I didn't hear this on the local television news and it has not been widely reported. On Thursday last, a delegate to the Maryland house of delegates, Mr. Curt Anderson introduced a bill to legalize the sale of marijuana in the state of Maryland. This in and of itself does not surprise me. I can see the growing trend to allow this throughout the country. Irregardless of how you stand on this issue I'm quite sure it will become legal at some point and time. At first the trend was to use it only for medicinal purposes. Much like the snake oil salesmen, it promises great things. Much of it's magic powers come from masking the symptoms rather than curing the cause. Now it is being proposed for recreational use. What is fascinating is the reasoning behind this legalization of a known mood altering drug.
Delegate Anderson has proposed what I would consider the most ridiculous, inane, and just plain stupid reasoning yet heard. This duly elected official, a delegate to the house and leader of men proposes this; regulate the sale of marijuana much like we do alcohol and tobacco. Put a fifty dollar per ounce tax on its' sale. And now here is the kicker, the revenue generated by the sale of marijuana would fund Voluntary Programs preventing substance abuse as well as clinical research into the efficacy of Marijuana.
Yes, you read that correctly. Tax pot to fund drug use prevention programs. And yes, we will study the efficacy of this substance. I looked that last one up. Efficacy is a measure of the drugs ability to reproduce a desired effect in clinical trials under ideal conditions. Effectiveness is determined in field trials.
How many years have we been told that using marijuana leads to drug abuse ? So now we want to sell that to fund substance abuse programs ? Let me correct that, Voluntary substance abuse programs. Are we going to teach people how to just smoke pot ? Can we teach people how to use marijuana responsibly ? We haven't done well in that regard with Alcohol, if that is any indicator. And if we fail there will we not have more substance abuse requiring more funding for centers ? More funding means either an increase in tax or an increase in use. All the while we will be studying the efficacy of the drug. The field trials do not require funding, they are generating a portion of the funds for the efficacy.
Let me see if I understand that correctly. Efficacy measures the ability of a drug to consistently produce a desired effect (in a medical setting) but its' effectiveness is studied in field trials. In other words, will everyone smoking pot get the same result ? I'm not sure. I know, lets sell pot and find out. If we tax and control it, it won't cost us a thing. We will fund voluntary substance abuse centers just in case it does cause a problem though.
I think Delegate Anderson has already started field trials of his own. What he wants is the efficacy of the product. Maybe he does not get the desired effect every time he uses it. Just Sayin'
Delegate Anderson has proposed what I would consider the most ridiculous, inane, and just plain stupid reasoning yet heard. This duly elected official, a delegate to the house and leader of men proposes this; regulate the sale of marijuana much like we do alcohol and tobacco. Put a fifty dollar per ounce tax on its' sale. And now here is the kicker, the revenue generated by the sale of marijuana would fund Voluntary Programs preventing substance abuse as well as clinical research into the efficacy of Marijuana.
Yes, you read that correctly. Tax pot to fund drug use prevention programs. And yes, we will study the efficacy of this substance. I looked that last one up. Efficacy is a measure of the drugs ability to reproduce a desired effect in clinical trials under ideal conditions. Effectiveness is determined in field trials.
How many years have we been told that using marijuana leads to drug abuse ? So now we want to sell that to fund substance abuse programs ? Let me correct that, Voluntary substance abuse programs. Are we going to teach people how to just smoke pot ? Can we teach people how to use marijuana responsibly ? We haven't done well in that regard with Alcohol, if that is any indicator. And if we fail there will we not have more substance abuse requiring more funding for centers ? More funding means either an increase in tax or an increase in use. All the while we will be studying the efficacy of the drug. The field trials do not require funding, they are generating a portion of the funds for the efficacy.
Let me see if I understand that correctly. Efficacy measures the ability of a drug to consistently produce a desired effect (in a medical setting) but its' effectiveness is studied in field trials. In other words, will everyone smoking pot get the same result ? I'm not sure. I know, lets sell pot and find out. If we tax and control it, it won't cost us a thing. We will fund voluntary substance abuse centers just in case it does cause a problem though.
I think Delegate Anderson has already started field trials of his own. What he wants is the efficacy of the product. Maybe he does not get the desired effect every time he uses it. Just Sayin'
No comments:
Post a Comment