Health Care Reform

Americans have a tough choice to make when it comes to the health care reform; will a government-driven health care system provide more affordable quality health care to all citizens than a market-driven one? The debate seems to be strongly divided between the republicans and democrats, with democrats advocating a government-driven system and republicans advocating a market-driven system. The disagreement over what must be done to improve our health care system is a profound one, which possesses an outcome that will influence not only the financing and providing of health care, but our economy as a whole.

Most Americans are under the impression that the central disagreement is over whether or not health care coverage should be expanded. Although the Democrats’ main contingency is that every American has some kind of health insurance plan, the Republicans are not opposed to expanding coverage to the uninsured. “In 2008, presidential candidate John McCain proposed a plan which would have provided to every American household a tax credit which could only be used to purchase a health insurance policy” (Capretta). This was a largely universal plan in the fact that its function was to enable every American to purchase some level of health insurance coverage with the financing of the government. Clearly, the disagreement is not over expanding coverage.

The real disagreement is over the allocation of resources in the health care sector. Both sides agree that our current health care system is unsustainable due to costs rising more rapidly than wages or government revenues. Americans must decide which system will increase the affordability and quality of health insurance for all citizens. The only way to slow rising costs without sacrificing quality of care is to improve the efficiency of interactions between patients, doctors, and hospitals.

According to the Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform, an estimated 792,000 Coloradans, nearly one fifth of our population, don’t have health insurance (3). Health insurance costs are rising rapidly and with them so is the number of Coloradans who are uninsured. Since all Colorado policyholders pay for those who cannot afford coverage, premiums continue to rise. ‘In fact, total premiums for employer-sponsored insurance more than doubled in Colorado between 1996 and 2005 As a result, Colorado families are paying as much as 19% of household income in 2005, more than double the percentage in 1987. According to Family USA, an estimated $934 of the average $12000 annual family insurance premium in Colorado is the cost of care provided to those without insurance’ (Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform 4).

So who are the uninsured? According to the Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform, ‘70% of the uninsured are in the workforce or are a dependent of a worker. While 75% of the uninsured are families with an annual income of $50000 or less, 13% have family incomes of $75000 or more. Almost 20% of the uninsured are children and 40% are between the ages of 19-34. 57% of the uninsured are white’ (5). The uninsured are found in all income groups, ages, and races, which means that the health care debate is one that all Coloradans should be concerned about. Clearly something needs to be done to extend coverage to the uninsured to better the quality of life for all Coloradans. Since we’re all paying for the uninsured, it makes more sense to invest that money in making sure everyone has affordable health insurance rather than paying high premiums.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, “Personal or household income is generally regarded as the single best measure of the degree to which people are ‘well off.’” The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows an average percent change in household income from 1988 to 1998 at 5.7%, from 1998 to 2008 at 5%, and projects from 2008 to 2018 at 4.7%. Household income indicates the economic well-being of the United States, which will continue to increase at a lower rate than before. If health care costs continue to rise, even more of Americans’ household incomes will have to go towards insurance, resulting in an even lower economic well-being of American citizens and more specifically, Colorado residents. Furthermore, America already has a deficit of over $14 trillion and if there is need for further increases in the federal budget, our deficit will increase exponentially.

In order to reduce health care costs and enhance the quality of care provided, there are several steps Colorado must take. Firstly, the growth of health insurance premiums must be slowed. To do this, we must cover at least 85% of the uninsured and increase Medicaid provider reimbursement to help minimize cost shifting. Secondly, requiring employers to provide health insurance plans pre-tax would reduce employee health premiums and the government must provide sliding-scale subsidies to help low-income workers to buy insurance. Thirdly, require every legal resident of Colorado to have at least minimum health coverage while providing affordability exemptions. These are just a few changes to the health care system mentioned in the final report made by the Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform that would benefit all Coloradans while reducing health insurance costs.

Republicans argue that the answer is a market-driven system in which consumers choose between competing health insurance providers, basing their choices rationally on price and quality. The government would still play an important role in protecting consumer rights but the challenge of providing better quality health care at lower costs would be left to the insurance providers rather than Congress. However, this system sounds similar, if not the same as the one we have now. If this system were instituted, none of the Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform’s recommendations would be considered. Under “ObamaCare,” several provisions in the House and the Senate bills have been instituted, which are intended to force doctors and hospitals to change how they practice medicine by leveraging Medicare payment policy against them. “For instance, there are penalties for hospitals that have too many of their patients readmitted for care, and for physicians who are outliers in terms of how many services they render for certain diagnoses” (Capretta). “The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that relatively small savings will result from the Medicare commission idea, and even smaller amounts will be saved by the other reforms touted by the administration. In ten years' time, even if all of the ideas were fully implemented, Medicare and the rest of American health-care would look and operate largely as it does today, which is to say as a fee-for-service insurance model that rewards volume and fragmentation, not integration and efficiency” (Capretta). While some of these reforms may marginally improve health care from the status quo, they will not fundamentally change Medicare or health care in general and are therefore intangible solutions.

Clearly, no one side has the right answer. So how can we reach a solution? On January 31^st, a judge from northern Florida ruled that the new federal health care laws are unconstitutional. “Northern Florida U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson last week granted a stay to his January ruling striking down President Obama’s federal health care law. While Vinson has called the law unconstitutional, he also agrees with the Obama administration that it would be “extremely disruptive” to block implementation of the law” (Marcus). Luckily, Republican Colorado Attorney General John Suthers has entered Colorado into a multi-state lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the individual health insurance mandate of the federal law. “State Republican lawmakers last week introduced legislation that would allow Colorado to opt out of federal health reform legislation by joining an interstate compact that would supersede the federal law and give states within the compact the right to regulate themselves. Congress would need to approve the compact, but it would not need the president’s approval, according to state Republicans” (Marcus).

It is clear that relying entirely on the federal government to allocate resources in the health care sector is not a viable option, but neither is relying entirely on a market-driven system. If the recent legislation is passed, Colorado could be excluded from federal health care reform and be allowed to institute its own reforms. If these reforms follow the recommendations found in the final report made by the Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform, we can attain quality and affordable health insurance coverage for all Coloradans.

Bibliography

Capretta, James C. What the Health Care Debate is Really About. The Public Discourse. January 19^th, 2010.

The Blue Ribbon Commission for Health Care Reform Final Report. Colorado Official State Web Portal. January 2008.

U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/

Bureau of Labor Statistic. http://www.bls.gov/

Marcus, Peter. Good and bad for health reform. The Denver Daily News. March 7^th, 2011.

Colorado’s quest for sustainability lies in Solar Energy

Have you ever considered what will happen to our society when the world’s reserves of oil and coal run out? Where will we get our energy from and more importantly will it be clean and beneficial to the world? What if a new reliable source of energy was developed so that our dependency on foreign oil was reduced and we could remove our troops from the Middle East. Thus this new energy source makes our country capable of sustaining itself while simultaneously helping global relations. Residents of Colorado love how crisp and fresh the air is in this Rocky Mountain dominated state. In CO, where being outdoors is a huge component in daily life the quality of the environment is crucial and having a cheap clean energy source is a must. To be able to sustain this beautiful area a new sustainable and clean energy source needs to be developed not only for CO but, for the world. The energy source we are looking for is solar energy and now more than ever it needs the backing of the general population for the advancement of its potential.

You see all these commercials on TV now a days pushing for the advancement of hydro and wind energy to combat global warming and solve our energy dilemmas. However, these types of energy are expensive and do not produce a substantial amount of energy for their cost. In a recent report written by Brian Westenhaus concerning the cost of alternate sources of energy he says that wind energy is 65% more expensive than hydro and hydro energy is 50% more expensive then the next alternative source. Westenhaus further enforces the point that wind and hydro power are expensive by talking with the president, Kenneth Eriksson, of the SKGS group, an energy company that deals with alternative types of energies. Eriksson is quoted as saying “that wind power, with current electricity prices, is dependent on very large subsidies to become a competitive alternative, and it is virtually impossible to build new hydropower because of existing environmental laws and local opinion”. These sources are a few of many that support through numerical evidence that hydro and wind energy are not reliable cost effective sources of energy. I guess that goes to show that not everything you see on TV is true. However, one such commercial for SAIC asks it viewers what kind of world would we live in if we could harness the power of the sun and use it in the dead of winter. This commercial reveals the true king of the future energy source, solar power.

We need to invest our money and time into the further development of solar energy. As far as anyone can tell the sun will be burning for a long time to come thus giving us a near limitless source of energy that overshadows anything that hydro or wind energy could possibly conceive of producing. In 2006 Oliver Morton, the chief news and features editor for “Nature” a scientific journal, writes that, “The Sun provides Earth with as much energy every hour as human civilization uses every year. If you are a solar-energy enthusiast, that says it all”. To take Morton’s claim a step further let’s consider some actual numbers of the amount of energy the sun produces. Then let’s apply these numbers in terms of powering an average American household. The sun produces about 3.6 x 10^26 joules/ second but, not all of this energy reaches earth. Every square meter of earth that faces the sun receives 1380 joules/ second and this translates to 1380 watts. Energy consumption for a household is measured in kilowatt hours and one kilowatt hour equals 1000 watt hours which equals 3.6 mega joules or 3.6 million joules. The average house in America consumes 12,000 kilowatt hours a year and is roughly 457 square meters. To run a house this size for a year 4.32 x 10^10 joules of energy are required. Assume we are able to harness the energy from the sun reaching earth to its fullest potential, so a house this size would receive 630,660 joules/second from the sun due to its size. This means in about 19 hours of sunlight this household will receive enough energy from the sun to run for an entire year. With over 300 days of sun a year in CO if this type of energy utilization was possible a single house would receive about 380 year’s worth of energy in a single year of sunshine. This is not science fiction at all, but quite fesible with enoough support research into solar energy. Imagine being able to be completely self-sufficient in energy and not having to rely on foreign oil reserves.

One pressing issue for Coloradans however, is the current subsidy cutbacks that Xcel energy has just implemented on the solar industry. In a Denver Post article on February 2^nd, 2011 execs of Xcel Energy said that they were “cutting financial incentives that it offers to customers for solar-energy installations”. The causation of these cutbacks are due to the cost of solar energy declining for customers and that the execs of Xcel don’t think people need these high incentives to install solar panels. These subsidiary cut backs will affect future investments into solar energy, jobs, and the cost of installing solar systems. These cut backs will raise the average cost of installing residential solar units that currently cost $5,000-$12,000 to $8,000-$16,000. In this current economic crisis and an increase of this magnitude financially will make solar units available for a more select group of people more so for the upper to middle class people. These costs will also show a large percent of people turn away from using solar energy due to their inability to pay the premium.

This is where we as citizens concerned with the overall well-being of our state can take action. We cannot allow solar energy to be pushed to the backburner of our countries spending, it should be on the forefront of advancement to create a more sustainable world. The president of Xcel Colorado David Eves is quoted as saying, “We look forward to the industry’s continued progress so that it can ultimately become self-supporting. Just as wind energy is now more competitive, solar energy is moving in that direction too”. How can the solar industry continue to grow if its funding is being cut? Unlike wind energy where it is not always windy, you can count on the sun to rise every day, so why cut costs to a future energy source that will be consistent and dependable? In a state where we get over 300 days of sun a year we are a primetime state to become a heavily solar dependent state and be on the forefront of self-sustained economies in terms of energy. The solar industry has come a long way in the recent years and will continue to grow however, it still needs major financial backing and support to make greater leaps in technology.

Solar energy has many benefits that make it more appealing over oil. To begin with it is renewable and near endless, whereas oil takes millions of years to replicate and if we use it all its gone. Also there is no burning of fossil fuels so there is no emission of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere which is one of the leading causes of global warming. In a state with very few to no natural oil deposits solar energy becomes much more accessible in Colorado and an extremely environmental friendly option. With the conversion of a average Colorado household to solar power it will keep 22,000 pounds of carbon emissions from being emitted annually. With oil prices rising becoming less dependent on oil for energy will save our state millions of dollars and the country billions of dollars. This would quickly take us out of our current debt and allow us to invest this money into the advancement of medicine, technology, education, and the overall betterment of our race.

Solar energy not only presents itself as the best alternative source of energy but, the most reliable and clean. Currently we can only store solar energy by having it heat water up and then using this heat for as long as it lasts, which is not a very long time. Once we are able to store solar energy for extended periods of time and make it available at the drop of a hat then a quick transition to solar energy as a major power source will be seen. As Coloradans we are in a position due to the type of weather our state experiences to be at the forefront of the solar era. We can be the pioneers of a new world that is environmentally sound and removes global conflict over natural resources such as coal and oil which are essential to powering an economy. With this in mind it is necessary for Coloradans to support solar energy as our way to keep our state clean and an environmental example to the rest of the country and the world.

Eating Locally: Help Keep Colorado Sustainable

It all changed for me when I was 11 years old. Our family was celebrating Thanksgiving with our family friends whom own a farm. This was not your typical Thanksgiving with a Butterball Turkey and shrink-wrapped vegetables for Safeway. We spent the entire day cultivating and harvesting all the vegetables from the farm and making everything from scratch. The most shocking, and yet important aspect of the day, was the preparation of the Turkey. It was the first time I had seen an animal of any size killed, and 10 hours later as we sat down to eat, I felt this amazing connection to the food we were eating, because I was no longer able to take it for granted.

Do you care where your food comes from? The fact of the matter is that even though many of you readers may be well versed in eating locally, there is still a huge percentage of the state that is either unaware or unfazed by this question. Many people focus solely on the price of the food they’re buying, or maybe you simply don’t think that it matters, or perhaps you’re turned off by the notion of “healthy, locally sustainable food” because of the Boulderite granola stigma that is attached. These deterrents may be blinding you from seeing the tangible positive impacts that eating locally will have on our great state of Colorado. Eating locally will bolster Colorado’s economy, and in turn benefit the health of the state, but psychically and environmentally.

Colorado’s economy is in need of growth. I think we can all agree with that. Putting an emphasis on eating locally will greatly stimulate the economy directly through the purchasing of goods, but because that money will stay in the state, instead of being spent on imports that money will continue to flow throughout the state. There is already an organization focused on growing the economy through local food initiatives. Colorado Local Sustainability was founded in 2007 with the goals bringing sustainability to the forefront of Colorado. Their mission statement states, “The goal of Colorado Local Sustainability is to unite farmers, ranchers, and consumers in order to stimulate the sustainable local food economy in Colorado.” They understand that we live in an amazingly productive agricultural and meat-producing state, and that focusing on growing the local food economy would help to stimulate the entire states economy. Their informational pages show that “smaller farms tend to be 2-10 times more productive than larger farms.” This shows that we don’t need to rely on multinational corporations to produce our food, that if Colorado consumers demanded local ingredients, smaller environmentally sustainable farms would continue to rise all over the state. All Colorado politicians and pushing the growth of small business owners, and here is the perfect solution. The more food we can produce in state, the less money spent we will spend importing food from food-producing giants like California, and Florida. I know what your thinking, this sounds great, but the fact of the matter is that locally produced food is too expensive. My solution for this is two-fold. Firstly, in the long-run the prices will decrease, as small farms continue to grow there will be an influx in the supply of locally produced food which will subsequently drive the prices down. Secondly I’m proposing that to give this movement the necessary quick start to bolster the economy, the Colorado Government offer a subsidy to farmers growing and selling their crops in state. If farmers are able to produce goods at a cheaper cost, they will obviously be able to sell the goods at a cheaper price as well. And the money spent by the government will continually circulate throughout the states economy and boost the states gross domestic product, which is an indicator of the states standard of living. The economic impact is huge and widespread but that is not the only thing that will benefit from eating locally.

Take a moment and think to yourself, why do I life in Colorado? Whether it’s why did I move to Colorado, or if you were born here, why did I decide to stay? The answer will surely be different for most of you, but I’m guessing that for a lot of you the connection to the outdoors plays a large role. From skiing to biking, hiking to camping, or even simply enjoying the view, Colorado is one of the most beautiful states in the country. The Colorado Ski Pass’ slogan is simply, “It’s why you live here.” It is ok if you don’t share the same environmental fervor as those “Prius driving hippies,” but we can all agree that keeping Colorado’s plentiful outdoor areas pristine is important, and eating locally will help.

Colorado is one of the most environmentally conscious and friendly states in the country. Colorado, along with California, and New Jersey offer the greatest government subsidies for research and spending on alternative energy. Even though Colorado makes a vehement effort to protect the environment, global warming is surely occurring, and eating locally can play a crucial part in slowing the effects on our planet. Worldwide environmental protection organization, National Resource Defense Council, or NRDC, started the “Growing Green Awards” in 2007 to honor farmers and businesses and to promote the environmental and health benefits of sustainable farming and sustainable food. The NRDC has published a pamphlet, “Food Miles: how far your food travels has serious consequences on your health and the climate.” Some of the data points are shocking, it states that the “average American meal contains ingredients from at least five countries outside of the United States.” Not only does this speak to the unnatural and unnecessary mixing of goods, but also the sheer amount of pollutants that are being spewed into the air by ships and planes delivery food around the world. We are lucky enough to live in a state, where we need not rely on food production from China, Chile, New Zealand, or Argentina. If we all start to begin to make the effort to support local food producers and farmers we could start to turn around this trend that is unnecessarily causing hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of tons of green house gases to be emitted throughout the world, all the while growing the states economy. I understand that this is a global issue, and it may not be easy to see that your changes will have an impact, but every person matters, and Colorado could be at the forefront of a global movement toward local food sustainability.

Eating locally will not only benefit the environmental health of the state, but also the physical health of the population of Colorado. Colorado is the leanest state in the country, which is something all of you should be proud of, however 19.1% of the adult population is still obese, and that is a growing number. Obesity is the commonly discussed topic when dealing with health, and rightfully so, but you can still be slim and unhealthy and much of that is determined by the quality of food you’re eating. Now that eating healthily has begun to take off, companies are catching on, and are starting to market their foods as healthy or organic regardless of its true merit. With no relationship to the farms or food producer there is no way to weed through the millions of dollars of branding to find the true nutritional value. By eating locally sustainable produced food, the consumer would finally have genuine knowledge on the food they are eating. Although the vast majority are, I understand that not every single small sustainable farm is organic, which is why I’m also purposing that Colorado state elevate it’s organic certification requirements. As of now, California is the only state with a strict regulated organic certification process, and Colorado should follow suit. If we implemented a government regulated entity that regulated and certified organic farmers then the “Colorado Certified Organic” stamp from certain farmers would genuinely show the consumers the dedication towards producing healthy goods.

The tangible benefits to Colorado of eating locally are wonderful, but to me there is a moral aspect of this movement that is astronomically important. For thousands of years humans have been eating food that by hunting and gathering and over the past 75 years or so, we have become more and more detached from our food and the process by which animals and plants become our food. I understand that we live in a world where not everyone will get his or her own food but eating locally produced food is a giant step in the right direction. I implore you all to form relationships with your farmers and talk with your butchers. Find out about natural growing seasons and the wonders of eating produce grown in its peak season versus eating tomatoes grown in the winter. Try to understand and appreciate that meat doesn’t come wonderfully laid out and wrapped in plastic in your grocery story, that at one point that was a living animal whom in many cases lived in a cage barley the size of its body. Have empathy for the animals that are being killed to provide us with food. Eating locally will stimulate the economy while bettering the health of Colorado and it’s population, but even more than that it will push us all to become more connected to our food. And if you can, spend a day out in a farm, get your hands dirty, and hey, it may affect you the same way it did me.

Medical Marijuana, Worth the Threat?

In November, 2000 Coloradoans voted pro amendment 20 therefore legalizing Medical Marijuana, since then nearly 105,000 people have been registered Medical Marijuana cards. This amendment came after a long debate which has not ceased to this day. Medical marijuana has become a widely prescribed drug in Colorado for many symptoms including chronic pain and stimulating appetite in anorexia. The use of Medical Marijuana isn’t limited to those who are in true need of the medicinal effects of the drug. The law passed for Medical Marijuana has opened lots of opportunities for increased recreational use of marijuana. The law legalizing Medical Marijuana has brought about an array of social issues that question the true value of Medical Marijuana.

Smoking cannabis has a wide variety of negative health effects and aspects that limit its use as an effective prescribed medication. The smoke from cannabis weakens one’s immune system which for those who are experiencing debilitating illnesses is not recommended. The use of smoked marijuana has many risks involved because it is a smoked drug which is a very primitive way of drug ingestion. There is no way to regulate the doses or the way that it is administered. The inconsistencies of this medical marijuana make it less effective as a legitimate drug. There are over four hundred chemicals commonly found in marijuana in variable amounts which aren’t chemically designed to help relieve pain and other symptoms. Although marijuana does have medicinal benefits, oftentimes there are allergies or side effects of other prescribed medications that can complicate patient’s situations. The issue is not that marijuana cannot be an effective medicine because its usefulness has obviously been explained by its legalization, yet the law is being abused and has become more available to those who are vulnerable to recreational usage of pot. Those who are taking abusing legal Medical Marijuana are doing a disservice to those who worked to get the amendment passed to and use their marijuana for medicinal purposes. These users ruin the public’s view on the validity of Medical Marijuana. If the drug was limited to those who are using it correctly then there would be no argument against it as there is for the rest of the medicines offered on the market.

The drug itself is not necessarily harmful for one’s health but the impact that it has on our youth and society raises alarm. The drug has a large following of recreational users which is only growing due to easier accessibility. There are now more Medical Marijuana dispensaries in Colorado than there are Starbucks. There are over seven hundred dispensaries in Colorado which poses the question how many dispensaries are really necessary? Nearly every block along Broadway there are multiple dispensaries. This is not an ideal situation to raise a child in; it’s just as easy for them to walk to the corner dispensary as it is for them to walk to the corner convenient store. The recreational use of Medical Marijuana has developed into a social and trivial event. Aspen is holding an event to celebrate the legitimacy of Medical Marijuana. This is something that would only take place regarding pot. When was the last time you heard of a celebration for any other painkiller? It is groups and events like this that expose the weaknesses of the Medical Marijuana bill. The people that are abusing this drug are tainting the legitimate uses of medical pot and those who are rightly using it.

The advertising used for Medical Marijuana products mirror that of those used in companies that aim towards a young audience. Advertising using juvenile images aims towards a younger audience who are more easily swayed into the recreational usage of marijuana. Advertisements for medical pot reflect its recreational use. Instead of a detailed description of doses and ingredients, a label that states should not be handled by kids and a catchy name and design decorate a Medical Marijuana packages. The minimized medical aspect of Medical Marijuana has struck fear in doctors who fear negative attention from the skeptical intentions of those who are using the drug. There are doctors who refuse to prescribe Medical Marijuana because of how unregulated the drug is. There is a fear that prescribing Medical Marijuana will lead to be fraudulent prescriptions and disapproval from the government which are real possibilities, yet there are doctors who are willing to prescribe pot to anyone who comes in complaining of a multitude of symptoms. I personally know students at the University of Denver who possess Medical Marijuana cards to support their recreational use. A mysterious case of nonexistent Scoliosis is enough to facilitate a med card. It is not only people illegally dealing their own prescriptions that opens the door for our youth to obtain pot, there are doctors who are abusing this law and making it possible for unworthy candidates to have access herbal medicine. This is the issue that we are facing trying to keep Medical Marijuana in the hands of those who need it.

The legalization of Medical Marijuana gives those who are dealing illegally a window to operate large scale operations such as that busted in Broomfield, where the largest marijuana dealing operation was busted using copied medical records as cover. Legalization of drugs lowers the social awareness of the negative effects of drugs and reduces the anti-drug stance that is possessed by the general society. When kids are deciding whether to try pot or not and it’s not an illegal substance for those who use it as medicine; it lends itself to the thought that it is harmless though it is an illegal substance to the healthy public. All states have a law regarding a person operating a motor vehicle cannot be under the influence of drugs. This is standard for other prescription drugs. Medical marijuana users are pushing against a law that would pose a level of THC that would be a legal limit to drive. The inability to monitor doses of marijuana and the way it is administered makes it even more dangerous to drive while under the influence. The roads are a public place that can pose to be lethal. If one isn’t allowed to drive on other prescription drugs then why would we allow Medical Marijuana users to drive under the influence?

The regulation of Medical Marijuana does have benefits for those who are truly in need of the drug, but is that worth the health and best interests of our society. The use of Medical Marijuana seems to have a high cost for a generally inefficient form of medication. When it comes to the public good versus that of a small percent of the population do the pros outweigh the cons? The laws regarding Medical Marijuana either need to be reversed or they need to be severely modified to closely monitor the people who are using Medical Marijuana and the intent that those individuals have.