Here you go, Doug…


I initially used this image when I posted our medical cannabis release on the campaign website. James communicated to me that it wasn’t quite the look he wanted to go with so, ya know, I took it down…

How did we win over Doug Ross back during the campaign (however briefly)? Well, I imagine a number of things went into it, but one think I know played a role was our stance on medical cannabis.

James won’t be around to get ‘er done, but I’m sure Doug will be encouraged by this release yesterday from Tom Davis, the most libertarian member of the Legislature:



State Sen. Tom Davis

State Rep. Peter McCoy

COLUMBIA, S.C. – South Carolina State Sen. Tom Davis and Rep. Peter McCoy released the following statement regarding their intent to file tomorrow, on Tuesday, January 15, 2019, a bill titled the “South Carolina Compassionate Care Act,” in order to legalize in South Carolina the use of cannabis by patients for certain specific medical conditions, subject to a physician’s authorization and supervision, and to legalize in this state, subject to regulation and oversight by DHEC and SLED, the cultivation, processing and dispensing of cannabis for such medical use:

“For the past several months, we have worked with law enforcement, health professionals, grassroots advocates, and other individuals and organizations to draft the most strictly regulated and tightly supervised medical-cannabis program in the country.  Poll after poll on this issue confirms what we consistently hear from our constituents – that the overwhelming majority of South Carolinians do want physicians to have the legal ability to authorize the use of cannabis by their patients if those physicians believe it would be of medicinal benefit, but that they do not want to legalize the use of cannabis for recreational purposes.

“Our objective in drafting this bill has been to provide for a medical-cannabis program that reflects South Carolinians’ views on the matter – that is, to draw a bright line between medical and recreational use.  We believe the South Carolina Compassionate Care Act, a copy of which is attached, does that.  The summary of the act, also attached, breaks down in detail the safeguards put in place to ensure that a medical-cannabis program does not morph into a recreational one.  In developing these safeguards, we have looked at what has worked and what hasn’t in the 33 states that have already legalized cannabis for medical purposes.

“We acknowledge that the medical-cannabis program we propose is much stricter than the others; that is intentional.  From the tightly defined list of qualifying medical conditions to the level of detail required in the written certifications by the authorizing physicians, from the prohibition against smoking cannabis to the imposition of felony penalties for the diversion of medical cannabis for recreational use, and from the mandatory use of seed-to-sale tracking systems to the testing of medical cannabis by independent testing laboratories, we believe the South Carolina Compassionate Care Act draws the bright line between medical and recreational use of cannabis that the overwhelming majority of South Carolinians want.

We will have a press  conference at the State House in Columbia at 4 p.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, January 14, 2018, to review the provisions of the South Carolina Compassionate Care Act in detail and to answer questions about that act.”


Tom notes that polls show a supermajority of South Carolinians favor the change. Well, he’d better get a supermajority of votes in the General Assembly, because the guy who won the governor’s race doesn’t hold with it.

If we’d won, he wouldn’t have that problem.

55 thoughts on “Here you go, Doug…

  1. Brad Warthen Post author

    Hmmm, this is curious. This was posted on Twitter within the past hour or so. I’m not sure what it’s supposed to mean. Since governors don’t “pass” legislation, and Tom knows that, I wonder what he actually said: That he thinks they can get it PAST Henry, that they can pass it in spite of Henry, or that he thinks Henry will sign it. I can’t tell…

  2. Brad Warthen Post author

    Just noticed that I posted that medical cannabis release exactly three months ago today, Oct. 15. Wow. a whole quarter of a year has gone by. Hard to believe.

    That was one of my “message calendar” releases. Personally, I’ve never been a fan of the concept, but I sort of changed my mind about halfway through the campaign. I started drawing up a very informal “message calendar” each week for the week ahead. But we didn’t go whole hog on the concept. While a couple of times we had events related to the messages (sometimes the event came first; sometimes the topic did) I didn’t draw up remarks for James and Mandy to use, or give out talking points to staff, underlining the message of the day. We weren’t set up for that kinda fancy stuff. There would have had to be five of me to pull off stuff like that.

    No, I just sort of initiated it as a way of imposing discipline on myself. It was a way of making sure that that each day, I was pushing out one of our key messages in a concerted way — in a press release, on the website and via social media. All of which were done by yours truly.

    The routine I fell into was that I would share my sketchy memo about the week’s messages with James and Mandy and senior campaign staff, just to see if anyone had any objections or suggestions. Then, the night before message A was scheduled, I’d get the release drafted. Initially, I ran them by the candidates, but as I got more confident with the process, I’d just get the campaign manager to read it behind me, to make sure it wasn’t just ME going off on a tangent.

    Then, usually between about 6 and 6:30 the following morning, before my workout on the elliptical, I’d read the draft over, do a bit of polishing, and send it out to media — then put it on the website and do social media later in the morning.

    Only a couple of them got any media attention, but at least it was a way of making sure we hit on points we wanted to get out there….

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      I was going to share with y’all the message calendar from that particular week, but I ran into a snag: I wanted to make sure I actually followed through on all of them, and on one of them I could find no trace of my having sent it out. I found the release itself, both in Word and PDF formats. I even found an email in which I sent it to the campaign manager and he said it looked good to him.

      But I looked on both of the email addresses I used for sending out releases, and saw no indication it ever went out to reporters.

      And I found no sign of it on the website, and no trace on social media. Which is bizarre.

      I have a feeling that I just fell down on the job because the day for which it was scheduled was HORRIBLE, as I was reminded looking back on that day. A lot of stress that morning, riding shotgun on a campaign swing and trying to put out multiple fires via text. And I ask myself, was that day SO bad that I simply didn’t follow through at all on this release?

      Perhaps, although I don’t recall that happening any other time.

      So I find myself wondering, Was there a problem on this release that made me scrub it? I don’t know. So on the off chance there was a problem with publishing it, I decided to hold back on sharing it with y’all…

  3. Mark Stewart

    Tom Davis is not often on the “correct” side on many issues. However, his unwavering leadership on this issue over the years has been a remarkable piece of statesmanship in SC. I commend him for that; its been yeoman’s work, I’m sure.

    Pretty sure a super-majority of SC residents would also approve of a highly regulated recreational regime as well. That said, 33 states have at least broad medical marijuana laws on the books; it isn’t too surprising that SC is once again dragging along at the rear. At this point medical marijuana is probably available to 80% of the country’s population. What is the legislature afraid of in SC?

  4. Bart

    Medical marijuana or cannabis is something that should have been available for decades. I can only imagine how much better the quality of life my mother and so many others in my life would have been better during their terminal illnesses. Recently I re-connected to someone who taught classes in Florida. He was an attorney and judge before moving to Florida. About 3 years ago, he was diagnosed with terminal COPD according to his doctor. He was told he had about 6 – 9 months to live. His wife wouldn’t quit and wouldn’t accept the diagnosis. She started exploring other avenues and started him on essential oils to begin and he had some relief but essentially as he told me, he sat in his recliner basically waiting to die.

    My friend had been successful enough to be able to afford a small ranch in Colorado. So his wife went to Colorado and brought back cannabis oil with THC but didn’t tell him what it was. She asked him to try it without asking questions first and he agreed. He said he laid down to try to get a short nap. He had not been able to sleep or nap more than half an hour to an hour before. When he woke up, his wife told him he had been sleeping for 7 hours. He couldn’t believe it then she told him it was cannabis oil and he freaked out. He had sentenced over 300 people to prison for marijuana charges during his time on the bench. Once he accepted that cannabis oil was working, he started a daily routine of taking one drop twice a day without any of the highs associated with recreational marijuana. Within six months, his doctor declared him to be symptom free of COPD. He has resumed his former life and career and is now one of the major advocates and activists for legalizing medical marijuana. He hikes in the Colorado mountains, he golfs a couple of times a week, he is back teaching on a regular basis and speaks at meetings about the benefits and need to legalize medical marijuana nationally.

    Industrial hemp oil or CBD oil is legal in all 50 states and there are some tremendous benefits from taking it or using it as an oil for pain relief and several other health issues. It doesn’t work the same for everyone and some vendors advertise CBD oil will cure dementia and a host of other health problems. That is false advertising because some disease symptoms can be made less uncomfortable but others like dementia cannot be cured. The build up of plaque on the brain can be slowed down and in rare cases the plaque build up can be reduced but it still doesn’t stop the disease from its deadly mission. If one choses to use CBD oil, be careful when choosing a vendor, too many rip-off artists out there who will sell you a placebo for the same price as the legitimate product.

    I am all for legalizing medical marijuana or cannabis oil and it should be available to anyone who can benefit from it. It is a natural product and has been used for centuries medicinal purposes. Why hold onto the argument that it will be abused when it is already entrenched in the public domain? Time for South Carolina to at least move into the dawn if they can’t move fully into the sunlight. Legalizing medical marijuana would be a major step in the right direction.

  5. Doug Ross

    Legalize it, tax it, pardon any person ever convicted of using it. There is enough data from Colorado to show that it hasn’t been the Reefer Madness some people claimed it would be. DUIs are down, use by students hasn’t changed much… small (in numbers, not percentage) uptick in ER visits for pot incidents. A couple hundred million in taxes has gone back into schools.

    I’ve never tried it and probably wouldn’t. But I know many highly functioning adults who use it both recreationally and medicinally to trust my anecdotal evidence.

    Even our 14 year old dog who suffered from anxiety has shown remarkable changes over the past three months simply by adding 7 drops of hemp oil to her meals twice a day. No anxiety symptoms, increased (dramatically) mobility.

    The impact on law enforcement and the judicial system would be a huge win — allowing them to focus on real criminal activity. Too many young black males have their lives thrown into chaos over a single joint. It needs to end.

    1. Harry Harris

      I have no interest in marijuana. I did notice back during my adult soccer-playing days that a few of my friends and team-mates who used it had pretty mellow moods and little if any hostility. A couple of them sometimes played pretty crappy during the second half of matches, but weren’t aware that they sucked. One match in Columbia, two guys couldn’t find the field until almost halftime, so we played short, and felt sure they were driving while toking. Their play confirmed out suspicion.
      The biggest thing I’ve observed during the 50 or so years I’ve known about the stuff is the lower level of non-legal problems among people I know who use it compared to problem drinkers I’ve known.
      Preventing its medical use seems outrageous to me. We condone the prescribing of much more dangerous and addictive drugs.

    2. Brad Warthen Post author

      “Legalize it, tax it, pardon any person ever convicted of using it.”

      While Tom probably agrees with you on that, I’m favorably impressed that he is pragmatically reining in his libertarian impulses, as follows:

      …we believe the South Carolina Compassionate Care Act draws the bright line between medical and recreational use of cannabis that the overwhelming majority of South Carolinians want

      Smart. And respectful of what South Carolinians want. That is, respectful of — dare I say it? — community standards. Which is the way representative democracy should work…

      1. Doug Ross

        If you’re so sure about the community standards part, you should have no issue with putting the issue to the people on the ballot. And if you want a Democrat to win as governor, that would be even more incentive to do so. (Please save your time and don’t bother with a discourse on representative democracy).

        Community standards should not be define by a state legislature that is led by a bunch of old guys who probably still call it wacky tobaccy.

        1. Brad Warthen Post author

          I always have a problem with putting ANY issue to a referendum vote. Always have, always will — it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

          And I’m sorry, but for the benefit of those just joining us — I believe in republican government, not direct democracy. I don’t want ANY issue settled by a YES or NO vote, much less by the whim of the general public, with no debate or discussion.

          It’s not that I think elected representatives are smarter than the average voter. It’s because anyone, however dumb or smart, is likely to make better decisions in a deliberative process that allows not only for extended discussion but — perhaps most importantly — for a range of solutions, rather than an absolutist YES or NO.

          Note the way I said it above. I talked about the way things should happen in a representative democracy — that is, a republic — and NOT a direct democracy…

      2. Mark Stewart

        Are you aware of any recent “scientific” polling in SC about legalizing recreational marijuana?

        The results might surprise your sense of community standards, Brad. This issue seems a lot like Brexit; when it is all about hyperbole people narrowly lean one way, as they grow to understand the facts and implications they reconsider and track the other way. Making decisions based on facts and with an open mind is the true basis of our society – of representational democracy.

        1. Mark Stewart

          I couldn’t locate any polling of the issue more recent than prior to the last Presidential election. In SC, that was a pretty “conservative” moment, even for SC. As a lot has changed since then, I would not at all be surprised to see that today the results would be flipped – a small majority approving of controlled recreational availability and a significant minority still opposed.

          So maybe someday soon someone will (re)ask the question. The results might surprise.

        2. Brad Warthen Post author

          Actually, you know, Brexit is the perfect example of why nothing should be settled by a referendum…

          In any case, I trust that Tom speaks truly when he says that when they did their due diligence and listened to people across the state, the message they received was fairly clear. Tom’s a smart guy, and if he thought the political environment were right for recreational, he’d go for it…

          Lincoln was a master of reading the extent to which the public was ready for, for instance, emancipation. He was good at knowing exactly when to move and when not to. And he did it without the benefit of scientific polling…

          1. Mark Stewart

            Yes, I agree Tom Davis is laser focused on the low hanging fruit. That’s astute politically. I wouldn’t expect him to say anything other than “only interested in Medical.”

            That said, if someone were to demonstrate wider public support that would be more of a support for his cause.

            However, I think he knows the public has flipped on the recreational issue and is afraid this sea-change might muddy the waters instead of providing a solid caisson for his pitch. So let him play his small ball game. I just think he’s trying too hard to project a immaterial distinction. But one step at a time as they say; crawl, walk, run. In that order.

            1. Brad Warthen Post author

              I’m a big fan of base hits, myself. Get on base, steal, move the runner around. THAT’S baseball…

              There’s something unseemly about home runs. Something wrong with an occurrence that doesn’t even give the defense a CHANCE to use its skills to stop the offensive player from scoring…

              1. Brad Warthen Post author

                Home runs make it all about the pitcher and the batter. There’s a lot more to baseball than that, and I want to see what the other players can do as well…

          2. Doug Ross

            Regarding community standards – while not a scientific poll, check out the comments on this recent editorial in The State by a doctor (John C. Ropp III chairman of the Board of the South Carolina Medical Association and practices medicine in Hartsville.) who argues that SC should not “rush” to pass medical marijuana legislation.


            There are 26 comments – not from anonymous people but from actual humans with Facebook accounts – and every single one of them rejects the doctors opinion. Not a single person has replied in support of him. There is some real passion on this topic from those who support legalizing it..

              1. Doug Ross

                26-0 on the comments? Besides law enforcement, doctors & pharma companies (who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo) and out-of-touch Baptist busy bodies, who else is fighting this? The anti-legalization base is very narrow while the proponents cover a wide swath of the public.

  6. Brad Warthen Post author

    By the way, Doug asked some time back whether I ever found myself advocating things during the campaign that violated my own principles.

    No, I didn’t. But were their positions I was not 100 percent on board with personally? Of course. But the conflict was always minor, or a matter of degree.

    This is an example of that sort of issue.

    I neither favor nor oppose medical cannabis. I can’t make up my mind about it. Were I a lawmaker faced with voting on it, I’d really have to study up and force myself to reach a decision — or else abstain. And I wouldn’t want to cop out like that. I’d have to make a decision.

    But since I don’t actually OPPOSE it, I had no problem helping James set out his position….

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Oh, by the way, if you wonder why my mind is not made up…

      I’m still waiting to see some conclusive evidence that cannabis is, as we keep hearing, medically beneficial in ways other substances are not, and that benefits outweigh risk.

      You may say the anecdotal evidence is in, and “everyone” knows it. Well, you might want to read Malcolm Gladwell’s recent piece in The New Yorker, “Is Marijuana as Safe as We Think?

      He’s not proposing it should remain banned, but he says this:

      For the moment, cannabis probably belongs in the category of substances that society permits but simultaneously discourages.

      Why “discourages?” I urge you to read the whole piece, but for starters consider this:

      A few years ago, the National Academy of Medicine convened a panel of sixteen leading medical experts to analyze the scientific literature on cannabis. The report they prepared, which came out in January of 2017, runs to four hundred and sixty-eight pages. It contains no bombshells or surprises, which perhaps explains why it went largely unnoticed. It simply stated, over and over again, that a drug North Americans have become enthusiastic about remains a mystery.

      For example, smoking pot is widely supposed to diminish the nausea associated with chemotherapy. But, the panel pointed out, “there are no good-quality randomized trials investigating this option.” We have evidence for marijuana as a treatment for pain, but “very little is known about the efficacy, dose, routes of administration, or side effects of commonly used and commercially available cannabis products in the United States.” The caveats continue. Is it good for epilepsy? “Insufficient evidence.” Tourette’s syndrome? Limited evidence. A.L.S., Huntington’s, and Parkinson’s? Insufficient evidence. Irritable-bowel syndrome? Insufficient evidence. Dementia and glaucoma? Probably not. Anxiety? Maybe. Depression? Probably not.

      Then come Chapters 5 through 13, the heart of the report, which concern marijuana’s potential risks. The haze of uncertainty continues. Does the use of cannabis increase the likelihood of fatal car accidents? Yes. By how much? Unclear. Does it affect motivation and cognition? Hard to say, but probably. Does it affect employment prospects? Probably. Will it impair academic achievement? Limited evidence. This goes on for pages….

      Or consider this…

      The first of Berenson’s questions concerns what has long been the most worrisome point about cannabis: its association with mental illness. Many people with serious psychiatric illness smoke lots of pot. The marijuana lobby typically responds to this fact by saying that pot-smoking is a response to mental illness, not the cause of it—that people with psychiatric issues use marijuana to self-medicate. That is only partly true. In some cases, heavy cannabis use does seem to cause mental illness. As the National Academy panel declared, in one of its few unequivocal conclusions, “Cannabis use is likely to increase the risk of developing schizophrenia and other psychoses; the higher the use, the greater the risk.”…

      Anyway, these kinds of questions are why I’m on the fence about medical cannabis. And until I’m satisfied on those points, I’m definitely not going to go for recreational.

      Is the world moving that way? Yep. And I expect it to keep doing so, with increasing alacrity. But so far, I’m not satisfied that it’s doing so on the basis of sufficient evidence.

      This will always put me at odds with Doug. Libertarians believe the default mode is to allow everything. That’s not mine. I’m open to either allowing or banning substances, depending on the reasons to do either.

      This makes me an authoritarian meanie to many, an enemy of personal liberty. But the fact is, this is like taxes. People who ALWAYS oppose tax increases and ALWAYS favor tax cuts see me as being their polar opposite. I’m not. I’m agnostic on the subject — in fact, unlike many, I don’t see it as a religious matter. I think good arguments need to be made for whether to raise or lower taxes. Similarly, if you want to change the legal status of marijuana, I need to hear a good case for doing so. (One better than “everybody’s doing it.”)

      I’m not sure I’ve heard that case made yet. I’m not sure I haven’t, but I’m not sure I have…

      1. Brad Warthen Post author

        By the way… I said, “I urge you to read the whole piece.” I haven’t done so yet — I read that bit at the top that I quoted, and skimmed the rest.

        I don’t have time right now, but I hope to remember to go back and finish reading it tonight.

        In the meantime, if one of y’all gets through the whole thing and believes I misrepresented the piece, I’m sure you’ll point it out. I just thought I’d fully disclose that I haven’t finished it…

        1. Doug Ross

          The question becomes one of LEGALITY. Should the government make it a criminal act to ingest a substance — ANY substance of your own free will? Has making it a crime diminished its use in any way? And I go back to the larger impact that criminalizing pot use has on law enforcement and the judicial system. Regardless of trying to determine the potential individual health benefits or risks, what is the impact on a person’s life when an 18 year old kid is found with a baggie of pot and enters the criminal justice system? That does more harm than a puff of smoke could ever do.

          Note – we should also not focus on the smoking aspect of pot. That is likely going to become a non factor as other delivery mechanisms are developed — the free market will create newer, safer products. I know edibles have exploded since legalization in many states. I was reading an article the other day about going to the movies alone and the writer mentioned eating a edible pot gummy bear beforehand to enhance the experience.

          1. Brad Warthen Post author

            Should the government make it a criminal act to ingest a substance — ANY substance of your own free will? Yes, when warranted (it’s just that you don’t believe such a thing CAN be warranted, and I disagree). But that’s not the question here. The question is whether to STOP banning it, not to start. And the burden of proof lies on the one seeking the change.

            Has making it a crime diminished its use in any way? Yes, I have no doubt. It’s not an absolute thing either way; we’re talking marginally greater reluctance to do an illegal thing. And no, I can’t prove it any more than you can prove the opposite. But note that the way you worded the question, if 99 percent of people opt to smoke dope anyway and one person says, “Hell no, I don’t want to go to jail — I’ll have a beer instead,” then I win the point.

            And I go back to the larger impact that criminalizing pot use has on law enforcement and the judicial system. Regardless of trying to determine the potential individual health benefits or risks, what is the impact on a person’s life when an 18 year old kid is found with a baggie of pot and enters the criminal justice system? I don’t believe we should lock up nonviolent offenders. We’ve discussed this many times before.

            1. Doug Ross

              “not locking up” is not the same as “not charging them with a crime that can impact everything from job searches to acquiring student loans and scholarships” Huge difference.

              Of course no one should go to jail EVER for using a substance. That should be a no-brainer. The judicial system should not be involved whatsoever.

              1. Doug Ross

                Please apply this to illegal immigration:

                ” The question is whether to STOP banning it, not to start. And the burden of proof lies on the one seeking the change.”

        1. Brad Warthen Post author

          Thanks for sharing that, Mark!

          Although I’m immediately suspicious of the website, based on its name: I have some experience with brainstorming such things, and I see some web developers passing a joint around and saying things like, “Yes! Information IS beautiful, man! Pass the Fritos…”

          1. Brad Warthen Post author

            and developer no. 2 responds, “and we’ll do it all in lower-case, because e.e. cummings is awesome!”

            developer no. 3: “the world is puddle-wonderful!”

            developer no. 4: “the


            balloonMan whistles

          2. Mark Stewart

            The visual display of data is an underappreciated art.

            I get kind of wonky about the subject – persuasive data presentation – myself. It’s probably a fault…

          3. bud

            Seriously? What a flippant, disgusting reply to Mark. How can you be so damn dismissive. According to Mark’s link it seems like there really is considerable evidence that cannabis does help with certain ailments, particularly MS. I suspect with more research there will be even more evidence that medicinal pot is helpful for several other ailments. Clearly there is sufficient evidence to support legalization for medicinal purposes and little evidence to keep it illegal at all. It is nothing short of immoral to continue to keep this useful substance illegal.

            1. Brad Warthen Post author

              I don’t know what you mean, bud. Mark, do you feel that I acted in a “disgusting” manner toward you? I can’t recall saying anything to you that was in the least unpleasant…

              1. Mark Stewart

                Nah, maybe a bad Cheech and Chong – like impersonation, but no offense taken here. I was the one who said I geek out on this kind of info display.

                Do agree with Bud that scientifically rigorous research as to epilepsy, MS and insomnia has occurred despite the federal restrictions on the substances in marijuana. I think it would be difficult to argue that other situations may turn out to be positively impacted as well once more research is conducted. And I am sure that there will be other circumstances where any kind of use would be contra-indicated. Both seem logical. But again, the ability to research ought not to be restricted.

  7. Doug Ross

    We’re coming up on the 9 year anniversary of Sheriff Leon Lott utilizing Richland County resources to investigate a PHOTO of Michael Phelps smoking a bong in Columbia. It’s a shame that Phelps became a no good, dope smoking, slacker who never amounted to anything after that.

      1. Doug Ross

        He had five individual world records in the Beijing Olympics in 2008… none since. Ipso facto, pot makes you swim faster.

  8. Brad Warthen Post author

    By the way…

    I don’t know who’s right or wrong on this. I don’t know what the right answer is.

    But I really appreciate it when I see a piece like Gladwell’s because it’s cool when the consensus is all rushing in one direction, and one smart guy stands up and says, “Hang on a minute — let’s look at some facts.”

    He might be wrong in the end, but I’ve gotta hand it to him. I respect that sort of thing. It’s not the kind of thing that makes a guy popular, though…

    And I say that as a guy who LOVES consensus. But I respect consensus more when it is based in facts and sound reasoning, not in a kind of social inertia tending in one direction, an infectious FEELING that is increasingly widely shared…

    1. Mr. Smith

      “…it’s cool when the consensus is all rushing in one direction, and one smart guy stands up and says, ‘Hang on a minute — let’s look at some facts.’ ”

      Except that’s not what Gladwell is saying. What he’s saying is that we don’t have enough facts – not enough to satisfy him, at any rate. He’s not necessarily arguing against the claims being made in favor of use. He’s merely calling for more clinical research to provide a greater level of objective certainty – and to provide for application appropriate to specific conditions and circumstances. But, as he points outs, study has been hindered because the substance requiring study is illegal.

      1. Doug Ross

        And the reason there is a call for my research is because there is enough anecdotal evidence and now actual implementation of legalization over several years to suggest there IS a benefit to it.

        This is not people asking to legalize heroin or LSD. The absolute worst case outcome would likely be that marijuana is shown to be no less harmful than alcohol but with added medicinal benefits.

        1. Doug Ross

          my research = “more research”. It’s 2019, Brad — can we get an edit or delete button on comments?

        2. bud

          There can NEVER be enough anecdotal evidence to support a cause. NEVER. However, I think there are studies that support the benefits of medicinal marijuana. It has become immoral to oppose legalization any longer.

      2. Brad Warthen Post author

        Yep. That’s what I meant when I said, “Hang on a minute — let’s look at some facts.” I don’t see how that’s not what Gladwell was saying…

        1. Mr. Smith

          Gladwell compares the approach to marijuana with the introduction of the automobile: Cars weren’t banned until “proven” safe. They went on the market – and were made safer over time. So he doesn’t seem to be saying hold off until we’re sure about the effects of marijuana. He’s saying proceed on the basis of what we know now and find out more as we go along, adjusting accordingly. As for “rushing” into anything, I don’t see that going on anywhere. Marijuana has been around for decades.

  9. Doug Ross

    Cory Booker is on board with this tweet today:

    More Cory Booker Retweeted Alicia Lewis
    I support adult & medical use
    But that’s not enough!
    The failed drug war unfairly targeted the poor, veterans, brown people.
    It’s now not enough to just make it legal.
    We must have expungement
    We must invest tax proceeds back into those communities targeted by the drug war.

    I agree with all of that.

Comments are closed.