Regulations added to Oak Creek pot plan

Oak Creek Planning Commission recommends approval

Advertisement

— The Oak Creek Planning Commission voted, 4-1, to recommend a land use change that would allow a medical marijuana dispensary to open in downtown Oak Creek. The vote came during a well-attended but relatively short meeting Wednesday night.

The Planning Commission was faced with a proposal from a group of medical marijuana caregivers, led and financed by Stagecoach resident Jacob Wise, to open a dispensary at Nancy Crawford Boulevard and Sharp Avenue.

Commission members agreed to send the land use change request forward to the Oak Creek Town Board with a recommendation for approval but added a series of requirements for the business. Many of the requirements were taken from the regulations the Steamboat Springs City Council enacted this month.

The requirements include that there will be no deliveries of marijuana to any patients unless they cannot go to the dispensary because of a medical condition, that a staff member is present during the normal hours of operation and that the caregivers who will provide the marijuana undergo a fingerprint and background check.

During questioning by the commission, Wise repeatedly said security would be a high priority. He said because the space he is renting used to house a bank, it already has a 7-foot-by-9-foot vault, which now is usable again. Wise also said he plans to install five high-resolution security cameras on the site and even offered to have a live view of the security cameras available on a Web site.

Commission members said that likely would violate medical privacy laws and instead added a requirement that the recordings be available to law enforcement only in the case of a crime.

Scott Wedel, co-owner of a building across the street, said he had no problems with the dispensary opening and neither did his tenants.

Wendy Villa was the only speaker to oppose the dispensary. She said the location is near two bus stops and that children might become curious about marijuana. She said that although there will be extra security and a safe during business hours, the safe would be open during the day and “it would be the risk” to the town’s sole police officer.

Wise said Villa’s comments about the children almost made him cry and agreed with Villa that it would be a bad influence, but he said that children see people smoking cigarettes every day.

Commissioner Jackie Brown said she had researched medical marijuana laws leading up to Wednesday’s meeting. She said Oak Creek should consider Centennial, which tried to ban all dispensaries in the town. On Dec. 31, a judge ruled that the city could not close shops that were operating within state law. The city also is facing several lawsuits from the action, she said.

Commissioner Chuck Wise­cup, the only planning commissioner who also sits on the Oak Creek Town Board, voted without comment against the recommendation to approve the land use change. After the meeting, he said that as chief of the Oak Creek Fire Protection District, he sees the effects of drugs every day and considers marijuana as harmful as or more harmful than alcohol.

The request for land use change will go before the Town Board at its next meeting, scheduled for 7 p.m. Jan. 28. The Town Board then can approve or reject the recommendation or add or reject requirements.

Comments

Chuck Wisecup 4 years, 8 months ago

My statement was that I see the effects of drugs and alcohol nearly every day in my job and I have a varying opinions on which is more harmful. Chuck Wisecup

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 8 months ago

My comment was that the tenants I had talked about this, including ones with young kids, did not have problems with it. I did not discuss it with every tenant. In particular, I did not discuss it with anyone on the Town Board.

0

flower 4 years, 8 months ago

I am not against the dispensary, however I do not think that "MaryJane" in gigantic letters is necessary.

0

blue_spruce 4 years, 8 months ago

"...considers marijuana as harmful as or more harmful than alcohol..."

nice mis-quote. they made you look like a bafoon!!

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

"Commission members said that likely would violate medical privacy laws and instead added a requirement that the recordings be available to law enforcement only in the case of a crime."

...only in the case of a crime. A logical circumstance for reviewing security footage. I'm impressed.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 8 months ago

I truly do not understand Chuck Wisecup's no vote.

Jackie Brown presented pretty clear research that a Colorado judge said that Colorado law said that a town cannot prohibit dispensaries because mmj is legal under Colorado law. No one contradicted her research.

Chuck Wisecup's explanation suggests that he voted no solely because it is mj. Thus, it appears that he thinks the town should violate Colorado law. I think the article failed to get the critical follow up question which is "How do you reconcile your no vote with your understanding of Colorado law?".

0

littleacres 4 years, 8 months ago

I agree with Wendy. We teach our kids to " Say No To Drugs" and yet you want to put in a dispensary right in the middle of town, on the corner no less!!

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

Oh, and heaven forbid that a child become curious about what marijuana is!!! Wouldn't want to make a parent talk to their kid about drugs huh? I guess you think kids should be ignorant to things that could potentially harm them?

0

littleacres 4 years, 8 months ago

No, my kids have been talked to and know what marijuana is. Is this supposed to be the "OK" drug now? Is this what we tel our kids??

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

No one is saying that you're supposed to be promoting the wonders of cannabis to your children. However, having been raised in an EXTREMELY sheltered environment, I know the dangers of over-simplifying things for kids. When it's left at, "just say no," too many blanks are left unfilled and curiosity begins to set in. I would argue more for better education about cannabis and it's effects on people. As for cannabis being the "OK" drug now, history documents that cannabis was "OK" for thousands of years before Harry Anslinger deemed it "Not OK" in the 1930's. Numerous cultures have used cannabis for a variety of uses including medicine, food and ropes. I would also argue for more concern being shown for things that are truly lethal. There is not one, single piece of documentation in existence that provides evidence that an overdose on marijuana is possible. It just can't happen. However, the corner liquor store is chock-full of legal poison that can kill you fairly easily. The bottom line is that many industries fear the repeal of the prohibition of marijuana. They're scared to lose their profits and their jobs. Understandable, but let's get real about it. http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5559/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=60171&t=

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

And how many children that are told to say no to drugs are also on some suped up chemical concoction from a pharmaceutical company?

0

ckg 4 years, 8 months ago

Just what we need is more people having an excuse to walk around in the ozone..

0

freerider 4 years, 8 months ago

littleacres....marijuana isn't a drug and shoudn't be referred to as a drug..it's a plant...drugs are made by humans...company's like Eli Lilly , Merck , Glackso Kline , these are drugs and legal pharmaceudicals killed over 150 thousand people last year , drugs are prescribed by doctors...and they can kill you dead , as in dead , gone forever ....deaths from marijuana last year = 0 as in none , as in never ever in the history of the planet , in fact the last 5 surgeon generals of the U.S.A. have all said that marijuana isn't dangerous and you can't O.D. on it...so why does the Government continue to keep it illegal . answer = $$ and lots and lots of money . Billions in fact ...#1 cash crop on the planet ....because of demand...it's not illegal because it's dangerous , read the marijuana tax act of 1937 and you will see that it was made illegal to protect corporate profits.

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

Dear Mr. Wisecup,

It is not a suprise that you have voted the way you did. If you would please take the time as a self appointed know it all of the town of Oak Creek and look up what Nathan Aslinger lied to congress in 1937 to have Marijuana classed as a class 1 drug, would you have still voted no??? Don't rely on what you think you know the cause Chuck, you were lied to!!! LOOK IT UP!!

OH YEA, THE MUCK IS BACK!

If ANYONE who is agianst Marijuana in any form YOU are as follows:

Racisist Fear causing monger Like to Protection of Corporate Profits Belives in Yellow Journalism and propaganda Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or is a Corrupt politician Personal Career Advancement and Greed

These are the actual reasons marijuana is illegal.

Many people assume that marijuana was made illegal through some kind of process involving scientific, medical, and government hearings; that it was to protect the citizens from what was determined to be a dangerous drug.

The actual story shows a much different picture. Those who voted on the legal fate of this plant never had the facts, but were dependent on information supplied by those who had a specific agenda to deceive lawmakers. You’ll see below that the very first federal vote to prohibit marijuana was based entirely on a documented lie on the floor of the Senate.

These are the actual reasons marijuana is illegal.

So you can get on your high horse and make yourself look stupid or Goggle it!! Oh yea and for those who think i oppose cops still? Lance is a awsome police officer and i hope he stays for a long time! And my friends in RCSO!! rock on!!!

So Chuck? which one are you??? #5???

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

Well hell's bells! Welcome to the party Muck. Good to have ya. Glad to see I'm not the only one that's proficient in cannabis history.

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

SO! HERE IS THE BIG STORY!!!

"...considers marijuana as harmful as or more harmful than alcohol..." -- Mr. Wisecup

AMA Calls for Review of Medical Marijuana’s Legal Status New Policy Marks Historic Shift From Prior Stance HOUSTON - November 10 2009 - In a move considered historic by supporters of medical marijuana, the American Medical Association's House of Delegates today adopted a new policy position calling for the review of marijuana's status as a Schedule I drug in the federal Controlled Substances Act. The old language in Policy H-95.952 had previously recommended that "marijuana be retained in Schedule I," which groups marijuana with drugs such as heroin, LSD and PCP that are deemed to have no accepted medical uses and to be unsafe for use even under medical supervision.

The revised policy, adopted today, states, "Our AMA urges that marijuana's status as a federal Schedule I controlled substance be reviewed with the goal of facilitating the conduct of clinical research and development of cannabinoid-based medicines, and alternate delivery methods." It goes on to explain that this position should not be construed as an endorsement of state medical marijuana programs.

"This shift, coming from what has historically been America's most cautious and conservative major medical organization, is historic," said Aaron Houston, director of government relations for the Marijuana Policy Project, who attended the AMA meeting. "Marijuana's Schedule I status is not just scientifically untenable, given the wealth of recent data showing it to be both safe and effective for chronic pain and other conditions, but it's been a major obstacle to needed research."

Drugs listed in Schedule II, for which medical use is permitted with strict controls, include cocaine, morphine and methamphetamine. A pill containing THC, the component responsible for marijuana's "high," is classed in Schedule III, whose looser requirements allow phoned-in prescriptions.

So what is your varied opinion now Mr. Wisecup??

0

JusWondering 4 years, 8 months ago

All I can say is wow. Now all I am waiting for is Act II. (Enter JLM from stage left). Then the full cast of characters will be here spouting off their opinions of how healthy and beneficial the plant, its by products and everything else with lots of links that I will not look up. (Waiting for JLM, etc)

Personally, if one of my staff members were at work and were stoned I would fire on the spot... no excustes. If you want to come to work with an ability impairing substance you are fired period. If you need to be on pain meds stay home.

I, for one, applaud Mr. Wisecup for his stand on his convictions regardless of whether his reason is right or whether I agree with him personally; it is a trait not seen too much anymore. I believe the vote was on land usage not on whether a current appropriately zoned facility could be used as a dispensary... not making MJ dispensaries illegal within a town.

I am waiting on some regulations... like with liquor stores (notification and public comment when within 1000 yards of a school, etc), like pharmacies, like other businesses. Let the public decide what they want in their town and where. Before anyone gets on the "its my property" bandwagon... there are reasons for the best interest of a community that zoning laws are in place. Allow the town to set them for the best interest of that community and not a very vocal minority. If you want MJ legal take on the responsibilities associated with any legal business. Sales tax, use tax, zoning regulations, etc.

Your turn guys... start attacking my character, my intelligence and anything else you can in the name of your freedom without knowing one thing about my background, postions, personal beliefs or otherwise just because my approach is to request you be responsible.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

No...you're ok justwondering. We're not aggressive unless provoked. Responsibility is all that anyone can ask of someone else. The fact will remain that there will always be people that abuse things.

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

Safety, equality, respect, dignity, and let us have the freedom to do what we want for any reason with the assumption we have common sense laws without out being lied to. Tax it.....absolutely!!! Responsible........ thats what we are telling you! Lets all act responsible in the reallity of this subject! WHY IS IT ILLEGAL!! Chuck is allowed his stance. BUT, so are we!! And as voters...... we can't wait for election time!!

Without total legalization we have a widespread governmental hypocracy! Even with mmj!! So Oak Creeks rules are different from Steamboat rules are different from Denver city are different from Centenial and from total legalization in Breckenridge and going on the ballot in April for total legalization in Nederland. Come on why would do this?? DONT TELL US WHAT TO DO WITH OUR BODIES!!

0

JLM 4 years, 8 months ago

The AMA's position of suggesting that marijuana be "reviewed" for possible reclassification as something other than a Schedule I drug is not the same as an endorsement of the "medical" efficacy of marijuana. It is frankly much ado about nothing.

It simply suggests that there may be enough scientific curiosity that it is time to subject marijuana to testing that is up to the standards of the drug approval regimen of the American pharmaceutical industry --- a pretty damn excruciating process indeed.

Another way to look at it is that the medical community is calling the bluff of marijuana proponents to force them to distill their clouds of confusion to real, hard, peer reviewed, double blind tested scientific data.

The first "A" in AMA stands for "American". There is a ton of perfectly inconclusive research which has been undertaken in foreign countries which all ultimately concludes that marijuana as a drug is not equal to or better than the top tier of drugs currently developed and approved for treatment and use in America. The AMA knows this and does not really expect the results in America to be anything different.

Said another way --- there is no evidence that marijuana is as good as the drugs which currently exist today. And worse, it is not even within the top third of drugs measured by standards of efficacy. It is not an effective drug.

The "M" in AMA stands for "medical" and thus the consideration of reviewing the use of marijuana is for "medical" purposes.

The AMA does not endorse the current political designation of "medical marijuana". The law in Colorado and elsewhere was enacted as a result of a political process not as a result of peer reviewed medical blind research testing its efficacy for actual treatment regimens.

The mythical suggestion that medical marijuana is a serious medical issue is undermined by looking at its very sponsorship. It is clear that medical marijuana is simply the first shot fired in the legalization of marijuana. An eminently bad idea for a number of reasons.

No serious doctor is going to suggest that medical marijuana is a legitimate medicine when its very delivery technique is the inhalation of combustion by products. Smoking cigarettes bad but smoking marijuana cigarettes good?

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

JLM!!!-

Glad you could make it to the debate, sport. First of all, that's exactly what the AMA is saying. Being a schedule 1 narcotic means that the substance has ZERO medicinal benefits. So, to have it re-classed as anything other than a schedule 1 narcotic would mean that, even if just to the smallest degree, the AMA sees that marijuana has medicinal properties. Secondly, it's amusing that you pretend to know how effective marijuana is as a drug. And thirdly, you're too hell-bent on vilifying marijuana as the destroyer of nations and children to concede or accept ANY points from ANYONE that has a differing opinion than yours. You're so stuck in your ignorance that you wouldn't know the truth if it came up and blew a hit in your face. It must be nice to be so flawlessly right 100% of the time, huh?

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

And if marijuana is so UN-affective as a medicine, why is there documentation that points out countless cultures as having used cannabis for medicine for thousands of years? Has "marijuana" always been evil and useless or did it just start in 1937?

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 8 months ago

JLM, mmj, You both have it wrong.

The AMA was suggesting that scientific evidence suggested mj might be too mild of a substance to be classified as a Schedule I narcotic. In particular, unlike the rest of the list, mj has a milder physical effect and does not result in a clear physical addiction with withdraw symptoms.

There are Schedule I narcotics used by doctors in valid medical circumstances. They can also easily be abused so special care is to be taken.

Schedule I is concerned more about addiction and ease of abuse than medical value.

The AMA was making more of a scientific argument that the data on mj does not appear to meet the definitions of a Schedule I narcotic.

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

The superb efforts of our friends at Law Enforcement Against Prohibition notwithstanding, police generally oppose efforts to reform marijuana laws. Initiatives in Colorado and Nevada were vehemently contested by law-enforcement interests, who claimed that reform would invite crime and undermine community safety. Sheriff Fred Wagner of Park County, CO even tried to link marijuana reform efforts to a recent school shooting.

Intuitively, there's nothing surprising about police lobbying to retain the gratuitous powers granted them by the war on drugs. Yet, as marijuana arrests reach a new record high each year, it becomes increasingly difficult to point towards any societal benefit to these costly attacks on otherwise law-abiding Americans. Because I believe most officers really do want to protect the communities they serve and make a difference, I have often pondered their willful enforcement of, and political support for, a war that endangers communities while failing to a make a difference.

stopthewar.org

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

May 2009- Marijuana should never have been made illegal in the first place.

Ask why it was made illegal - by many state governments and eventually the federal government during the first four decades of the past century - and the answer cannot be found in expert medical testimony or any objective assessment of the costs and benefits of prohibiting marijuana.

In many western states, it was simply a matter of prejudice against Mexican-Americans and Mexican migrants, with whom marijuana was popularly associated. Rancid tabloid journalism also played a role, as did Reefer Madness-like propaganda and legislative testimony.

We know the result. Marijuana became dramatically more popular after its prohibition than it ever was before. Over one hundred million Americans have tried it, including the three most recent occupants of the Oval Office. Billions, perhaps tens of billions, of dollars are spent and earned illegally on it each year. Marijuana is routinely described as the first, second or third most lucrative agricultural crop in many states. And taxpayers are obliged to spend billions of their own dollars each year in support of futile efforts to enforce an unenforceable prohibition.

Clearly marijuana prohibition is unique among American criminal laws. No other law is both enforced so widely and harshly yet deemed unnecessary by such a substantial portion of the populace. Police made roughly 800,000 arrests last year for possession of marijuana, typically tiny amounts. That’s almost the same number as are arrested each year for cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, Ecstasy and all other drugs. Meanwhile recent polls show that over 40% of Americans think that marijuana should be taxed and regulated like alcohol; and it’s closer to 50% among Democrats, independents, adults under age 30, and voters in a growing number of western states.

This is an issue on which politicians can be counted on to follow, not lead, public opinion. But some at last are saying publicly that legalizing marijuana needs to be on the table. For California Governor Schwarzenegger, it’s the prospect of new tax revenue and costs savings when the state’s budget deficit has never been larger. For Arizona Attorney General Terry Goodard and the City Council of El Paso, Texas, it’s the realization that legalizing marijuana would help reduce the violence and profits of Mexican drug gangs.

cbsnews.com

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

“I now have absolute proof that smoking even one marijuana cigarette is equal in brain damage to being on Bikini Island during an H-bomb blast” ~Ronald Reagan

“When I was in England, I experimented with marijuana a time or two, and I didn’t like it, and I didn’t inhale, and I never tried again.” ~Bill Clinton

“When I was a kid I inhaled frequently. That was the point.” ~Barack Obama

“Make the most of the Indian Hemp Seed and sow it everywhere.” ~George Washington

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

EXHIBIT A: Scare tactic from the federal g-guys

The marijuana coming across the southwest border, traditionally a source of low-potency drugs, has increased in strength from a median potency of 4.8 percent in 2003 to 7.3 percent in 2007.

As a consequence, inexperienced or young marijuana users may be more prone to overdose, federal officials say. And users hoping to achieve a state of euphoria may experience dysphoria, a state of anxiety and irritability, and perhaps other ill effects.

Overdose??? ill effects?? Chuck, how many overdose, or medical ill effects of MARIJUANA incidents have you seen in you illustrious, time consumed day of as protector of the Oak Creek Fire District?? Just wondering cause you stated your opinion is varied. Then, tell me about the alcohol related overdosed and ill effects you seen in this awsome town of Oak Creek?? Please tell us!! You have first hand knowlege so please, am i missing something here that i don't see??

0

JLM 4 years, 8 months ago

@ mmj ---

Your characterization of the AMA's response is simply wrong. The plain reading of their words is that they support the "consideration" of a policy change which would allow marijuana to be researched in a manner consistent with how drugs are developed within the American pharmaceutical research methodology.

The AMA is specifically NOT saying that they believe that marijuana actually has any medical benefits. They are just willing to consider the prospect of conducting some research and having the research results determine the subsequent direction that same research takes.

There is a ton of research conducted on marijuana in foreign jurisdictions beyond the reach of the AMA and the FDA. Some of this research is quite good. None of this research has resulted in the identification of any medical benefit of marijuana which is as good as existing drugs developed to treat the same diseases. Marijuana is simply not a very good drug. Sure, it's fun and sure folks like to get high but as far as a medicine, it is not very good.

Take as an example glaucoma. Marijuana has been shown to be effective in relieving IOP (intraocular pressure or ocular hypertension) but not as effective as any number of more effective and currently approved drugs. The big problem with marijuana on IOP is its short duration of benefit. With a period of effectiveness as short as 3 hours, one cannot use it to relieve IOP overnight unless you are prepared to get up every 3 hours and smoke it up.

There is not a single illness or condition for which marijuana has been shown to be the "most effective" drug or even among the most effective drugs for treatment even among the most self serving literature.

Even when marijuana is shown to be "promising", the delivery system --- inhalation of combustion byproducts --- is so horrific as to be totally beyond the pale. Cigarette smoking bad but marijuana smoking good? Not bloody likely!

0

JLM 4 years, 8 months ago

@ muck ---

"Marijuana is routinely described as the first, second or third most lucrative agricultural crop in many states."

What planet are you talking about?

In your zeal to argue your case which you do in a most entertaining though zany way, please do not feel compelled to limit your rant to anything that even remotely resembles the truth. It is more fun that way.

But just to humor those of us for whom there is only a single reality at work in our lives, WTF are you talking about with the above comment?

0

JLM 4 years, 8 months ago

It seems a bit short sighted and mean spirited to entangle something as fun and juicy as marijuana with even a jigger of truth, but what the heck ---

"However, the panel's report also called the patchwork of state-based medical-marijuana programs "woefully inadequate in establishing even rudimentary safeguards that normally would be applied to the appropriate clinical use of psychoactive substances," and the AMA resolution stated that the new policy "should not be viewed as an endorsement of state-based medical cannabis programs, the legalization of marijuana, or that scientific evidence on the therapeutic use of cannabis meets the current standards for a prescription drug product."

But hey your version of the truth may serve your needs better. Go for it!

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

Hey muck, Take it from someone that's worn some pretty deep ruts in the ol' marijuana warpath, most of these goons will never recognize the truth. Your passion for the subject is shared by more people than you'll know. However, if you have plans of convincing the stubbornly ignorant of the error of their thinking....well, good luck. You can do some catch-up reading if you haven't been following all of the other canna-comment boards on this site but they're getting to be pretty lengthy. Don't take any of this the wrong way. I'm right there with ya man. All I'm saying is get ready for your verbal jousting to get very tiresome. Comment leavers like aich, JLM, duke and a couple others, are hopelessly stuck in their brainwashed ways. The only thing that any of them can seem to bring to a debate is regurgitated propaganda. It gets pretty funny sometimes but it's mostly just frustrating. Relentless ignorance is a force to be reckoned with. It's good that you could join the fight.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

JLM- And so the answer to my question would be...marijuana became evil(actually came to be) in 1937, right? That's when civilization finally figured out that cannabis had been tricking them for all those thousands of years, right?

0

Chuck Wisecup 4 years, 8 months ago

Muck, What you seem to be missing is my first post where I corrected the misquote by the reporter. To clarify my stance, in my 27 years as an emergency service provider I have probably seen equal consequences from, Illicit drugs including marijuana, over the counter meds, perscription drugs, and alcohol. From the pour sap I pulled out of his smoke filled apartment because he got high and fell asleep with a lit cigerette, to the intoxicated driver, who went headon killing or injuring 3 members of an innocent family, to the teenager who started off smoking pot and then went on to bigger and better things finally suffering renal failure abusing his relatives methadone. Legal or illegal, medicinal or not there will still be that large percentage that abuse the substance, and effect other innocent citizens. As to your previous comment, I am not "self appointed", I was appointed to my current position on the planning commission by my peers, I was elected by a majority of the citizens to one of two four year terms on the town board, (Yes you have me for 2 more years) I have committed over half of my life to serving my community and apparently a majority of the citizens value my experince and knowledge (and protection) of the community. What have you done for it latley? By the way just in case you think you know me so well, bet You didn't know I smoked dope in high school, grew up with an alcoholic father, and was headed well in the same direction a number of years ago when I woke up and realized where I was headed, and decided to change direction and do something worthwhile with my life, such as serving my community and my fellow man, such as running into burning buildings and "inhaleing" the life threatning toxins produced in a structure fire to save the life of someone such as those mentioned above. And you know someday I may be glad there is a dispensary right down the street so I can go get my MMJ to help with the cancer I contracted inhaling those toxins saving someone elses life. (Note to Scott Wedell) My vote is my vote and the vote of the people who I represent, and just because it is legal does not mean I have to vote for it anymore than alcahol is legal and I have to vote yes for every new or renewal of a liquor license so there is an establisment on every corner. This will be my only post to Mr. MUCK unless he has the intestinal fortitude to reveal himself as anything other than an anonymous guttersnipe and debate me face to face on this or any other issue he seems to take exception to my views on. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

0

JLM 4 years, 8 months ago

@ mmj ---

Marijuana was an insigificant weed before and after 1937. While I certainly understand the history of marijuana, I don't particularly care about its history. It is a plague on our times --- our current times --- and what happened in 1937 or thereafter is of no interest to me.

If you are troubled that marijuana was improperly made illegal, then deal with it. Nonetheless, the fact today is that marijuana is illegal.

How it came to be illegal --- who cares?

The original Coca Cola used to contain cocaine but that fact is of no particular significance today to either legal Coca Cola or to illegal cocaine.

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

jlm-

which of the following are you?

Racisist Fear causing monger Like to Protection of Corporate Profits Belives in Yellow Journalism and propaganda Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or is a Corrupt politician Personal Career Advancement and Greed

My bet is that you are one of our fine police officers! Enjoy that job? Hows it feel that your citizens voted to throw law enforcement under the bus with mmj? Yep, the winds of change they is a blowing!! And the ONES WHO WANT TO SAVE US FROM OURSELFS, BECAUSE THAT GOT NOTHING BETTER TO DO THEN TO RANT HOW BAD IT IS can't blow back hard enough!!!!

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

JLM-

Not caring about why things are the way they are, or how certain things came to be, is exactly what makes you hopelessly ignorant.

0

nmypinon 4 years, 8 months ago

Chuck & Muck, Do you guys talk to each other over the backyard fence like most neighbors & get along, or did you even know that you are living on the same street?

0

dave fisher 4 years, 8 months ago

right on, Chuck... tell it like it is.

whether you and i agree of disagree on the issue being discussed here is irrelevant. what i would like to say is that i have a lot of respect for a person who stands by their beliefs and constituents- and votes accordingly. that is a rare trait in any elected official these days, no matter what "side" the are on. i also have a lot of respect for someone who speaks (or writes) their truth and then has the b@lls to put their name on it as well.

Chuck for Mayor 2010

0

dave fisher 4 years, 8 months ago

note to self: clean up editing a bit.

should read "or", not "of".

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

"More politically correct, but nevertheless wildly prejudicial and unsubstantiated opinions are still frequently tossed out into the news media by government officials. This kind of rhetoric weaves together the use of an ancient herb, violence, inappropriate sexuality, and puts fear into the American psyche. Understanding these kinds of events (of which this is only a small accounting) makes the present day struggle over the use of medicinal marijuana understandable. This violent prejudice against an herb has only one small chink in its armor, namely that it is not the truth. Nevertheless, this prejudice runs deep in the American psyche and may require "surgery" to remove it. That "surgery" may be "medical marijuana." To the chagrin of those who are trapped in prejudicial fear regarding marijuana, the cannabis plant produces some of the most effective medicines in nature, a related group of compounds called "cannabinoids." They fit like a key in a lock into receptors located on the cell membrane of every cell in the human body. These receptors are termed, naturally, "cannabinoid receptors." THC (tetra-hydro-cannabinol) is one of these compounds, but like vitamin E which comes as eight different related molecular structures, the cannabinoids are most effective when consumed together. This makes the pharmaceutical preparation of THC (called "Marinol") a relatively weak sister compared to the cannabinoid complex of compounds. The cannabinoids have been used as an herbal medicine for thousands of years and, like most medicinal herbs, represents serious competition to pharmaceutical industry profits; but that is a conversation for another time and place."---Dr. Ron Kennedy http://www.medical-library.net/medical-marijuana.html

0

max huppert 4 years, 8 months ago

well I know its time for me to make the move to start my business, If you can have dope on the corner then I should be able to open a strip club. Bet I will make more tax money for the town, and will def have better employees to stare at. I seconf Chuck for Mayor, I was going to run, but strip club seems more fun.

0

upstream 4 years, 8 months ago

Tell it like it is chuck. whether you believe in mmj or not was not the issue before the planning commission- even this old stoner gets that. All new businesses are evaluated on their relative merits and potential impact on the community. I, for one, think such a business warrants the full attention of our planning commission and they are expected to vote for their constituents- exactly what chuck did here. Geez muck- you are a serious buzz kill.

0

JLM 4 years, 8 months ago

@ muck ---

WTF is a "racicist"? LOL

Thanks for the comic relief, Einstein.

0

upstream 4 years, 8 months ago

I suppose I should add that I trust the other members of the planning commission also voted the voice of their constituents -aah, diversity of beliefs. Irie.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 8 months ago

Upstream, Except that when evaluating a land use change (and liquor license renewal) the planning commissioners and town board members are acting in a quasi judicial role and are supposed to judge whether the application satisfies the law as currently written. They are supposed to put aside their personal political opinions and make legal judgments based upon the facts that are presented.

Or at least that is what I've heard the town attorney instruct new board members upon taking office.

I think that 3 of the planning board gave the impression that they evaluated the application purely on the question whether the law said it should be approved or denied.

Thus, I trust that 3 of the planning board did not vote their personal opinion or the voice of their constituents, but followed the law and evaluated the application according to the applicable laws.

0

trump_suit 4 years, 8 months ago

Awwww, how cute JLM I like the way you continue to spew your opinions like they are facts. You so elequently discuss glaucoma and the effects of various drugs on IOP, but you have basically missed the point of the entire discussion. I will summarize for you.

  1. MJ does have a positive effect of glaucoma patients.
  2. Big Pharma has been unable to duplicate that effect with an MJ extract.
  3. MJ is loaded with hundreds of cannabanoids that create the effect in conjuction with one another, Big Pharma does not understand how or why.
  4. Due to Gov't drug laws, medical research into MJ has been discouraged or suppressed.

I completely agree with your assesments that there are other drugs that are more effective, and that smoking MJ for glaucoma is simply not the best treatment. What you seem completely unable to comprehend here is this:

There are no effective medicines based on MJ because the Government has shutdown research into it for the last 60 years or so. Had big pharma been freely able to aquire and research MJ there would probably be several drugs on the market right now. That MJ has medicinal effects can no longer be denied. More research is clearly needed. The Governments stance on this type of research needs to change quickly and 14 States have recognized that there is indeed a medical use for MJ.

For Mr. Kibler. My father-in-law grows poppies, and I will bet that most of you have eaten a poppy seed muffin once or twice. It is not until the plant resins are processed that the poppy plant becomes dangerous. The Inca's have chewed on Coco leaves for 1000's of years without the damaging effects of Cocaine. Only when chemically altered do the substances become truly dangerous. In both cases, our drug laws have failed to stop individuals from obtaining and using these substances. Instead of continueing with a system of crime and punishment, we should be spending our resources on treatment and education.

0

Jeff_Kibler 4 years, 8 months ago

Mr Trump: I have also grown poppies. Mail order poppy seed packets have a very good chance of containing a few seeds of the species papaver somniferum (opium poppy).

What is curious is that you can legally purchase opium poppy seeds, with the caveat that you agree no to plant them. http://www.ethnobotanicals.com/opium-poppy-seeds.html

Doesn't birdseed commonly contain hemp seeds?

I agree with you regarding the failed drug war. Note the 3rd to last paragraph regarding Bolivians chewing coca. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-waves-white-flag-in-disastrous-war-on-drugs-1870218.html

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

see! my bad! Chuck its your POLITICS that i don't like!! NOT Chuck as a person, fireman,husband or father!!!

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

And finally......

Gary Walls(RCSO) said its ok if they abide by ammendment 20!

J.D. Haynes (Steamboat Police) Said he had no problem with it as long as they abide by the law!

Even Garriet Wiggins (acte or Dea Or whatever) said as long as they stick withing the laws.

Barack Obama ( That Pres guy) Said for the FEDERAL government to lay off mmj patients!!

Chuck Wisecup (Oak Creek Everything) SAID NO!!!

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

Arcived June 7th 2006 Steamboat Pilot

Oak Creek — It's no secret that town of Oak Creek officials support medicinal marijuana.

The Oak Creek Town Board passed a resolution supporting the legalization of medicinal marijuana in August. Tonight, the Town Board will consider a resolution urging U.S. Rep. John Salazar, D-Manassa, to support an amendment preventing the federal government from interfering with state medicinal marijuana laws.

0

JLM 4 years, 8 months ago

@ trump ---

The last time we exchanged views about glaucoma and mmj, I think you were standing for the proposition that it was the "only" drug which had a favorable impact on glaucoma. Or do I have that wrong?

You are simply wrong about the implication that "big pharma" has not researched marijuana and its potential impact on glaucoma. The hurdles which you describe pertinent to marijuana research are only in AMERICA --- "the" United States.

The big hurdle is legally obtaining sufficient sample marijuana with which to conduct the research. Even that hurdle is not insurmountable as the FDA will allow marijuana to be used for research as long as you identify the source and the grower. Ahhh, therein lies the problem in the US, no?

BTW, one of the supposed benefits of "medical" marijuana was the suggestion that any "excess" would be available for medical research as it would otherwise have been legally grown and nobody would have any problem with identifying the grower.

Big pharma can research marijuana to its heart's content in other countries in which the hurdles to obtaining marijuana are non-existent.

Do you really think that BIG PHARMA would be dissuaded by the difficulties of obtaining marijuana if they thought it to be a worthy and potentially profitable drug? Big pharma would cut out their own Mothers' livers to conduct experimentation.

You can't swing a cat on the island of Jamaica and not hit a 100 acres of marijuana. Hell, RJR used to grow thousands of acres of marijuana on Jamaica for years and plow it under awaiting legalization in the US.

The bottom line is that marijuana is NOT an effective drug for the treatment of IOP (intraocular pressure or ocular hypertension) because it doesn't work as well as other legal alternatives, you have to smoke it every 3 hours to get any continuous or lasting benefit and its delivery system --- introducing combustion byproducts into your sensitive lungs --- is grossly unhealthy.

Other than those little problems, marijuana is a freakin' wonder drug.

Admit it, marijuana is just a vehicle to get high and all the nonsense about its medical properties is just so much........................................smoke. Like a bunch of dopey politicans would know something about medicine. They just want to get high themselves.

If marijuana were a wonder drug, I and lots of other folks would be storming the barriers for its legalization as a drug. Big Pharma would be leading the charge.

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

jlm

Yes racist! If you would take the time and look up the following info provided to congress in 1937 from ANSLINGER! This is your buddy! He Is the one who gave you your police officers job. LOOK IT UP!!

THE FOLLOWING ARE DIRECT QUOTES!! NOT MY WORDS! PLEASE STEAMBOAT PILOT THIS IS PUBLIC INFO!! DON'T TAKE THIS OFF.

DIRECT FROM ASLINGER:

Here are some quotes that have been widely attributed to Anslinger and his Gore Files:

“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”

“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”

“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”

PLEASE ALLOW THIS FACTUALL INFORMATION!! 1937 BILL TO MAKE MARIJUANA ILLEGAL .

Now i ask you again JLM?

which of the following are you? Because if your opposition?

Racisist Fear causing monger Like to Protection of Corporate Profits Belives in Yellow Journalism and propaganda Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or is a Corrupt politician Personal Career Advancement and Greed

or maybe you want to tell me what to do with our bodies?????

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

Yellow Journalism

Harry Anslinger got some additional help from William Randolf Hearst, owner of a huge chain of newspapers. Hearst had lots of reasons to help. First, he hated Mexicans. Second, he had invested heavily in the timber industry to support his newspaper chain and didn’t want to see the development of hemp paper in competition. Third, he had lost 800,000 acres of timberland to Pancho Villa, so he hated Mexicans. Fourth, telling lurid lies about Mexicans (and the devil marijuana weed causing violence) sold newspapers, making him rich.

Some samples from the San Francisco Examiner:

“Marihuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days — Hashish goads users to bloodlust.”

“By the tons it is coming into this country — the deadly, dreadful poison that racks and tears not only the body, but the very heart and soul of every human being who once becomes a slave to it in any of its cruel and devastating forms…. Marihuana is a short cut to the insane asylum. Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters. Hasheesh makes a murderer who kills for the love of killing out of the mildest mannered man who ever laughed at the idea that any habit could ever get him….” And other nationwide columns…

“Users of marijuana become STIMULATED as they inhale the drug and are LIKELY TO DO ANYTHING. Most crimes of violence in this section, especially in country districts are laid to users of that drug.”

“Was it marijuana, the new Mexican drug, that nerved the murderous arm of Clara Phillips when she hammered out her victim’s life in Los Angeles?… THREE-FOURTHS OF THE CRIMES of violence in this country today are committed by DOPE SLAVES — that is a matter of cold record.” Hearst and Anslinger were then supported by Dupont chemical company and various pharmaceutical companies in the effort to outlaw cannabis. Dupont had patented nylon, and wanted hemp removed as competition. The pharmaceutical companies could neither identify nor standardize cannabis dosages, and besides, with cannabis, folks could grow their own medicine and not have to purchase it from large companies.

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. After two years of secret planning, Anslinger brought his plan to Congress — complete with a scrapbook full of sensational Hearst editorials, stories of ax murderers who had supposedly smoked marijuana, and racial slurs. It was a remarkably short set of hearings. The one fly in Anslinger’s ointment was the appearance by Dr. William C. Woodward, Legislative Council of the American Medical Association.

Woodward started by slamming Harry Anslinger and the Bureau of Narcotics for distorting earlier AMA statements that had nothing to do with marijuana and making them appear to be AMA endorsement for Anslinger’s view.

He also reproached the legislature and the Bureau for using the term marijuana in the legislation and not publicizing it as a bill about cannabis or hemp. At this point, marijuana (or marihuana) was a sensationalist word used to refer to Mexicans smoking a drug and had not been connected in most people’s minds to the existing cannabis/hemp plant. Thus, many who had legitimate reasons to oppose the bill weren’t even aware of it.

Woodward went on to state that the AMA was opposed to the legislation and further questioned the approach of the hearings, coming close to outright accusation of misconduct by Anslinger and the committee:

“That there is a certain amount of narcotic addiction of an objectionable character no one will deny. The newspapers have called attention to it so prominently that there must be some grounds for [their] statements [even Woodward was partially taken in by Hearst's propaganda]. It has surprised me, however, that the facts on which these statements have been based have not been brought before this committee by competent primary evidence. We are referred to newspaper publications concerning the prevalence of marihuana addiction. We are told that the use of marihuana causes crime.

But yet no one has been produced from the Bureau of Prisons to show the number of prisoners who have been found addicted to the marihuana habit. An informed inquiry shows that the Bureau of Prisons has no evidence on that point.

You have been told that school children are great users of marihuana cigarettes. No one has been summoned from the Children’s Bureau to show the nature and extent of the habit, among children.

Inquiry of the Children’s Bureau shows that they have had no occasion to investigate it and know nothing particularly of it.

Inquiry of the Office of Education— and they certainly should know something of the prevalence of the habit among the school children of the country, if there is a prevalent habit— indicates that they have had no occasion to investigate and know nothing of it.

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

Moreover, there is in the Treasury Department itself, the Public Health Service, with its Division of Mental Hygiene. The Division of Mental Hygiene was, in the first place, the Division of Narcotics. It was converted into the Division of Mental Hygiene, I think, about 1930. That particular Bureau has control at the present time of the narcotics farms that were created about 1929 or 1930 and came into operation a few years later. No one has been summoned from that Bureau to give evidence on that point.

Informal inquiry by me indicates that they have had no record of any marihuana of Cannabis addicts who have ever been committed to those farms.

The bureau of Public Health Service has also a division of pharmacology. If you desire evidence as to the pharmacology of Cannabis, that obviously is the place where you can get direct and primary evidence, rather than the indirect hearsay evidence.”

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

Committee members then proceeded to attack Dr. Woodward, questioning his motives in opposing the legislation. Even the Chairman joined in:

The Chairman: If you want to advise us on legislation, you ought to come here with some constructive proposals, rather than criticism, rather than trying to throw obstacles in the way of something that the Federal Government is trying to do. It has not only an unselfish motive in this, but they have a serious responsibility.

Dr. Woodward: We cannot understand yet, Mr. Chairman, why this bill should have been prepared in secret for 2 years without any intimation, even, to the profession, that it was being prepared. After some further bantering…

The Chairman: I would like to read a quotation from a recent editorial in the Washington Times:

The marihuana cigarette is one of the most insidious of all forms of dope, largely because of the failure of the public to understand its fatal qualities.

The Nation is almost defenseless against it, having no Federal laws to cope with it and virtually no organized campaign for combating it.

The result is tragic.

School children are the prey of peddlers who infest school neighborhoods.

High school boys and girls buy the destructive weed without knowledge of its capacity of harm, and conscienceless dealers sell it with impunity.

This is a national problem, and it must have national attention.

The fatal marihuana cigarette must be recognized as a deadly drug, and American children must be protected against it. That is a pretty severe indictment. They say it is a national question and that it requires effective legislation. Of course, in a general way, you have responded to all of these statements; but that indicates very clearly that it is an evil of such magnitude that it is recognized by the press of the country as such. And that was basically it. Yellow journalism won over medical science.

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

The committee passed the legislation on. And on the floor of the house, the entire discussion was:

Member from upstate New York: “Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?”

Speaker Rayburn: “I don’t know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it’s a narcotic of some kind.”

“Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?”

Member on the committee jumps up and says: “Their Doctor Wentworth[sic] came down here. They support this bill 100 percent.” And on the basis of that lie, on August 2, 1937, marijuana became illegal at the federal level.

The entire coverage in the New York Times: “President Roosevelt signed today a bill to curb traffic in the narcotic, marihuana, through heavy taxes on transactions.”

So jlm i know you don't want to link yourself to something and read the facts!!! But it looks like you have been linked to a BIG FAT LIE!!

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

as you all know i didn't write that cause of the "editing"! LOOK IT UP AND SEE WHO DID AND YOU WILL SEE THE FACTS!! JLM!

So i ask you a final time my fine badge wearing friend?

which one are you?

Racisist Fear causing monger Like to Protection of Corporate Profits Belives in Yellow Journalism and propaganda Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or is a Corrupt politician Personal Career Advancement and Greed

I would put my money on #6!!!!!!

0

JLM 4 years, 8 months ago

@ muck ---

Snooore! Would you please wake me up when you get to this century?

Boring! Sheesh!

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

<p>www.google.com WHY IS MARIJUANA ILLEGAL? SIMPLE, EASY, AND LOTS OF FUN TO!

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

So you (jlm) belive everything someone tells you?

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

so facts bore you?? Or do you want to tell me how you are going to save me from myself???

0

max huppert 4 years, 8 months ago

i should start making moon shine, just for medical use though.

0

JLM 4 years, 8 months ago

@ muck ---

Infantile prattle. Please grow up but enjoy your youth. Grammar school is so much fun!

Boring! Predictable and nonsensical rant. Rant on but brush your teeth before you go to bed, dear.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

JLM-

Are you just flustered because he hasn't come up with a nickname for you yet?

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

mmj22-

Hey did you hear this one?

2007 New England Journal of Medicine Position: Pro to the question "Should marijuana be a medical option?" Reasoning: "Federal authorities should rescind their prohibition of the medical use of marijuana for seriously ill patients and allow physicians to decide which patients to treat. The government should change marijuana's status from that of a Schedule I drug ... to that of a Schedule II drug ... and regulate it accordingly." "Federal Foolishness and Marijuana," by Jerome P. Kassirer, MD, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Jan. 30, 1997

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows ScienceDaily (Apr. 17, 2007) — The active ingredient in marijuana cuts tumor growth in common lung cancer in half and significantly reduces the ability of the cancer to spread, say researchers at Harvard University who tested the chemical in both lab and mouse studies

They say this is the first set of experiments to show that the compound, Delta-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), inhibits EGF-induced growth and migration in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expressing non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. Lung cancers that over-express EGFR are usually highly aggressive and resistant to chemotherapy.

THC that targets cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2 is similar in function to endocannabinoids, which are cannabinoids that are naturally produced in the body and activate these receptors. The researchers suggest that THC or other designer agents that activate these receptors might be used in a targeted fashion to treat lung cancer.

"The beauty of this study is that we are showing that a substance of abuse, if used prudently, may offer a new road to therapy against lung cancer," said Anju Preet, Ph.D., a researcher in the Division of Experimental Medicine.

Acting through cannabinoid receptors CB1 and CB2, endocannabinoids (as well as THC) are thought to play a role in variety of biological functions, including pain and anxiety control, and inflammation. Although a medical derivative of THC, known as Marinol, has been approved for use as an appetite stimulant for cancer patients, and a small number of U.S. states allow use of medical marijuana to treat the same side effect, few studies have shown that THC might have anti-tumor activity, Preet says. The only clinical trial testing THC as a treatment against cancer growth was a recently completed British pilot study in human glioblastoma.

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

In the present study, the researchers first demonstrated that two different lung cancer cell lines as well as patient lung tumor samples express CB1 and CB2, and that non-toxic doses of THC inhibited growth and spread in the cell lines. "When the cells are pretreated with THC, they have less EGFR stimulated invasion as measured by various in-vitro assays," Preet said.

Then, for three weeks, researchers injected standard doses of THC into mice that had been implanted with human lung cancer cells, and found that tumors were reduced in size and weight by about 50 percent in treated animals compared to a control group. There was also about a 60 percent reduction in cancer lesions on the lungs in these mice as well as a significant reduction in protein markers associated with cancer progression, Preet says.

Although the researchers do not know why THC inhibits tumor growth, they say the substance could be activating molecules that arrest the cell cycle. They speculate that THC may also interfere with angiogenesis and vascularization, which promotes cancer growth.

Preet says much work is needed to clarify the pathway by which THC functions, and cautions that some animal studies have shown that THC can stimulate some cancers. "THC offers some promise, but we have a long way to go before we know what its potential is," she said.

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

Question: Study: Smoking Marijuana Does Not Raise Lung Cancer Risk I heard that smoking marijuana will not cause lung cancer. Is this true? Does smoking marijuana increase my risk for lung cancer?

Answer: According to a recent study by the University of California Los Angeles, there is no increased lung cancer risk in smoking marijuana.

The study presented at the annual American Thoracic Society meeting this week in San Diego, studied the lives of those under 60, since that age group is most to have been exposed to the heaviest amounts of marijuana use.

The "baby boomer" group was comprised of 611 lung cancer patients, 601 head and neck cancer patients and 1040 people who did not have cancer. The study found no increased risk of lung and head and neck cancer. However, it did find a significant increased risk factor in those who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.

The study also suggests that marijuana contains more than 50% more of the chemicals related to lung cancer than cigarettes, its a chemical inside marijuana called THC that may prevent cancer from developing.

THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, may have the ability to kill damaged cells before they become cancerous.

ask.com/ cancer

0

JLM 4 years, 8 months ago

Hmmm, those medical boys up at Harvard seem to have a different opinion, but what the hell would they know?

"Marijuana smoke and cigarette smoke contain many of the same toxins, including one which has been identified as a key factor in the promotion of lung cancer. This toxin is found in the tar phase of both, and it should be noted that one joint has four times more tar than a cigarette, which means that the lungs are exposed four-fold to this toxin and others in the tar. It has been concretely established that smoking cigarettes promotes lung cancer (which causes more than 125,000 deaths in the US every year), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (chronic bronchitis and emphysema) and increased incidence of respiratory tract infections. ... It is notable that several reports indicate an unexpectedly large proportion of marijuana users among cases of lung cancer and cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, and larynx. Thus, it appears that the use of marijuana as a medicine has the potential to further harm an already ill patient in the same way that taking up regular cigarette smoking would, particularly in light of the fact that those patients for whom marijuana is recommended are already poorly equipped to fight off these infections and diseases."

Of course, it would be too logical to suggest that smoking anything and putting it in your lungs would be bad for you, right?

But I am sure that those pot heads know more about such things than Harvard.

0

JLM 4 years, 8 months ago

Oh, those silly gooses up at Harvard are at it again ---

"It has been suggested that marijuana is at the root of many mental disorders, including acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks (one of the very conditions it is being used experimentally to treat), flashbacks, delusions, depersonalization, hallucinations, paranoia, depression, and uncontrollable aggressiveness.

Marijuana has long been known to trigger attacks of mental illness, such as bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and schizophrenia.

This connection with mental illness should make health care providers for terminally ill patients and the patients themselves, who may already be suffering from some form of clinical depression, weigh very carefully the pros and cons of adopting a therapeutic course of marijuana.

In the short term, marijuana use impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory, and learning; memory defects may persist six weeks after last use.

Mental disorders connected with marijuana use merit their own category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV, published by the American Psychiatric Association. These include Cannabis Intoxication (consisting of impaired motor coordination, anxiety, impaired judgment, sensation of slowed time, social withdrawal, and often includes perceptual disturbances; Cannabis Intoxication Delirium (memory deficit, disorientation); Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Delusions; Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Hallucinations; and Cannabis Induced Anxiety Disorder."

Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

Yeah, cannabis intoxication creates "impaired judgment" --- who would have ever thought that?

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

JLM
Oh those liars in your federal government. Here again is your FACT that marijuana is illegal not your government concocted lies for us not to smoke marijuana:

Anslings lies to congress in 1937 that started prohibition of marijuana

“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”

“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”

“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”

“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”

“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”

“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”

Now, myself i would admit over my life time i have really wanted to harm my brother a time or two, but it had nothing to do with marijuana.

LIES LIES LIES!
Marijuana laws are going down the tubes due to reallity. Due to your lies. Hear that! Thats winds of change! Not your spouting off lies.

Or is it you want to tell me what to put in my body?? Are you gonna save us from ourselves??

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

jlm-

Have you read the warning label on cigarettes? Have you read the warning label on booze and beer and wine? Have you read the studies on how Obesity is ramped in this country?

Money Spent on the War On Drugs this Year in 2010 Federal--1,440,659,833.00 State--- 2,211,421,139.00

In 2002 total budget estimated 420 billion dollars in it was estimated that 154 of that was to combat marijuana! IN A 100% TOTAL LOSS AND ZERO CONTROL TO SHOW FOR IT!!!

LIES LIES LIES!!

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

Corporations greed and influence:

Anti-drug aid to other nations often comes in the form of military assistance. This year's National Drug Control Budget, for example, includes $452 million to provide Blackhawk helicopters to the Colombian military to fight coca cultivation.Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., the exclusive manufacturer of the helicopters, lobbied heavily in favor of an escalation of aid to Colombia.

That 400 + billion above includes military use, housing of prisoners, use of general funds used to buy assistance from forgien governments and billions "emergency allocated" funds.

LIES LIES LIES

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

JLM-

Yeah, love to hear your stance on the war against marijuana, how huge of a success it's been, and how it needs more funding. You're probably DEA or something huh? Or at least you wish you were. Whoever you are, you must think that you're pretty damn important to keep getting on here to tell us how wrong and stupid we are.

And as for Harvard, I can pull out a list of names of professors who've taught there and their positive opinions of marijuana. But something tells me that it wouldn't make a damn bit of difference to you anyway. You're just on here to raise hell and insult people that you think are just a bunch of dumb stoners. None of our facts, complete with source and most of the time a link too, are valid because we're stoners. But yet everything you say has to be the truth because you don't smoke, right? Isn't that the logic you operate under? Get real you loser! Quit assuming the position of moral high ground. No one cares about any of your puked-up propaganda or "Reefer Madness" inspired viewpoints. I'd love to see the statistic that lines up all the anti-marijuana dodo's with the religious nut-jobs. You a good church goin' boy JLM? You on a mission from god or something?

0

JLM 4 years, 8 months ago

@ mmj ---

So your retort to the findings that marijuana contains 4 x as much cancer producing tar as cigarettes is to invoke Reefer Madness?

Your considered intellectual answer to the health dangers of introducing combustion by products into your lungs as a means to deliver an otherwise unremarkable and ineffective medicine is to rant about the "religious nut-jobs"? As if marijuana were a religious issue?

While the Harvard quotes are, in fact, the product of medical research and are facts --- rather than opinions --- their portent can be understood by the application of simple country wit and logic.

One does not propound the benefits of something which can kill you faster than cigarettes, or do they?

I do not think of you personally as a 'dumb stoner". You are obviousy an articulate and intelligent chap unlike your pal Muck who begs for recognition as an ignorant buffoon.

0

JLM 4 years, 8 months ago

@ mmj ---

Are you absolutely certain that Reefer Madness was not a documentary?

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

JLM-

Well, for starters, studies have shown that the compounds in cannabis act more as an expectorant than anything harmful. No one is claiming that smoke of any kind is good for you but it just so happens that marijuana smoke proves to be no more of a cancer risk than cigarettes. In fact, many compounds in cannabis have been shown to fight cancer and prevent tumor growth. But you don't hear about those studies, do you? http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

Top Anti-Drug Researcher Changes His Mind, Says Legalize Marijuana Thu, Jun 04, 2009 1:59 pm more: headline news, drug policy news, activism news Source: stopthedrugwar.org

Posted in Chronicle Blog by Scott Morgan on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 9:52pm For 30 years, Donald Tashkin has studied the effects of marijuana on lung function. His work has been funded by the vehemently anti-marijuana National Institute on Drug Abuse, which has long sought to demonstrate that marijuana causes lung cancer. After 3 decades of anti-drug research, here's what Tashkin has to say about marijuana laws:

"Early on, when our research appeared as if there would be a negative impact on lung health, I was opposed to legalization because I thought it would lead to increased use and that would lead to increased health effects," Tashkin says. "But at this point, I'd be in favor of legalization. I wouldn't encourage anybody to smoke any substances. But I don't think it should be stigmatized as an illegal substance. Tobacco smoking causes far more harm. And in terms of an intoxicant, alcohol causes far more harm." [McClatchy]

We've been told a thousand times that marijuana destroys your lungs, that it's 5 times worse than cigarettes, and on and on. Yet here is Donald Tashkin, literally the top expert in the world when it comes to marijuana and lung health, telling us it's time to legalize marijuana. His views are shaped not by ideology, but rather by the 30 years he spent studying the issue. He didn't expect the science to come out in favor of marijuana, but that's what happened and he's willing to admit it. Here's the study that really turned things around:

UCLA's Tashkin studied heavy marijuana smokers to determine whether the use led to increased risk of lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD. He hypothesized that there would be a definitive link between cancer and marijuana smoking, but the results proved otherwise.

"What we found instead was no association and even a suggestion of some protective effect," says Tashkin, whose research was the largest case-control study ever conducted.

Prejudice against marijuana and smoking in general runs so deep for many people that it just seems inconceivable that marijuana could actually reduce the risk of lung cancer. But that's what the data shows and it not only demolishes a major tenet of popular anti-pot propaganda, but also points towards a potentially groundbreaking opportunity to develop cancer cures through marijuana research.

Over and over again, all the bad things we've been told about marijuana are revealed to be not only false, but often the precise opposite of the truth. So the next time someone tells you that marijuana is worse for your lungs than cigarettes, you might want to mention that the world's leading expert on that subject happens to be a supporter of legalization.

See JLM LIES!

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

So MMJ22 have you well killed anyone because of that devil weed "marijuana"??

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

And as far as Harvard studies go, this one is pretty interesting too;

http://www.nowpublic.com/thc_marijuana_helps_cure_cancer_says_harvard_study

Now, c'mon. You're not going to argue against something that's been proven to retard the progress of tumors, are you?

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

Or no wait i like this one:

"This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”

As JLM liar buddies say!! Is that just the most absurd, fear monger, racist statement you have ever heard!! YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED DEFENDING SUCH RACIST ACTIVITES! SHAME ON YOU JLM!! I HOPE YOUR PROUD OF YOURSELF!!

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

Leadville, Aspen may waive fines for marijuana The Denver Post Posted: 01/22/2010 01:00:00 AM MST

LEADVILLE — Two more Colorado towns could be voting this year on whether to decriminalize marijuana possession.

The Leadville City Council on Tuesday voted unanimously to direct the city attorney to draft language that would change city code to waive pot fines.

Currently, Leadville law allows for a fine of up to $100 for possession of less than an ounce of pot.

In Aspen, attorney Lauren Maytin said there are talks to bring a marijuana decriminalization move to voters there this fall.

Decriminalization moves are largely symbolic, though. Pot possession remains a state crime.

Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_14243038#ixzz0dlRsn8k5 WINDS OF CHANGE BABY! FACT NOT FICTION! TRUTH NOT DECEPTION! RESPECTFUL NOT IGNORANT!

0

JLM 4 years, 8 months ago

@ mmj ---

"No one is claiming that smoke of any kind is good for you but it just so happens that marijuana smoke proves to be no more of a cancer risk than cigarettes."

Marijuana smoke has 4 x as much tar as cigarettes which are acknowledged to be a cancer risk and killer. Four times as much tar!

Come on, be smart for a change.

"...no more of a cancer risk than cigarettes." ???

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

I know, it's mind blowing right? Marijuana is actually safer than any form of tobacco.

http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/smoking-marijuana-does-not-cause-lung-cancer/

Love to check out your source, if you have one.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

And you prohibitionists always wonder why there's way more negative research on cannabis than positive. http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2010/01/feds_wont_study_pots_benefits_only_negative_conseq.php Go figure.

0

Duke_bets 4 years, 8 months ago

mmj - You keep proving my point.

You wrote that marijuana causes no more cancers than cigarettes.

Not any less, but probably not any more.

A lot of your postings that support the topic also contain vocabulary such as 'possibly' and 'may'.

That's one hell of a promotion.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

Dook- I would love for you to share some examples of how I keep proving your point. And by the way, what is your point? Best I can tell, your only point is that you're scared of things that you don't know about or understand completely. It's okay, everyone gets scared every once in a while. And the thing about cannabis not causing cancer was pretty cut & dry, or so I thought. Allow me to reiterate my point. Cannabis has NEVER been proven to cause cancer. In fact, it has been PROVEN, not supposed or assumed, to have many compounds within it that fight cancer. Is that clear enough for you dook? Or does it even matter, since I disagree with you and all? And please, oh please, regale me with my verbal short-comings. I would love to see you list out all of my posts that are allegedly riddled with "possibly" and "may." To boot, is that all you have left to input into the debate? Not to be a party-pooper or anything but those kinds of comments are going to make for a really lame debate, if you could even call it that.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 8 months ago

You two should get a room. You two are doing an excellent job of showing that both extremes are wrong.

Marijuana is not great. It is no panacea for all that ails us.

Marijuana is not the end of civilization. It is not a quick trip towards ruin.

Is it better or worse than alcohol or cigarettes? Depends upon what is being measured. It is not physically addictive. It is not healthy to smoke, but most smoke only a little each day and nothing like a pack or two of cigarettes a day.

MMJ is not the next wonder drug, but it works better than prescription drugs for some people undergoing chemo or with chronic issues.

More important, when personal use is decriminalized then it makes no sense to keep growing and selling as serious crimes. MMJ is not about rock solid science. It is about letting adults make decisions regarding what is best for themselves.

0

Duke_bets 4 years, 8 months ago

mmj - On this page alone, you have 'seems', 'seem', 'potentially', 'maybe', and a couple of 'most'.

That is your science.

What percentage of doctors give out prescriptions for dope? Let me guess.......You won't answer that one because it's not in your favor.

Why do the dope prescriptions increase by huge percentages annually? And, don't tell me it's because of the wonder drug. It's because stoners found a legal way to get stoned in some states.

My point has always been............Smoke it if you want to, but don't promote the crap! If you want to ignore life by getting high all day, that is fine. Don't promote it!

I'm still waiting for the example of the first time pot smoker because marijuana was prescribed a doctor.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

Wow. Great points. I am 100% guilty of using those words. I guess I just need to throw my entire argument in the trashcan. And I'll more than happily answer your question about the pot docs. Due to the federal status that cannabis has, many doctors are afraid of what consequences they may face from the federal DEA. Then, there are a small number of doctors that just don't care about the DEA and will assess your medical need for cannabis anyways. Regardless of the number of doctors that are willing to endorse someone's medicinal need for cannabis, the fact that a majority of Americans support legalization of cannabis, at least to some degree, speaks for itself. This makes your point about first time smokers mute as well.

One of the things that makes this nation great is our freedom. Each and every one of us has the right to promote whatever the hell we'd like to promote. I have just as much of a right to promote cannabis as someone else has the right to promote the idea of "Jesus" and Christianity. So, please, spare me the mumbo jumbo about what I should/shouldn't do with my freedom dook.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

And I already covered the science part of it. My post from 31JAN10 has a link to an article that explains why "scientific" testing on cannabis has been so limited in it's scope of research.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 8 months ago

Duke_Bets, BTW, I personally do work with someone that first used mj because she was not handling chemo well and her adult kids said try it and it did work for her. And she stopped once chemo stopped.

Also, I have personally seen how alcoholism kills people.

I have not seen pot kill anyone. Sure I've seen people pick drugs over shelter, but I have not seen the systematic shut down of vital organs that comes with alcohol. Nor the throat and lung emphysema stuff of heavy cigarette users.

0

Duke_bets 4 years, 8 months ago

Scott - They are lying or you made it up to support mmj.

mmj - You can't believe half the crap that you spew. Doctors are scared to prescribe weed, really?........Or, 2 percent of doctors are idiots and their entire clientele is made up of stoners with backaches?

Most of your argument came from the trashcan, so you'd just be recycling anyways.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

Dook- Whether you agree with a damn thing I do or not, that doesn't affect my right to do it. I'm on here in defense of the people's right to access cannabis(medicinally & recreationally). Why are you here? Doesn't seem to me like you're doing anything other than stoner-bashing. And if I was a doctor that could lose their license for signing a recommendation for cannabis, I'm pretty sure that thought would cross my mind a time or two before signing anything. Why not try to have an actual conversation about the subject instead of resorting to an attitude of, "you're just some stupid stoner that doesn't know their a$$ from a whole in the ground." Seems to me like you're taking the easy way out of a debate by trying to assume that my argument is invalid from the start. But feel free to carry on in your ignorance and, by all means, please avoid any confrontation with anyone that has a different opinion than your own. Wouldn't want to be wrong about anything, would we?

0

muck 4 years, 8 months ago

Michael Phelps 14 times gold medal winner

Tim Lincecum 2008 CY Young Winner

Santonio Holmes 2008-2009 Superbowl MVP

Not bad for a few "Stoners" who "ignore life all day"

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

And our forefathers didn't seem to let cannabis stand in the way of creating our country...as a matter of fact, we'd probably wouldn't have made it without cannabis.

0

Duke_bets 4 years, 8 months ago

mmj - I'm not sure I ever used stupid and stoner in the same sentence. Sorry that I chapped your hide. That's a side affect of dope by the way. It's called mood enhancement, which goes up and down.

Smoke the dope all you want. I don't care. Please don't promote it as a wonder medicine. My arguments blow you up every time. You don't answer a single question that is not in your favor.

Yet, you get mad when I state that 98% of doctors don't and won't prescribe weed as medicine. That's not blowing smoke, that is a fact.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 8 months ago

Like I said on the whole cannabis as medicine thing, I've got every right to say anything I'd like to about it and there's not much of a damn thing that you or anyone else can do about it. So, get over it. And you might want to go grow a set and toughen up a little bit. If you thought I was mad about the whole doctor thing(which is in no way upsetting), then maybe you have some sensitivity issues. You have no idea what I'm like when I'm mad. But since you think to seem I'm ignoring your questions, do me a favor and list them out for me one at a time so I can give each question their own, fair response. You're not going to get away with lame accusations like, "you don't answer any of my questions. So c'mon champ, let 'em rip!

0

muck 4 years, 7 months ago

mmjPatient22

You know that winds of change are a blowin. When we have a ballot issuie for total de-criminalization of MMJ in Routt County, we will not hear anything from the nay-sayers. It's ok if they don't like it. You know as well as i do they are CAREER motivated by criminalization of cannabis. So the 3000+ registered patients by November in Routt County, will SHUT UP THE LIES FOR GOOD. Yep thats right! Im sure i guessed low i know that one of the local despensaries is sending 70+ patients to the clinics a week. So as the year progress's you will soon see a PETITION come forth starting at the local dispensaries. Just let them play the holy savior or protect there "career drivin" attitiude! They are the minority in Routt County. Brother, you know it! I know it! And most who read this comment. The war on marijuana is comming to an end. We just need to be patient. Get it Patient!! a patient!!

Hear it? That noise? Winds of change! Not winter.

0

muck 4 years, 7 months ago

Did you know that one of the First Law in the Country was enacted in 1760. Settlers had to grow a GOVERNMENTAL requirment of "hemp" or could be jailed. Imagine that, if you didn't grow pot or weed or cannabis or hemp you could go to jail.

Funny, now you can't because "This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”- Aslinger 1937 Congressional testimony

0

muck 4 years, 7 months ago

It sure is quiet when i call all you nay-sayers "RACIST", which by the way is a FACT!

BRING IT!!!

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 7 months ago

muck- To say that you have enthusiasm and fervor for the subject would be the understatement of the year. Granted, there are some infuriating lies that have been perpetrated on most of the general public. Does this mean that the people who are ignorant of the truth are bad people? In general, I don't think so. Mostly they are people who actually believe the insanity presented in films like "Reefer Madness" because they don't think they personally know any daily tokers. Some of them are simple minded and believe that anything their government tells them must be the absolute, quintessential truth, bar none. In the fight to conquer the effects of the decades of lies about cannabis, I offer one piece of advice(take it or leave it, makes no difference to me): Take heed to those that are easily offended. Sometimes, the best offense is one that sits back and lets the opponent expend all of their resources(tangible resources and on-hand knowledge) while they try to find a flaw in your argument. Eventually, all of the lies, that they've believed for years, are exposed. Once exposed, the lies are easy to pick apart and deconstruct. The anger and aggression are best saved for those that are relentlessly ignorant in the face of truth.

And for those that think cannabis is negatively affecting our brains.....eat your hearts out. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2641371/chronic_high_doses_of_cannabinoids.html?cat=58

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 7 months ago

I'd sure like to watch someone explain to me how this new bill doesn't violate a whole boat-load of my rights? http://www.cannabistherapyinstitute.com/bills/sb109.house.hearing.html

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 7 months ago

I tell ya, the silence from the prohibitionists gets deafening sometimes.

0

mmjPatient22 4 years, 7 months ago

Maybe it's embarrassment over the roots of the prohibition of cannabis, or as they called it "marihuana."

http://www.chelseagreen.com/content/how-did-we-get-here-the-roots-of-pot-prohibition/

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.