With much higher cannabinoid and THC content -- the part of marijuana that produces the "high" -- today's marijuana is much stronger and more likely to lead to problematic use. Again, when comparing this ballot initiative, as written, to other states that have legalized medical marijuana, some disturbing trends become apparent. The average card holder in Colorado, for instance, is a male in his 30's with an established history of marijuana abuse. Also, the law would allow card holders to carry up to a 60-day supply in their possession (including their car), encourage diversion or illicit sales to others and even potentially lead to more marijuana arrests for crimes like "drugged driving." Finally, regular marijuana use by youth under age 14 is proven to cause impacts to the developing brain and increase risks for long-term uses to psychotic mental health symptoms later in life. These last two studies have been cited in medical literature. Election Day on Nov. 6 will decide whether the commonwealth will establish a network of "medical marijuana dispensaries," allow marijuana growing houses to be sited in residential neighborhoods, and allow doctors to decide who would be eligible for lifetime medical marijuana cards beginning at age 21. For those still questioning whether this would produce a public health benefit (or risk), allow me to present some facts to help voters make informed decisions. California, Colorado and roughly 15 other states have experience with just such a law. While compassion for those living with a serious medical condition like cancer, glaucoma or cerebral palsy is a legitimate and often cited reason for allowing medical marijuana use, there have been few if any research studies linking improved outcomes for cancer or similar health conditions. In fact, as marijuana would be the only smoked medication with known negative health effects on lungs, this law, like similar laws in other states, sets a precedent. Federal laws on marijuana have not changed and it will remain illegal regardless of who wins the presidential election. This is, in part, due to the risks for abuse and dependency that comes with regular marijuana use. Supporters dismiss this important fact. I have a number of years experience in the treatment field, and I, along with many other professionals see evidence of abuse and dependency with marijuana: daily or regular use and stopping use causing actual withdrawal symptoms. The withdrawal symptoms include but are not limited to some physical discomfort, irritability and anxiety. With much higher cannabinoid and THC content -- the part of marijuana that produces the "high" -- today's marijuana is much stronger and more likely to lead to problematic use. Again, when comparing this ballot initiative, as written, to other states that have legalized medical marijuana, some disturbing trends become apparent. The average card holder in Colorado, for instance, is a male in his 30's with an established history of marijuana abuse. Also, the law would allow card holders to carry up to a 60-day supply in their possession (including their car), encourage diversion or illicit sales to others and even potentially lead to more marijuana arrests for crimes like "drugged driving." Finally, regular marijuana use by youth under age 14 is proven to cause impacts to the developing brain and increase risks for long-term uses to psychotic mental health symptoms later in life. These last two studies have been cited in medical literature. Because this law would undoubtedly lead to increased availability and use, especially among our youth, primarily due to decreased cost, we are suggesting that you consider a no on Question 3 vote. With risks associated with increased marijuana availability including more impaired driving, potential increased crime due to marijuana production and increased abuse and dependency among our population amid no property tax benefits due to the "non-profit" status of the dispensaries, SSTAR and the (BOLD) Building Our Lives Drug-Free Coalition suggests a no on Question 3. Nancy Paull, MS, CADAC I, is CEO of SSTAR and Craig Gaspard, LICSW, is staff director of the BOLD Coalition, both of Fall River. - --- MAP posted-by: Matt