Foundation for Economic Education
Fully Informed Jury Association
Separation of School and State
Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations
Why Connecticut Should Allow Cannabis as a Therapeutic Choice for Patients
By Marc Guttman, MD published in The Norwich Bulletin
Connecticut House Bill, HB 6715: An Act Concerning the Palliative Use of Marijuana, decriminalizes marijuana as a therapy “to alleviate a qualifying patient's symptoms of…debilitating medical conditions [such as] cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, damage to the nervous tissue of the spinal cord with objective neurological indication of intractable spasticity, epilepsy, cachexia or wasting syndrome.”
The passage of this bill will count Connecticut among 12 other states in no longer disallowing competent adult patients from choosing marijuana as a medical therapy for themselves. Many non-governmental medical organizations support the medical use of marijuana, believing patients and their physicians should be trusted to decide whether the patient will benefit from the therapy. The reality is that many seriously ill patients already make the personal choice to use marijuana as a therapy, regardless of the law and its consequences.
In a free society, every individual may choose what medical treatments are appropriate for themselves, preferably in consultation with an educated advisor, such as a physician. Thusly, we all bear the responsibility for making our own medical and health decisions. Unfortunately, HB 6715 requires “written certification…signed by the qualifying patient's physician stating that…the qualifying patient has a debilitating medical condition and the potential benefits of the palliative use of marijuana would likely outweigh the health risks of such use,” and requires the patient to present this information to the Department of Public Health, as well as pay a fee.
Despite nearly 80 percent support among the American people for the decriminalizing of medical marijuana, the federal government continues to wage war against legitimate medical marijuana patients. In 2005, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled 6-3 that the federal government may continue to arrest and prosecute sick and terminally ill Americans who use marijuana for medical purposes. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a brilliant and rational dissent, argued "if Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything - and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers...the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution's limits on federal power...If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers...have no meaningful limits."
Those who will argue against the Connecticut bill fear that steps towards the decriminalization of intoxicant usage will serve to increase it. They feel justified in using the force of government for their purpose of protecting us from ourselves. But, drug prohibition laws are not just immoral, they are also counterproductive. In addition to a states’ and personal rights issue, many of us understand that our nation's drug policy has proven more dangerous than drug use and favor a drug policy that decriminalizes adult personal use of intoxicants.
Our drug policy creates organized criminals who often use violence to protect their black market, does not ensure any level of product safety leading to consumer death and injury, has cost the lives of many innocent people and law-enforcers during turf battles and drug busts, lets ill patients suffer who could otherwise benefit from marijuana use, causes the justice system to release violent criminals to make room for nonviolent drug offenders, has infringed on our liberties, not only by disallowing self-ownership of our bodies, but through legislation that allows the invasion of privacy and property confiscation without even charging someone with a crime, and costs billions of dollars, utilizing money from citizens that could be used by them for positive purposes. In addition, drug punishments are disproportionately weighed against citizens, often depending on wealth and social status.
Although, some people will indeed make what many of us consider bad personal choices, by trying to control their choices through authoritarian legislation, we do them and ourselves more harm. There are many good reasons for people to abstain from drug usage, but no good reason to initiate force against them if they choose differently. There are significantly better ways to help persons with drug addiction problems. The many billions of dollars every year that we spend trying to prosecute and detain nonviolent drug offenders in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent people from using drugs is wasteful and detrimental to our society, not to mention to those incarcerated individual’s and their families.
While our nation continues to debate drug prohibition, Connecticut’s legislature can do something positive to help suffering patients in this state, by passing HB 6715 and allowing competent adults the choice of marijuana as a palliative therapy for their symptoms. Consider joining Connecticut’s libertarians in encouraging them to do so.
Dr. Guttman is an emergency physician and vice-chairman of the Libertarian Party of Connecticut. He lives in East Lyme. He would much prefer to spend his time with his family and friends and playing outdoors than endeavoring to reverse the damage of aggressive governments.