Twice, in the recent past, I have received nicely done advertisements urging me to vote “yes” on O. Regardless of my opinion on O, a part of the ad upsets me. There is a picture of a young mother and her (plus or minus 4-year-old) son, with the statement that “Locally grown high CBD medical marijuana has (paraphrase) eased my son”s seizures.” I have no doubt her claim is true at least partially, but I think it is misleading and incomplete at best.
First, from what I can gather, every “patient” must have written permission to use medicinal marijuana otherwise such use is not legal. I hope her son, does have such a “prescription.” Although frankly I cannot believe a reputable pediatrician would give such permission without serious testing to try to find the cause of the seizures and that medical marijuana was, perhaps, a last resort. If not, the thought of child endangerment comes to mind.
My wife spent many years in practice as an LCSW specializing in child abuse. In her practice, she found giving an annoying child some substance to give the parent(s) some “freedom” was not an uncommon parenting practice.
As I understand, every marijuana plant develops both CBD and THC (the “buzz agent). The mix can only be determined by careful analysis. It is my supposition that the son”s pot has a mix of both and that the suppression of his seizures may well be due to both and this brings some interesting legal considerations. A reasonable supposition would be that the group supporting O and the flyer have examined these points, but the lack of mention makes me wonder.
Seems to me that this is one of those times when desire and responsibility should not be treated separately.
Guff Worth, Lakeport
