MMJmedia
New Member
Rolling Stones MarijuanAmerica: Close but no joint
Rolling Stones MarijuanAmerica: Close but no joint
In Rolling Stones April edition of their magazine they dedicated 12 pages to an article called MarijuanAmerica and in doing so they make a few journalistic errors.
The first major issue I came across in the article happens near the beginning of the 4th paragraph when the author, Mark Binelli (a contributing editor at Rolling Stone magazine) claims that proposition 215 only allows for the possession and cultivation (but not the distribution and sale) of cannabis for medical cannabis.
If Binelli had read the text of the Compassionate-Use Act of 1996 he would see it plainly states it was enacted To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.
Im not sure what the word obtain means to Binelli but to me, it means there has to be some sort of distribution involved.
Not only that but that same act pushes local and federal governments to help ensure safe and affordable access to medical cannabis for all qualified patients. Again, to me the words affordable distribution means some sort of currency is exchanged which means there are sales allowed when obtaining cannabis the way that law was written.
Now, I realize that there are small number of politicians and law enforcement officers around this state trying to claim all sales of medical cannabis in California are illegal, even non-profit sales within a collective of patients. However, the laws themselves and the court decisions on the subject have not supported that claim.
And for Rolling Stone Magazine to state sales and distribution are not allowed under the law is a little irresponsible. They should have at least cited one of the people who claims that, so that when the courts finally prove sales and distribution is allowed under the law, the people who say that look bad (instead of Rolling Stone Magazine).
I wrote an entire blog about what California law really says about sales of medical cannabis here: http://waronme.blogspot.com/2009/12/updated-what-does-ca-law-say-about-non.html
And then as the article goes on, theres a little more sloppy journalism in reporter the legalization and decriminalization of cannabis (for medical and recreational use) in various states.
And in addition to the 14 states that have already legalized medical cannabis, Washington DC has done the same and U.S. Congress just approved that law to be enacted. Those 14 states include Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington plus the District of Columbia
And there are over 14 states with currently considering medical cannabis laws as the article reports. Those states are Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin, Utah, Ohio,
And the only reason why New Hampshire is not on either of those lists is because Governor Lynch vetoed the bill when it was passed through both houses in that state.
Binelli even gets his terms confused and uses the word decriminalization in place of legalization as if they mean the same thing.
Binelli writes: it was estimated that decriminalization could net California $1.4 billion in annual revenue.
Cannabis has been decriminalized in California with a minimal fine for possessing less than an ounce since 1975 with Senate Bill 95. The $1.4 billion estimate relates to potential revenues if cannabis is legalized in California.
Also the article is accompanied by statistics which are easily questionable but Rolling Stones includes them as if they are fact and undisputed. For example, the articles says:
Total weight of all marijuana plants seized by the DEA in 2009: 3,285
Plenty of cannabis activists dispute the DEAs reported numbers of weight and price because they often exaggerate and include pots, potting soil, and other items in the weight of what they seize to make it seem like a lot more. Rolling Stone neglects to acknowledge such disputes.
My biggest complaint has to do with the way the article handles the medical cannabis aspect of the issue. As a legitimate medical cannabis patient suffering from chronic pain, I find the way in which Binelli handles this aspect offensive.
But everyone knows that the overwhelming majority of people in California getting medical marijuana recommendation are using pot as medicine the same way characters in John Cheever stories used three extra-dry martinis on the 6:15 bar car as medicine.
Excuse me?!? Really?!? Is that some that EVERYONE knows? And what citation or proof does Binelli have to prove such an outrageous statement?
For a state with such a health-obsessed reputation as California, Ive never met so many perfectly fit-looking people in their 2s and 30s complaining about some sort of chronic back pain or nausea
WTF?!?
At this point in the article, I lost all interest because I knew the article was not intended to represent people like me (a perfectly fit-looking person who falls into that age range suffering from a chronic pain injury which effects not only my back but my neck, head, shoulders, arms, and hands).
Over the last 2 years, Ive met hundreds of medical cannabis patients, all living with life-altering medical conditions, some of which look fit (some of which do not look so fit). And this article completely washes over the fact that these patients need safe access to medical cannabis and media coverage like this only makes it difficult for us to be taken seriously.
The irony of my injury is that I do not look injured but suffer day in and day out with minimal to severe pain for reasons that the doctors cannot seem to agree on. Cannabis is an important part of my pain-management regime, along with other natural, alternative treatments and activities.
This sort of media coverage makes it difficult for me to stand up as a MEDICAL cannabis advocate and be taken seriously. I have to do everything to defy the stereotypes and stigmas involved with marijuana as a recreational drug just to be taken serious about the importance of safe access to medical cannabis.
Are there recreational user posing as medical cannabis patients? Im sure there are but should that over shadow legitimate patients who use it for medical purposes who happen to look fit?
For some of us, medical cannabis is more than a tactical push to reform the nations drug laws. As Don Duncan often says, For some of us, medical cannabis is not a means to an end but an end in itself. And what about including us and our stories in the patchwork display of Marijuana in America featured in the Rolling Stones article MarijuanAmerica?
To me, Rolling Stone's MarijuanAmerica comes close to representing America's marijuana cultures but falls short when addressing patients. So I say, it's close but no [medical] joint.
Is it just me, or were other medical cannabis patients offended by the way this article was written?
Rolling Stones MarijuanAmerica: Close but no joint
In Rolling Stones April edition of their magazine they dedicated 12 pages to an article called MarijuanAmerica and in doing so they make a few journalistic errors.
The first major issue I came across in the article happens near the beginning of the 4th paragraph when the author, Mark Binelli (a contributing editor at Rolling Stone magazine) claims that proposition 215 only allows for the possession and cultivation (but not the distribution and sale) of cannabis for medical cannabis.
If Binelli had read the text of the Compassionate-Use Act of 1996 he would see it plainly states it was enacted To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.
Im not sure what the word obtain means to Binelli but to me, it means there has to be some sort of distribution involved.
Not only that but that same act pushes local and federal governments to help ensure safe and affordable access to medical cannabis for all qualified patients. Again, to me the words affordable distribution means some sort of currency is exchanged which means there are sales allowed when obtaining cannabis the way that law was written.
Now, I realize that there are small number of politicians and law enforcement officers around this state trying to claim all sales of medical cannabis in California are illegal, even non-profit sales within a collective of patients. However, the laws themselves and the court decisions on the subject have not supported that claim.
And for Rolling Stone Magazine to state sales and distribution are not allowed under the law is a little irresponsible. They should have at least cited one of the people who claims that, so that when the courts finally prove sales and distribution is allowed under the law, the people who say that look bad (instead of Rolling Stone Magazine).
I wrote an entire blog about what California law really says about sales of medical cannabis here: http://waronme.blogspot.com/2009/12/updated-what-does-ca-law-say-about-non.html
And then as the article goes on, theres a little more sloppy journalism in reporter the legalization and decriminalization of cannabis (for medical and recreational use) in various states.
And in addition to the 14 states that have already legalized medical cannabis, Washington DC has done the same and U.S. Congress just approved that law to be enacted. Those 14 states include Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington plus the District of Columbia
And there are over 14 states with currently considering medical cannabis laws as the article reports. Those states are Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Wisconsin, Utah, Ohio,
And the only reason why New Hampshire is not on either of those lists is because Governor Lynch vetoed the bill when it was passed through both houses in that state.
Binelli even gets his terms confused and uses the word decriminalization in place of legalization as if they mean the same thing.
Binelli writes: it was estimated that decriminalization could net California $1.4 billion in annual revenue.
Cannabis has been decriminalized in California with a minimal fine for possessing less than an ounce since 1975 with Senate Bill 95. The $1.4 billion estimate relates to potential revenues if cannabis is legalized in California.
Also the article is accompanied by statistics which are easily questionable but Rolling Stones includes them as if they are fact and undisputed. For example, the articles says:
Total weight of all marijuana plants seized by the DEA in 2009: 3,285
Plenty of cannabis activists dispute the DEAs reported numbers of weight and price because they often exaggerate and include pots, potting soil, and other items in the weight of what they seize to make it seem like a lot more. Rolling Stone neglects to acknowledge such disputes.
My biggest complaint has to do with the way the article handles the medical cannabis aspect of the issue. As a legitimate medical cannabis patient suffering from chronic pain, I find the way in which Binelli handles this aspect offensive.
But everyone knows that the overwhelming majority of people in California getting medical marijuana recommendation are using pot as medicine the same way characters in John Cheever stories used three extra-dry martinis on the 6:15 bar car as medicine.
Excuse me?!? Really?!? Is that some that EVERYONE knows? And what citation or proof does Binelli have to prove such an outrageous statement?
For a state with such a health-obsessed reputation as California, Ive never met so many perfectly fit-looking people in their 2s and 30s complaining about some sort of chronic back pain or nausea
WTF?!?
At this point in the article, I lost all interest because I knew the article was not intended to represent people like me (a perfectly fit-looking person who falls into that age range suffering from a chronic pain injury which effects not only my back but my neck, head, shoulders, arms, and hands).
Over the last 2 years, Ive met hundreds of medical cannabis patients, all living with life-altering medical conditions, some of which look fit (some of which do not look so fit). And this article completely washes over the fact that these patients need safe access to medical cannabis and media coverage like this only makes it difficult for us to be taken seriously.
The irony of my injury is that I do not look injured but suffer day in and day out with minimal to severe pain for reasons that the doctors cannot seem to agree on. Cannabis is an important part of my pain-management regime, along with other natural, alternative treatments and activities.
This sort of media coverage makes it difficult for me to stand up as a MEDICAL cannabis advocate and be taken seriously. I have to do everything to defy the stereotypes and stigmas involved with marijuana as a recreational drug just to be taken serious about the importance of safe access to medical cannabis.
Are there recreational user posing as medical cannabis patients? Im sure there are but should that over shadow legitimate patients who use it for medical purposes who happen to look fit?
For some of us, medical cannabis is more than a tactical push to reform the nations drug laws. As Don Duncan often says, For some of us, medical cannabis is not a means to an end but an end in itself. And what about including us and our stories in the patchwork display of Marijuana in America featured in the Rolling Stones article MarijuanAmerica?
To me, Rolling Stone's MarijuanAmerica comes close to representing America's marijuana cultures but falls short when addressing patients. So I say, it's close but no [medical] joint.
Is it just me, or were other medical cannabis patients offended by the way this article was written?
