Home » Drug Policy »Missouri »Politics/Policy » Currently Reading:

Readers Overwhelmingly Support Medical Marijuana for Missouri

April 20, 2016 Drug Policy, Missouri, Politics/Policy 8 Comments

The Sunday Poll on medical marijuana got lots of responses — but the results stayed consistent throughout the 12 hours the poll was open.

Q: Medical cannabis/marijuana may be on Missouri’s ballot in August or November, support or oppose such a proposition?

  • Strongly support 115 [76.67%]
  • Support 17 [11.33%]
  • Somewhat support 7 [4.67%]
  • Neither support or oppose 0 [0%]
  • Somewhat oppose 0 [0%]
  • Oppose 2 [1.33%]
  • Strongly oppose 9 [6%]
  • Unsure/No Answer 0 [0%]

Less than 10% oppose, but this non-scientific poll isn’t representative of Missouri voters.  Still, supporters gathering signatures for a ballot measure believe there is sufficient statewide support for passage in 2016.

The initiative is described as:

  • Pro-patient: Instead of creating a short and restrictive list of qualifying conditions, this initiative puts power in the hands of a state-licensed physicians, not politicians or bureaucrats, to determine who will benefit from medical cannabis.
  • Robust System for Access: The initiative creates a statewide system for production and sale of medical cannabis and medical cannabis products. It also provides for limited and regulated patient cultivation.
  • Small Tax to Benefit Missouri Veterans: The initiative levies a four percent retail tax, and all revenue in excess of the cost of regulating the medical cannabis program will go to help Missouri’s veterans.
  • Public Safety: The initiative maintains the current prohibition on public use and driving under the influence. It also allows the Department of Health and Senior Services to institute a seed-to-sale tracking system to ensure that the product and money do not reach the illicit market.
  • Regulatory Framework: Puts Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services in charge of licensing and implementation, but also allows the department to contract with other state agencies when necessary for effective and efficient regulation.
  • Quick Implementation: The amendment creates deadlines to make the department move quickly to promulgate rules, issue applications, and swiftly implement and award patient cards and industry licenses.

If passed, it could be far more effective than Illinois’ current effort.

Are you one of the few who oppose this? If so, you’re like CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta — before he researched the facts.  After looking into the issue, he did a 180.

Below is a short segment from his CNN special called Weed.

The fact is cannabis/marijuana has real medical benefits. Decades of a racist ban has stifled research, but that’s slowly changing. Below is the full Weed documentary.

When the 1937 law prohibiting cannabis was ruled unconstitutional, the Nixon administration included it as a Schedule 1 drug — again, for racist reasons.

We’ve been sold lie for decades — I fell for it too for a long time. It’s time to wake up to the medical benefits of this plant!

— Steve Patterson


Currently there are "8 comments" on this Article:

  1. Fozzie says:

    “Medical” marijuana is a joke. Just legalize it, and let’s stop this charade both doctors and patients conduct to get a prescriptions.

    • Agree it should he legalized. All the states where it is, also has medical. Tax rates are different for patients than for recreational use.

      My cousin in Oregon finds marijuana throat lozenges help her sleep — better than prescription pharmaceuticals for insomnia. However, in Oregon she must be a medical marijuana patient to buy them!

      Lots of policy issues to work out in every state. The Feds need to remove it from the schedule 1 list.

  2. backprop says:

    What’s funny is, some commenters were afraid that marijuana might – and I’m not making this up – “grow two more ears on your head in twenty years” or “cause one of your God-given ears to fall off,” and therefore it shouldn’t be legalized.

    One might flip the question around and say, what intense research was done on marijuana before it was placed on Schedule I? As noted, that’s more restrictive than meth. Let’s hear of all the peer-reviewed studies that went into that decision.

    • Todd Spangler says:

      The decision was fairly arbitrary and part of a more general backlash against elements of the counterculture at that time. I don’t doubt the positive effects of marijuana for chronic pain and other conditions, but there are also doctors who take a dim view of the drug for the deleterious effects it has on some individuals with long-term use. As convincing arguments can be made that marijuana is arguably less destructive than either cocaine or methamphetamine, to me it makes sense, at the very least, to drop it to Schedule II to match the status of those two drugs. Even so, a person will find that not every doctor is willing to prescribe it (my own doctor would not), but no doubt many will.


    • Mark-AL says:

      I just walked in the door and read your comment. At first, I thought I remembered reading that you are a doctoral student of psychology, but then I reviewed yesterday’s comments and realized that that distinction belongs to Justin, which is gratifying because I couldn’t imagine your comment was penned by someone so dedicated to academia.

      I may have been educated in a hick town, and the course offerings were obviously very limited compared to bigger-city schools’ curricula, but in grade school English class we studied over-casting (hyperbole)–exaggeration of ideas for emphasis. You might want to locate and revisit that chapter of your English text.

      Oh, and by the way, you still haven’t answered my question. But I’m over it. The way I figure it is this: if someone is foolish enough to conduct a blind drug study on himself, he deserves whatever immune system disorders, arrhythmic heartbeat or strange bodily growths and/or reductions that may result–if any. And you won’t know until/if it happens, will you?

      • JZ71 says:

        And that’s my position – if you’re an adult and you want to put something into your body, what business does the government have in telling you “no”? As long as people are willing to accept the consequences of their choices (admitedly, something that happens less and less frequently), the government has no need, nor duty, to interfere.

        • Mark-AL says:

          I agree with your conclusion. Unfortunately, the US government tends to bail-out or propose bail-outs to certain businesses and regular citizens in order to rescue them from the consequences of their personal bad decisions: student loan and house mortgage bailouts frequently made necessary because of either misplaced priorities or poor fiscal planning, or both; auto industry bailout, bank bailouts, Penn Central, Lockheed, NY City, airlines industry. Will our government offer to pick up the tab to provide medical care for those who may recklessly engage in drug use? Oh wait, I think we already do! (But the “omnicients” among us, blessed with intuitive knowledge of all things and who claim they “know”, even though health professions can’t make that same claim despite having access to the same information, are positive that it’ll be “just fine” to indulge in the use of a drug that has never been the subject of clinical trials.) Forrest Gump–I’m sure–has an appropriate comment. I need to go to work so I can afford to pay the taxes to cover the costs for more of this nonsense.

  3. loki03xlh says:

    It would be nice if it was legal. It really helps my anxiety. The only problem is that I get really paranoid trying to obtain it.


Comment on this Article: