Jump to content
1444 total votes
Huh. 2 to 1 so far...imagine that.
What do you do now?
I still don't understand why we need these. It seems to me that we have a system in place already. There are several pharmacies in town, that dispense all different kinds of controlled substances. Shouldn't they be the ones selling the medical marijuana?
I don't see anyone opening up a Vicodin dispensary.
Well seeuski, first thing's first. I'm going to load one up. Then I'm going to continue my quest to vanquish the ignorance of the the lies that the government used to initiate the prohibition of marijuana and perpetrate the current "war" on marijuana for over 70 years.
As to why pharmacies don't carry cannabis along side codeine, there are a couple of reasons this isn't happening right now. For the FDA to allow a pharmacy to distribute marijuana it would first have to reclassify marijuana as something other than a schedule 1 narcotic. Being a schedule 1 narcotic, as marijuana is currently listed by our government, marijuana can't be sold as medicine because schedule 1 classification means that nothing in this classification has any medicinal value. We know that this is not true in the case of marijuana but that's not stopping the government from ignoring the current recommendations of the AMA(American Medical Association) to reclassify marijuana.
Another large reason that you can't pick up a dose-o-dank from the same place you get your Lipitor is because pharmaceutical companies know that when some of their products are compared to marijuana they become the illogical choice. In the end, it's all about the money and nobody wants to lose any business, especially in times like these.
And for those that are interested:
This poll cannot be trusted. It allows anyone to vote as many times as they like. There is no validity to this poll. I just voted about 10 times in a row from the same pc/ip address.
I confirmed the invalidity of this poll. I first tried voting twice, back to back, with no success. It told me that it wouldn't count my vote because someone already voted from this computer or network. So I confused it. All I had to do was go to another site before returning to the poll and it apparently forgot who I was and that I had already voted on this. I am able to input limitless votes into this poll. Ipso facto(gotta love the opportunity to use that one), this poll is indeed meaningless.
Now what do you do seeuski?
Seriously? Are you two just now figuring out that these polls are useless?
MMJ... nice post. With a little research into the DEA schedule of drugs, marijuana is listed as a non-narcotic schedule 1 substance DEA# 7360. This is why pharmacies cannot carry it, thanks for pointing me in the right direction.
However I do believe that the big pharmaceutical companies would be all over production on non-smoked marijuana if it became federally legal. Like you said, they would follow the money, I would bet there is a lot of money it the sale of marijuana.
I choose to remain clean and pot head free. My threshold for pain must be higher than yours.
Yes, I did all my pot smoking in my younger days and don't miss the fog.
And don't be so defensive, holy cow!
mmj thinks he's Jesus of Cannabis.
well then AICH you must be the Hitler of cannabis
What a dumb comment!
That name affects some of us in a deep way for personal reasons so freerider try using dumb names other than the one you so loosely chose.
bubba- yeah, this is the first poll they've had on here that I've truly taken an interest in and also the first opportunity I've had to discover just how useless these "polls" really are.
callguinness- Big pharma already tried to reassemble a synthetic version of THC with the advent of Marinol. Studies and feedback from patients have indicated that it doesn't really compare to the real thing. In Canada, there's a new-er pharmaceutical mouth spray called Sativex that was developed in the UK. The wiki-page on Sativex has a good deal of info on it and so far, it seems to be doing quite a bit better than Marinol ever did.
seeuski- I truly doubt that your pain threshold is supremely higher than my own. There's a big difference between being able to tolerate pain and no wanting to tolerate debilitating pain on a daily basis for years on end.
My alleged "defensiveness" is only a manifestation of my fervent passion for the topic and hell-bent will to expose and correct the lies that have been propagated by our government about marijuana. I've read posts of yours about the whole 9/11, 9/12, tea baggers, what-ever-the-hell stuff that you preach incessantly. So don't get all holier-than-thou on us, okay? Everyone has their topics that they feel strongly about and I think it's a damn shame that more Americans don't get a little more pissed off about the way this country is being, and has been, run into the ground for profit.
Aich- oh aich....there's no need to talk all third-person-like about me. I'm right here and I would think that it'd be obvious by now that I'm probably going to end up reading what's on here. It's pretty funny that you have to resort to childish name calling in order to feel like you're a big man.
freerider- I was thinking more along the lines of Beelzebub of Bud.
And back to seeuski- fairly convenient to be offended by the Hitler reference but not taking offense to aich using the "Lord's" name in vain. Not that I prescribe to that particular belief system, just making an observation.
You really do need to lay off the dope if you can see no difference from the tyrant who tried to wipe the jews off the face of the earth and a man who billions of people look up to.
And it never is convenient to have to be reminded of him because he murdered many of my relatives you........
And I'm soooo sure you are offended by the Lords name.
mmj - You are the Jesus of ragweed. Every point you make on the subject has to do with your capability of getting high. Most don't care if you are stoned or sober. We really don't care about you! Your entire pro-argument is based on you getting stoned and not getting busted.
And, were you actually talking about pain threshholds? You don't have a say in that sober argument. Sorry!
So now PAIN is a "sober argument" wtf does that mean? FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!
How about some truth instead of posturing?
The voters made "medical" marijuana legal not because of some great medical justification. The voters knew that getting a "prescription" was not going to be difficult. The voters knew they were taking a step toward legalization. The medical part was just enough to show that the "patient" was old enough and responsible enough to go to a selected doctor and describe the needed symptoms to get the prescription. MMJ is really just enough of a barrier to not make pot legal for the young and to limit legal use to a reasonable amount.
Thus, the whole point of so many dispensaries, such as a few in a relatively small town, is to get in on the ground floor and be operating when marijuana is finally made legal. Just as so many states had lotteries and then eventually also allowed casinos, legalization of marijuana is coming after medical marijuana.
seeuski- Obviously, you didn't take the time to understand what I said about taking the "Lord's" name in vain. Notice the end of the comment, where I confess that I am not one of the people that believes in Jesus. I don't give a flying toads a$$ how his name is used because to me, it honestly doesn't matter.
However, I would love to understand the real reason for your anger at the Hitler reference. He's dead and it's not like freerider was saying that he was a great guy or anything. I just think it's odd that you'd take such offense to seeing someone jokingly compare an ignorant debater to the most evil man in human history. It's not like he was promoting Nazi values or denying that the holocaust ever happened. You seem to think that he was starting up some sort of fascist, racist, anti-Semitic forum when, in all actuality, all he was doing was making a bad joke(sorry freerider). The point I was making was how easy it was for you to take offense to the point made by the anti-prohibitionist instead of taking offense to the sacrilegious comment that aich pointed in my direction. And you're of Jewish heritage, so you automatically have the right to be all pissed off and uppity about any Hitler reference you want to be upset about. However, before getting all ridiculous, maybe you should think about the context in which he used the name of Hitler. Like I said, and I bet you could ask him, I'm pretty sure that freerider is no fan of Hitler. Maybe you need to roast up a joint and loosen the hell up. It might even allow you to think a little clearer. Get real! Quit making this about something that it's not about.
Scott is right. Medical marijuana is just a stepping stone for the legalization movement. Get over it and used to it.
Duke- Hate to break it to ya, but you're an idiot. Pain is all too subjective of a subject to be debated with any conclusiveness. All that it could ever boil down to is, "I'm tougher than you," and, "Nu-uh! I'm tougher!" You'd better go find a little kid if you want to win that one dookie.
I talk very little about my own, personal capabilities in the arena of cannabis. I don't have to worry about getting busted, I'm legal. I could care less about what any of you goons think about my medication because it's obvious that you've all bought into the lies that your government has sold to you. What I'm worried about is the billions of dollars that are wasted annually on the pointless, useless drug war. It seems to me that this country has definitely seen better financial days and that the last thing it needs is to keep dumping billions of dollars on pursuing the eradication of a plant, or for it's people to be imprisoned or robbed of their money(by the legal system) for the mere possession of this plant. I think we've got bigger fish to fry with over 14 billion annually. Maybe focus on meth, coke, heroin, underage drinking, tobacco and other things that can actually kill you, instead of chasing a plant that not only has extreme medicinal value but also cannot be overdosed in a lethal or fatal capacity.
SEEUSKI ...Well Hitler was arrogant , a bully , full of himself , and his was the only opinion that mattered, just like your posts and AICHY BREAKY , and DUKEY BOY , HEY IF THE SHOE FITS
seeuski- it's idiots like you that give Americans a bad name. It's obvious that freerider isn't a Nazi and even more obvious that he doesn't uphold those particular beliefs. Nazi's are horrible people, if you could even call them that. You're just an idiot(or F.I. if you need an acronym) looking for something to bitch about and draw attention to yourself with.
I think that you'd have a hard time convincing the widows and family members of the (how many was it?) eight? dead people from the car accident in New York when that stoned woman was going the wrong way on the Takonic Parkway, that mj can't be taken in lethal doses.
We don't need another legal intoxicant putting non-users lives at risk.
Oh look, another idiot to join the ranks! Actually MrTaiChi, what I was referencing was more along the lines of fact and scientific data. To be more specific, when I said, "lethal doses," I was talking about overdosing. It is physically impossible to overdose on marijuana. It just doesn't happen. That's why the news doesn't read, "Another Hollywood Celeb OD's on pot!!!"
Oh, and another convenient debate point that negatively centers around pot. You guys are really bored huh? If you have ACTUALLY been following the story, you'd know that that crazy broad's BAC was 0.19! That's right everybody, she was hammered drunk! And not only was she plastered, but she stopped off to get some pharmaceuticals less than 4 hours before that horrible crash.
I wonder what made her crash?...0.19 blood alcohol content and a butt load of pharmaceuticals......or a joint. I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night and I already know the answer to that one.
Accidents can happen under the best circumstances to totally straight people also.I was riding with an older person that went down a busy freeway the wrong way facing three lanes of oncoming traffic,she was sober and unfamiliar with the area,it seems in New York that the same thing would be a possibility,its an imperfect world.No one said that medical m.j. patients should drive under the influence.The voters have said in the election to allow medical m.j. untill its reversed somehow,you should keep your predjudice under control,
how about all the people that have been wiped off the map in jesus' name?
Well, sure, I get that. Since alcohol is involved why don't we give everybody a joint? Have I got that wrong, ding dong? LOL
Look, let's get on with life while actually mentally connected to all that is good and let's get out of the business of being so pathetic as to need a drink or a joint to enjoy life? Hey, why not?
Me, I'm high on life! Yeah! Ding dongs!
One more, last, little, tiny thing.........California pot-advocates just got FULL legalization of marijuana, for adults over 21, put on the ballot for 2010. Now what?
No, actually, ding dong, I did get YOUR point. LOL
Doubling down on the substances that folks can use to get high and escape from their otherwise miserable pathetic existences is not the solution to anything. We do not need any more escapees unable to cope with even a smidgen of reality.
Marijuana is a bad idea unless you are big into organized crime, chopping folks up with chain saws, creating even more pathetic escapee dependents and having yet more stoners out on the road operating equipment their little minds cannot control.
Perhaps you missed the point cause you, too, are stoned?
Normal, unmedicated life --- try it if you are strong enough to suffer the consequences of being normal. Which will be a big change for you, dipstick!
High on life! Try it, losers!
MMJay, yeah, sharpen your skills, have a joint! LOL
You and aich hang out on weekends huh?
There's no way that much stupidity happens all by itself.
Alcohol manufacture and distribution killed people during prohibition. Prohibition is also considered to have hugely benefited organized crime because of the huge profits and it allowed organized crime to coop all levels of society.
It looks like mj is a gateway drug. Though, not for drug users going from pot to meth or heroin. It is a gateway drug for dealers and smugglers because it is so widely used by all levels of society and is socially accepted. Then once in the smuggling and dealing business, the harder drugs look more interesting because they are smaller and more profitable.
What I find funny on this forum is the fact that the most intelligent, thoughtful, fact based & informative post's come from the pot head guy.
Based on the evidence as indicated above, I have come to the conclusion that smoking pot makes you smarter.
What America needs is a bit more escapism. Folks whose existence is so pathetic that only a joint makes it liveable. Yeah, that's what America needs.
Marijuana is clearly a gateway drug to more and more serious drug usage.
And you are right, the pot head is an intelligent and thoughtful guy which only makes HIS particular brand of escapism that much more sad.
Reality and normal --- try them, you might like them, Ding Dongs! LOL
OK, idiot checking in... The last news report I heard about a month ago was that mj caused the woman's intoxication. I guess that she was an equal opportunity recreational drug abuser. I could do what so many posters do here, search for and cite exhaustive collateral proofs to support my opinion that mj intoxication causes highway fatalities, but like JLM, I have a life.
To the playground name caller: Why do we need another legal intoxicant?
JLM and seesuki,it is admirable that you have no need or desire for any substance dependency,lets see does that include,pot,beer,hard alcohol,cigs,hard drugs,prescription meds,viagra,?You are perfect people and are just addicted to judging others?If you dont have pain,anguish,cancer ,m.s.,alchohlism,count yourself lucky,what is wrong with a plant that has been growing on this planet long before you were ever thought of?Ancient people used it for medicine and now because of politics it is miscarried to the point that it is illegal .I think people in the old days would laugh at you just as people do now.It is a plant not a drug ,man made like meth or heroin or cocaine,the only leathal thing about it is the people who have died trying to sell it illegally because of predujice in the narcotics law that classifys it and makes humans indure persecutions for using it.Familys torn apart with people in prison for using it,and just generally everyone loosing respect for our system to make it illegal when it is a PLANT! I think your condition could be listed as pot-phobia and it has no rational.
Scott- good point that a lot of people fail to pick up on.
Boatbug- thanks, if that was pointed at me. I guess I do have a "higher" education.
JLM- So smoking bowls of a naturally occurring plant for incessant back pain makes me a loser? Have you ever taken a pharmaceutical or had an alcoholic beverage to provide the slightest amount of relief? Ever taken an aspirin?
Let's take our "loser looking glass" and examine some other fellow losers. I've got an idea, let's look at two of the people that helped found this nation. Both Thomas Jefferson and George Washington grew their own and there's documentation that clearly points out that both of them were using the plant for a little bit more than just making rope or fiber. Personal journals from George Washington indicate that he purposefully separated the female cannabis plants from the male cannabis plants. Since some of you might not know a stoner to ask why George did this, I'll go ahead and tell you why. The only reason to separate out the females from the males is to make sure that the females don't get pollinated by the males. If the females do come in contact with pollen-bearing males, their flowering process becomes more dedicated to seed production than flower(bud) production. Now, why do you suppose George Washington wanted to make sure his female pot plants were sans-seed(sensimilla, as it's known to some)? I'll tell ya. George got high. He wanted to make sure that his marijuana crop produced as much smokable material as possible and smoking seeds is retarded. The first president our country ever had, a man that was/is highly revered and respected by countless people, the man who could not tell a lie........got high. What a loser!
Oh, and here's one for your gateway drug theory JLM.......
For those of you opposed to the legalization and that consider Marajuana a gateway drug, I would pose the following questions and scenerios.
Our current efforts are not slowing the problems of drug use and abuse. Those problems exist right now and our efforts to combat them have been ineffective.
During the period of alchohol prohibition our country experienced serious problems with gangs, guns and violence (case in point Al Capone and the Chicago gangs)
During prohibition the Gov't was out-manned and out-gunned by the gangs. There was simply too much money in the black market bootlegging to control the problem.
We have the same problems with guns, gangs and violence right now because there is simply too much money in the black market supply chain to control the problem. Our Gov't is hopelessly out-manned and out-gunned by the gangs.
5 Legalization would help stem and/or control the flow of money. It would NOT stop the problems of drug use and abuse. Would legalization make the drug abuse problem worse than it already is?
6 I do not support the use and abuse of illegal drugs, but it remains my stated opinion that we are fighting the problems of drug use and abuse in the wrong way.,
Instead of spending our money on crime, punishment and incarceration, we should completely decriminalize the possession and use of all drugs. This is not to say that we should give up on the problems of drug abuse.
By levying hefty taxes on these drugs, we can use those revenues to fund treatment and education programs. Simply arresting and incarcerating users has produced a larger problem than the one we are trying to stop.
If you look at the studies, by far the worst gateway drug is teenage use of alcohol. If a teen drinks alcohol then that person is at a much higher risk at becoming addicted to a more severe drug. It is far better for a teen to not use any drugs or alcohol.
It would seem that a teen desiring either is going to be at risk. But that alcohol appears to compound the kid's troubles while mj lets the kid checkout for a bit.
No one is saying that mj should be legalized because it should be used or is good. It should be legalized because it is a minor harm and the person being harmed is the person making the choice to use it and the consequences of illegal distribution, growing and the resulting benefits to gangs is far more harmful than people using it.
I've witnessed a person day by day suffer from alcohol withdraw as a drunk was being dried out. I've seen alcohol kill people. It is legal not because it is good, but because most people can drink without causing serious harm and the consequences of it being illegal were worse than of it being legal. Alcohol being legal is certainly better than it being illegal. And voters in states are seeing that as well and now California will be voting to make mj legal, but highly regulated.
At least I'm not the only one thinking clearly on the subject.
@ trump ---
If one is going to use references to Prohibition, it is only fair to know what one is speaking about. Prohibition was the law of the land from 1920 to 1933 and most people think it was about 3 years long.
To make comparisons between today and the 1920s misses an awful lot of context.
There is no doubt that this time period was an interesting time period as it relates to the nature of "organized" and "disorganized" CRIME but it was also the infancy of the FBI and other organized LAW ENFORCEMENT.
The debate comparing legal alcohol v illegal drugs is a false choice. There are abuses on both sides but one is inherently legal and the other is not.
This is like the nonsense of discussing the future of the government of Afghanistan and failing to acknowledge that it is a faux sovereign nation and in reality is a narco state. When you have a $13BN GDP and more than half of it is opium poppy driven, you are going to have a problem with maintaining law and order and in absence of law and order, you WILL have corruption.
One of the huge fallacies of the legalization of drugs is that the government would tax it and thereby exert a modicum of control. In reality, illegal suppliers will continue to provide an illegal supply for no other profit motive than avoiding the tax on the drug.
One of the Mafia's major sources of income is the transportation of untaxed cigarettes --- legal cigarettes mind you --- along the East coast through different taxing jurisdictions.
We are not winning the war on drugs (and one may choose to disagree with that) because we have an unfocused government effort which ultimately answers to a President who was a drug user and a drug distributor.
Any government which proposes to defeat the Taliban and to make order out of chaos in Afghanistan and is not addressing the poppy crop is playing with themselves and is wasting American blood and treasure.
So, alcohol is "inherently" legal? Because Jesus turned water into wine or something? What about a naturally occurring plant that you don't even have to process into alcohol in order to reap it's benefits? That seems inherently less tampered with or tainted.
And you want to talk about $13 Billion coming from poppies? That's a pretty big and impressive figure but let's keep on topic here. How about the nearly $50 Billion that's wasted annually on a pointless and extremely futile war on marijuana? Wanna talk about that? Or would you prefer to talk about the almost incalculable amount of money that would be generated by opening up hemp to industrial companies that could make over 25,000 products from one plant? Something tells me that you don't want to talk about any of those numbers though.
But somehow you want to talk about the war in the Middle East and having a president who's used pot, the third in a row I'll remind you. Now, Obama being a drug dealer? That's an interesting one and I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd love to hear more about that. As for the war(s) in the Middle East, I suggest you find the appropriate forum for that one.
I will, however, agree with you about the waste that piles from our wars in the Middle East. It's a damn shame and we owe our children better than that.
@ mmj ---
Your 'George Washington got high' anecdote is so bogus and repudiated as to be beyond laughable, but at least you get high on the possibility. You really are an escapist. Pathetic!
That old saw was recognized as such probably before you were born. LOL
And you think you know something about my age because you....see "22" in my screen-name? Just out of curiosity, how old do you think I am?
To boot, I'd love to see the evidence that invalidates the George Washington pot claim. And if anyone is guilty of being an "escapist," it's the likes of Harry Anslinger and those that initiated the war on cannabis. The prohibition of marijuana was originally instated to curb the massive influx of "south-of-the-border" types back in the 20's and 30's. Marijuana was portrayed as a grim-reaper-esque substance that Mexicans took before they raped all the white women and started pillaging the town.
But the Mexicans were mainly just a "Patsy" to which they adhered this new scourge called, "marijuana." Prior to this, no one knew what marijuana was. They were aware of cannabis but this "marijuana" was new to everyone. The real benefactor here, the source for the motive if you will, was the big industrial types like DuPont and pharmaceutical companies. They saw, early on too, just how much their companies stood to lose if this plant was allowed to continue to thrive, as it did in days of old. Suddenly a plant, having never been implicated in a single death through-out the entirety of the history of man-kind, was illegal and evil. Money does funny stuff to people.
And speaking of money, you're not going to address the previous figures that we were talking about? Convenient.
Sorry, Ding Dong, our posts crossed. I did not mean to ignore or miss your wonderfully and thoughtful post.
I make no age connection to your "mmjPatient22" and if I had to guess I would guess your are 46 and born on the 11th of September of the appropriate year. How did I do?
The George Washington pot claim has been around for years and as to proving a negative that is quite difficult.
I am not sure exactly where you get your Mexican marijuana lore from but it is entertaining. Of course, I have always thought that Reefer Madness caught it about just right.
If you know your real hemp agriculture your would know that "ditchweed" which is low in THC and high in CBD will ultimately dampen the % by dry weight of the cannabis sativa high in THC and low in CBD. There is a theory afoot that the growth of hemp in marijuana fields will ultimately reduce the concentration of THC via genetics that eventually marijuana would become impotent.
As a Ding Dong you will undoubtedly know the different growing conditions that the upright ditchweed prefers to the lower growing and more closely spaced marijuana and the importance of culling out the male plants to prevent the female plants from being fertilized and thereby reducing their THC concentration.
Hemp is one of those dopey plants which is more in competition with man made fibers than anything else. Truth be known the widespread cultivation of hemp would be the best thing that ever happend to marijuana as it would ultimately eradicate it.
Well, wasn't the world supposed end when "medical" marijuana was approved? Wasn't there no medical criteria for writing a prescription so any pothead over 21 could get a prescription? And so everyone would turn into potheads and there would be all sorts of crashes and so on?
What that argument completely missed is that the legal status of mj has virtually no effect on a person's thought process of whether to smoke it. People don't use because they don't want to use, not because they'd like to use but are afraid of being cited for a misdemeanor for personal use.
If we change the equation so that mj is legal and presumably largely legally grown in the US then the drug lords of Mexico have one less source of revenue.
The analogy with prohibition is not perfect, but it is too relevant to simply be ignored. Right now, could you buy a few bottles of bootlegged alcohol that did not pay the required taxes? I doubt I could find that with just a few calls. Could I get a few joints in an hour or so? Of course.
Prohibition was started 89 years ago, so I think it is not that analogous but hey that could just be me. Maybe there a lot of things from the 1920s which are relevant to your life now? LOL
That's a big stretch, Ace.
All untaxed liquor gets sold in bars either in labelled bottles or poured into labelled bottles. Why would they ever waste time on retail? When they can move huge quantities wholesale?
Watch and see how a bar disposes of its empty whiskey bottles and you can get a pretty clear inkling as to whether they might be using untaxed liquor. Bar owners know exactly what I am talking about.
I personally have no problem with medical marijuana but it would be a wholesale butchering of the truth not to acknowledge that the advent of medical marijuana --- the first poking of the nose under the tent --- did not lead IMMEDIATELY to the kind of action which will have California voting on the legalization of marijuana just a very short time thereafter.
Has not the actual experience with medical marijuana in California been exactly EXACTLY what its ardent critics predicted it would be? Widespread and wholesale abuse. Of course, there are entire parts of California which have been producing marijuana with a wink and a nod for decades.
I can assure you that if you have been in prison for any offense and know that your probation will be revoked, you will not use marijuana. Or get arrested for anything.
First of all, where the hell did you learn your grammar "skills"...the back of a Cracker-Jack box?
Secondly, your making a lot of, "HUH-UH!!!" statements that have very little substance to them, if any.
Thirdly, it's not that surprising that you're gullible enough to actually believe that films like "Reefer Madness" present an ounce of truth. As I tell every one of the baffoons that toil with me about canna-matters; I'm heavily "medicated" for the duration of 99% of my posts on this website. I'm not out killing people or raping your mothers.
Next, here's a source for the Mexi-info concerning one of the motives for warring against cannabis....http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/vlr/vlr2.htm
Fifth, and one of my favorites, your theories on the botanical evolution of marijuana is comical, at best. It's actually kind of sad that you feel that you have to sit there and COMPLETELY make s#!t up in order to have something to contribute to the debate. Marijuana grown for smoking is cultivated in completely different locations and ways. There is no possible way in hells creation for an industrial crop of hemp to have an effect on a medical marijuana crop that's grown in the very same town. It'd be like saying that barley grown for bread would some how be able to genetically alter it's alcoholic counter-part in way that would make it obsolete for brewing purposes. Absolutely ridiculous! If you have some mystical source for any of that crap, I'm sure we'd all be thrilled to see it.
I'm not done with you yet.....
"As a Ding Dong you will undoubtedly know the different growing conditions that the upright ditchweed prefers to the lower growing and more closely spaced marijuana and the importance of culling out the male plants to prevent the female plants from being fertilized and thereby reducing their THC concentration."
This is great. You tell me that you can't prove a negative, regarding ol' George and his pot use. I suggest that there are logs, written by the man himself, that indicate the proper time to eradicate the males from his crop of cannabis. As stated above, the purpose of this is to make sure the females produce more THC, instead of spending that energy on seed production. Why the hell else would George want his marijuana to contain more THC? He used it to get high. Get over it! He might have been the first US President to do so, but he sure as hell wasn't the last.
"Truth be known the widespread cultivation of hemp would be the best thing that ever happend to marijuana as it would ultimately eradicate it."
My goodness! They've really got a hold of you, don't they? Once again, love to see the scientific work-up on this bang-up theory.
"I personally have no problem with medical marijuana but it would be a wholesale butchering of the truth not to acknowledge that the advent of medical marijuana --- the first poking of the nose under the tent --- did not lead IMMEDIATELY to the kind of action which will have California voting on the legalization of marijuana just a very short time thereafter."
First of all, don't try to play all innocent and claim that you don't have a problem with medical marijuana. Bulls#!t! Utter and complete. That'd be like a preacher condoning legal prostitution because "God" ordains all authority and an authority put that law in place. Gimmie a brake. Secondly, you're right. The advent of medical marijuana in California did not "lead IMMEDIATELY" to the kind of action that put legalization on the ballot in 2010 for Californians. It was the first result of the kind of action that got that measure put on the ballot. When looking at the whole time-line of the marijuana prohibition, having medical marijuana and full legalization voted on with-in 14 years isn't exactly a blink of an eye, but it's pretty damn quick. Medical marijuana is just a stepping stone towards full-on RE-legalization of a plant that civilizations have been using for thousands of years.
And last, but not least,
"I make no age connection to your "mmjPatient22" and if I had to guess I would guess your are 46 and born on the 11th of September of the appropriate year. How did I do?"
Horribly. If this was a serious attempt, which I highly doubt, you did horribly. I'm nowhere near 46 but when I am I hope I'm nowhere near as ignorant as you.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that life has dealt you a bad hand and that you need mj for chonic pain or nausia. If not, you are a poseur and a fraud. You are intelligent and make logical points, but given your handicap, do you want your life's work to be summed up: "He was a leading proponent of the legalization of mj in Steamboat Springs, Colorado." It would be unfair to compare you to Steven Hawking, who has done pretty well as a contributor to society, but there are other examples of those who made art, invented something or enriched our culture even though they were handicapped. I hope that you are more than the sum of your comments here.
It does appear that mj will inevitably be made legal. Many of us view that as a regression of our culture, like the advance of incivility or pornography being casually accepted as expression. I would like examples how mj makes people more productive and creative, because common knowledge seems to be that it makes people perceive themselves as more insightful and creative without results being manifested. The Somalis chew kaat. It mellows them out. A physicain relative of mine told me that opiates were commonly used for depression, alcoholism, to stop bleeding, and for pain control as late as the 1950s, but that regulatory oversight caused that to be discontinued. A great uncle was a physician who became addicted to opium that he used in his practice and had his license yanked. Some drugs, even derived from plants, (as are a great number of pharmaceuticals), are deemed by cultural concensus to be just too dangerous to become commonly available.
You can push back against that it you want. It's a free country, not a perfect one. Most physicians agree that aspirin would be a prescription drug now if it were first discovered because of it's powerful side effects, not because of a capitalist conspiracy. As a society we can't and won't turn the clock back on that, and probably, thanks to the antiestablishment giggle factor among young people, eventually you will have your way with mj, but in your heart, you know that it will be commonly abused and lives will be wasted and lost because of its abuse.
Every one here has valid points,does that mean that we agree to disagree?A middle ground will work,like the voters say medical m.j. but not total legalization.I dont think its ever good to tell someone else what to do and both sides are doing that,pro-Actually suggests that someone would be better off to relax and get high like they do with their m.j. card,knowing that that person that they are speaking to doesnt want the m.j. and enjoys life without it.That is trying to influence everyone to be the same like them.That is impossible everyone wants to freely do as they please in this country and that includes the right to be sober,maybe the pot smokers are tired of being told what to do or not do for so long that they are just being ugly about it.Either way it is an issue that is here now and there are many potential dangers in this society ,its human choice, what to do or not do .the governments trys to dictate every little thing we do in life.Alcohol is the biggest killer ,messer-up of life ,that ever has existed,and its still allowed and when someone messes up on it it is excepted as normal,blame the alcohol,point is there is nothing to be done about it ,Dont let it provoke discrimination either way.,no one is perfect,you can direct people in the right path but you cant make them take it,When people decide to smoke pot and they find it isnt as bad for them personally as others consider it to be and use it they are considered criminals and they pay taxes for their own prosecution,fact is just like alcohol,when it comes the time that taxpaying voters vote it into law,. the majority rules(prohibition dies) and democracy wins.
Well, well, well....... It looks as though I can't bite my tongue any longer.... So here it goes....
I am a legally registered Medical Marijuana patient and caregiver in this wonderful state of Colorado. I personally supply medical marijuana and a number of its derivatives to my patients right here in Steamboat. Soon, myelf and couple other caregivers will be opening a NON-PROFIT MMJ COOPERATIVE right here in this great community. We are not in this for personal recognition... we like our privacy. We are not going to be advertising around the general community, (because our business is not offered to the general community). We are a private club-oriented business, here to aid in the destigmatization of medical marijuana in this community. There is no reason to think that our co-op will attract crime, aid in the marijuana balck market somehow, or even more ridiculous, have our meds end up in the hands of local kids. That makes no sense!! We will offer an array of natural therapy options for those truly suffering with conditions that pharmacueticals just don't help.
I suffer with, and have suffered with since I was a small child, many physical and emotional problems. Am I disabled? No. Do over-the-counter or presriptions medications help my conditions? No. Have I tried every avenue before I tried MMJ? Yes....for many years. I watched my only sibling die right in front of me in a car accident when I was 4 years old (due a DRUNK driver might I add). I suffered with adolescent PTSD as I grew up. This condition was mis-diagnosed as an adult and mutliple pharmacueticals were crammed down my throat for almost 5 years until I wised up and told all the doctors I was done with their experiments. I also nearly died a few years back when bloodclots moved from my leg to my lung, giving me a pulmonary embolism and, what I believe to be, a minor-stroke. Do I look totally normal? Yes I do. But, do I feel totally normal? I sure don't. After years of pharmacuetical treatments and years spent dealing with the side-effects, I had had it. The last few years of my life, since being a registerd mmj patient, I have been spent feeling better than I have in my entire life.
All of these comments about how "pathetic" people are and how many marijuana users are simply "escaping" or "checking out" are born out of the same spirit of racism, bigotry, self-righteousness and ignorance. If you people had a compassionate bone in your body, you might at least empathize with folks in situations like myself. But, that is asking to much from Americans. We love ourselves. And we know how everyone else is suppose to live their lives... Everyone else? They're all just idiots....we Americans got it all figured out, we even got everyone elses lives including our own, figured out. We love to tell others what to do. It makes us all feel like we're president or boss of something or somebody at least.
HOLD ON... MORE COMING>>>>>>>
JLM, with your slim knowledge of the Cannabis plant, it's uses and growing cycles, it seems to me that your posts are only trying to get a rise out of mmj22. I would venture to guess you have a little stash hidden away that you puff on every now & then... and giggle that nobody knows (as your migraine finally subsides and your sore a$$ starts feelin a little better.)
MrTaiChi. (Do you like tea? I grow a strain called JuicyFruitThai....it is one of the best strains on the planet for PTSD symptoms. And I love Chai Tea. I dunno, just mindless chatter) Anyways, your vision doesn't seem to go much past your own nose. People's lives have never been destroyed by marijuana. Marijuana is not dangerous and has been commonly available in this country, and Steamboat for that matter, as long as anyone can remember. OxyContin, Vicodin, Xanax, and cocaine are also commonly available. I hope one day someone you love will come into your life that is a prime example that marijuana is a life-giving medicine, not a life-taking medicine. I careGIVE.... I don't destroy. If you want to chat with me in person about this, I would gladly have an open conversation with anyone regarding this topic. I don't judge nor attack. I understand that most people are not naive on purpose, they simply have just never been exposed to the truth.
email me at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Ding Dong, the Reefer Madness reference was a JOKE! LOL
Maybe you were too stoned to get it? Calm down or you will give yourself a coronary.
Entertaining a grammar critique from a Ding Dong who uses "your" for "you're" is pretty damn funny. But then, again, maybe you're stoned? Or, in the alternative, your stoned? LOL
When I have a bit more time, I will help you with your obvious reading comprehension problems. Ta ta, Ding Dong.
JLM, entertaining ANYTHING from someone who keeps referring to another person as "Ding Dong" really leads the reading public to a high level of respect for your comments, let alone your personality. And LOL at a simple grammatical error only sinks you deeper into immaturity. Please save us the headache and go away.
Please stop making a mockery of this comment section. It can be a constructive tool for the community to use to debate certain, sensitive topics. But, it's trolls like you, and a couple others around here, that make this comment section useless and frustrating. Leave your personal judgements and bigotous remarks for the bar.
And to boot, LOL-ing at a grammatical error that doesn't exist in my posts not only illuminates you immaturity but your ignorance as well. I've reviewed my previous posts and I can't seem to find this alleged grammatical error. Maybe you should focus a little more on what you're reading....ding-dong.
As a matter of fact, if you can quote that grammatical error that I allegedly posted, I'll stop posting all together. Go ahead, read it all over again.
And reading comprehension problems? Really? You sure you want to take this one up with me? Because it seems to me that I've taken all of your "facts" that you've put on here so far and laid them to waste. You're regurgitating lie-based propaganda out of ignorance and fear. You have no valid points and nothing to contribute to any intelligent or rational debate on marijuana.
And you want to talk to me about reading comprehension problems? Well, fire away sensei. Let's hear it.
DrGreenGenes- Glad you could finally make it back to the fight against ignorance. Good to see ya on here.
The thing that strikes me funny about this banter, is the assumption by the nayesayers that the world will to go to hell in a hand basket if mmj is legal. Don't they realize that anyone who wants to smoke it now probably already does?? If they had any grasp of the population that already smokes, they would understand the revenue that could be rechanneled from the black markets.
"Secondly, your making a lot of, "HUH-UH!!!" statements that have very little substance to them, if any." December 15, 2009 at 11:15 p.m.
C'mon, Ding Dong, I don't want you to stop posting just because you made a little mistake. That wouldn't be fair to those you entertain so well. Plus yours is a clever, reasonable, insightful --- though usually ill informed and a bit over medicated --- voice. I would hate to lose those wacky insights.
BTW, my second guess as to your age? Eleven
Some choose to live with their heads buried in the sand.
There ya go. Eleven.
And I do honestly appreciate it and I stand corrected. The meds must have been wearing off. I'll be sure to do a better of job of editing in the future. Obviously, I'm not going to stop posting on here. That'd be silly. It's hard to stop firing when people keep throwing ammo at you.
Now that that's out of the way, please expound on ill-informed. I can provide you with sources for a vast majority of the information I put on here and would be more than happy to share it with anyone who desires it. All anyone has to do is ask. It doesn't appear that you can afford anyone that same luxury. I've yet to see an offering of a single source for any of your BS.
OK, Ding Dong, I accept you're apology. LOL
I will give you the entire GW history when I get more time. I have to do some real work now.
JLM, we are all looking forward to youR version. I'm sure you got it out of the "History Book of Republicans", Written by Republicans, for Republicans...about Republicans. And it's just bursting at the seems with information about incidents in the past that are completely warped and twisted around some old fart's intuition that was dreamed up on some ranch somewhere by a bunch of cigarette-smoking, whiskey-drinking, budweiser-burping, anti-depressant-taking, beef-eating, racist (but Christian), McCain/Palin sticker-sporting, good-ole, white-boys. Gotta love rural america!
Doc GG ---
Hehehehe, damn what clever stuff. Now, do you LIKE Republicans? Cause it doesn't sound like you do.
The history of marijuana is not really a political issue, is it?
Write back when the buzz wears off a bit, OK, Ding Dong #2?
You didn't receive an apology from me. I merely notified you of my appreciation for pointing it out and humbly announced that I had been, and stand, corrected. I need "you're" forgiveness like I need another hole in my head.
And all that matters about the GW thing, at least in this debate, is the existence of his personal diaries where he penned information concerning his cannabis crop(s). If you are claiming that these do not exist, then we've really got something to talk about. However, any other information on George Washington is going to prove to be highly irrelevant to the subject at hand.
C'mon, DIng Dong, (can I just call you "Ding"?), it's OK to apologize and I do accept you're (that will be our little joke, OK?) apology. Thank you. I respect you greatly.
First, when discussing cannabis, it is very important to differentiate between old fashioned ditchweed (hemp) and your favorite --- sativa indica --- which is the one that brings you and many others so close to God.
cannabis sativa --- subspecies sativa --- 15-20% THC content (dope)
cannabis sativa --- subspecies indica --- 0.5% THC (ditchweed, hemp)
For shorthand purposes we will call them dope and hemp. OK?
THC is, of course, the intoxicant but it is one of a great number of substances which differentiate these plants including their potentcy (sp?).
Dope plants are fairly short and they are ideally cultivated spread out so they can get bushy. The male plants are bad and should be killed before pollination and the female plants they have the nectar. This plant will produce a bit of weed and can be refined (into resin) into hashish and hashish oil, if one is willing to work at it.
The hemp plants are twice as tall as the dope plants and are typically grown very close together in order to ensure the maximum amount of stem development as they compete for growing room. This fibrous development is the real product of hemp plants.
If hemp plants are grown in close proximity to dope plants, the cross pollination of the taller hemp plants dramatically reduces the concentration of THC in the dope plants.
This is why one strategy that was used to eradicate hidden dope fields was to shower them with hemp plant seeds. The technique had spotty results.
More later, Ding Dongs.
jlm you are a very smart guy why do you call people a ding dong?Does that mean that they are stupid or you are?If you feel the need to verbally hurt some one ,please dont bore the rest of us out here watching you do so,why not call him a twinkie?Come on ,you know he can write its just what he is saying that you dont want to hear.By the way just what do you mean ?Is the sound of a bell a ding dong or is there anything I am missing?Maybe he is sounding out the truth as he finds it and that is what you actually mean?He is a loud bell that is ding donging ,I guess you are right to call him that.But you are the same only opposite veiwpoint.
jlm, why don't you run down to the store and buy a High Times Magazine. Shuffle through the pages and look at some pictures of some beautifully engineered plants that are both tall and bushy with big beautiful buds. It may strike you as amazing that a bunch of ding dongs have covered both your bases in the last few hundred years, but then again probably not. What would a bunch of stoners know about the plant they cherish? How would they possibly know how to get the best yield from that plant??
Sun, Twinkie, you're so damn sensitive! I enjoy calling them Ding Dongs which I readily admit is a character flaw but I'm just having a bit of fun with the stoners. I really don't mean they are nuts or completely crazy, just Ding Dongs.
Check w/ your law enforcement friends and see what they say a Ding Dong is.
jk, babe, you jumped into the middle of the conversation between me and the Ding Dongs. I was just setting the historic backdrop for the nonsense about the urban myth about George Washington being a marijuana cultivator.
I was not really discussing or explaining the current state of MJ cultivation.
I am fully up to speed on the state of the cultivation of marijuana but thanks for pointing that out. You are absolutely correct. Much has changed since GW was in the hemp business.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the cultivation of dope in its current state still requires a bit more spread out planting scheme (than hemp) as you are trying to grow female plants with a push toward more branching and leaves and flowers. Today most of that is managed by a regimen of fertilizer and light with just a dash of hydroponics to keep inquiring minds at bay.
But, heck, you knew that didn't you? Of course you did.
But, again, you are absolutely correct. Absolutely!
Now back to the Ding Dong history lesson.
LMAO.... You are completely wrong about all your Cannabis & Hemp related facts there JLM, aka Lord of the Ding Dongland. Sativas, yes, do hold a high THC level if let finish to the completion of their long, tropical flowering time. But, if harvested say halfway through, their THC level can be very low, with enormous levels of CBD and CBN. These CBDs are the true medicinal element in Cannabis. Did you know this,oh Lordy Dong? And Indicas, which are NOT ditchweed (ditchweed is Ruderalis), can produce upwards toward the 15% THC nowadays and hold a higher CBD and CBN count than Sativas at the natural completion of the particular strain you are working with. There are literally as many crossbreeds of these Sativas and Indicas as there are variations in the human race. There is no way you can cut it down to the ridiculous banter you just spewed above. Please try to add something useful to this discussion. And go ahead. Tell me to put the bong down, or sober up or something... It only brings a grin to your own sorry face.
By the way, thank you, everyone, for your supportive emails. You guys bring a smile to my face. :)
Cannabis Sativa has 3 major families.
Sativa strains are landrace to tropical and subtropical regions.
Indica strains are landrace to mountainous and drier, desert regions.
Ruderalis has been found landrace to many climates, but grows more like bamboo shoots and hold no THC content, deeming it useless to the drug trade, but extremely useful in many industrial facets.
Sativa and Indica strains hold qualities that vary in many ways. When crossbred, ideal, extraordinary flowers have been produced around the globe.
WARNING NONE OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY JLM IS TRUE.
Reagans drug czar Carlton Turner; "Smoking marijuana leads to homsexuality, and therefore to aids."
Was he speaking from experience?
You are way wrong in your observations about the genus cannabis and its relationship to "hemp".
Ditchweed is the name commonly given to sativa plants which were allowed to go wild and were found in "ditches" as routinely described in such publications as the DEA's Domestic Eradication/Suppression Program. These plants can track their lineage to WWII era programs in such places as Kentucky and Indiana. They are the heirs to the plants cultivated legally in the US during WWII. They have no useful THC concentration for dopers and Ding Dongs.
Ditchweed is urban slang for hemp producing and non-dope producing.
Indica is the root identifier of plants which were always noted as high in THC --- the dope plants which Ding Dongs seek and love.
Ruderalis is a cultivar of the sativa which was found initially in Russia and which was adaptive to local growing conditions. It is a very hardy adaptive plant which came exclusively from the sativa hemp plants which escaped or were otherwise naturalized. It is at best a subspecies of the sativa and not a particularly unique strain.
Cultivars can be created by selecting seed material from any of a number of plants which exhibit some desirable characteristic --- e.g. early blooming --- and then are genetically concentrated by careful breeding. These plants are the result of careful experimentation and concentration.
There are literally thousands of cultivars of the sativa genus developed to concentrate or develop different characteristics.
To be perfectly correct genetically one would describe the family as follows:
cannabis sativa subspecies sativa --- hemp source
cannabis sativa subspecies sativa cultivar ruderalis --- alternative hemp source
cannabis sativa indica --- the Ding Dong plant
Again, this is a very small slice of the genetic inbreeding of the genus and as you correctly note there are a great number of different strains which have been obtained by cross breeding even amongst sativa and indica strains.
This is some pretty simple plant genetics and you are pretty dopey to suggest that it is somehow complicated. At the end of the day, the Ding Dongs seek the THC and its resin and that is found in the indica strain.
Ding Dongs ---
Now back to Geo Washington. Geo Washington was a planter.
What is described in his journals is the cultivation of hemp which was used for naval stores. Navies used hemp to make ropes for the rigging of their sailing ships. There was a great market for hemp and hemp ropes in America because England had a big damn fleet which preferred to re-rig at the end of the ocean crossing from England to the Americas.
During this time period the most prolific source of hemp was Russia. But if the English were at war with France (as they always were) they had a tough time getting it overland through Europe or by sea to England.
The making of hemp requires enormous amounts of labor as the fibers are separated from the plant by soaking, stirring and breaking down the husks from the fiber. This was done by slave labor in the colonies. Geo Washington was a slave owner and the records of his holdings show a great number of "retters". Retting is the process of separating the husk from the fiber.
The names of many important cities in the Americas were in fact related to the hemp trade --- Hampshire, Hampton Roads, the Hamptons. These were all areas in which hemp was extensively cultivated.
The English used the agricultural areas of Virginia and the Carolinas to develop naval stores (wood, turpentine, pitch, hemp) for their fleet and to ship them through the ports of Alexandria, Hampton Roads, Wilmington.
Geo Washington's wife was the wealthiest woman in the colonies and was a huge slave owner and her family had made part of its fortune in the naval stores business.
In Washington's journals, he notes that the hemp plants had grown higher than his head while walking (he was 6'6") and ulimately higher than his height on horseback. This was obviously not the squat little indica species which is the Ding Dong plant.
Now, back to the bong, Ding Dongs!
And back to the GW pot thing again, you must know how to use google, right? Do just a little bit of "you're" own research and you might happen upon more truth than you know what to do with. The diary that contains the two entries from George about his cannabis crop is well known and information can be found on it, that is if you dare to look, of course. "Your" in denial and it's starting to make you look pretty pathetic.
And by the way, we're all still waiting for a single, solitary source, or even a general direction to look in for a source on any of "you're" ridiculous claims.
The only success you can claim from this comment board is that you've successfully contributed nothing but lies and misinformation. I would think that it'd be obvious that "you're" opinions on the matter are neither valid or desired. Nonetheless, "your" entitled to them regardless of their substance. So have fun as another in the ranks of those that mindlessly repeat the things they've heard with-out checking for themselves. You know what they say, ignorance is bliss.
What in the hell did he "weed" out the males for then? If the primary concern was to make sure that the females were as potent as possible, I'm pretty sure he wasn't making rope with the stuff.
And why have you been holding out till now to get in on the marijuana yelling? The pot ordinance comment board has been going on for forever and I don't see you on there much. What gives?
And since we're doing nicknames, can I call you "tosser?"
The removal of male plants to prevent pollination is common to all plant genetic development. Much the same as a dope grower would kill off the males to enable the females to develop more fully, the sativa (hemp) also grows more fully when no energy is diverted to breeding. Sheesh!
C'mon Ding Dong!
JLM Thanks for being so sensitive to me being so sensitive,Im still confused but am looking forward to asking my local police officer the meaning that I seek.I just knew that there had to be a hidden meaning and now just like the searchers of the yule log I can follow the path to enlightenment. I hope they dont think Im crazy when I ask,I will just tell them that this person named JLM told me to do it.The true definition of Ding Dong must be found.Wait, I am a Ding Dong also?Be nice.
JLM.....lock them brakes up and put it in park for a minute. You don't seem to be picking up what I'm laying down. Let's start from the top.
1. GW grew pot.
2. GW had journals where he documented the importance of pulling the males out of his cannabis plants.
3. The only reason to pull the males out of the cannabis is to have the females produce pretty little flowers instead of seed bracts.
4. The only reason to have pretty little pot flowers is to incinerate them and reap the benefits.
That being said, what the hell are you talking about? The evidence says that Georgey-boy was more concerned with marijuana flowers(buds) that could get him high than the seeds from the cannabis plant.
Part two of this has to do with this wonderful nugget;
"The removal of male plants to prevent pollination is common to all plant genetic development."
Are YOU eleven years old? Who told you this information? Where are you learning these things? I must know!
Ding, when male plants are removed, females cannot "go to seed" and they produce a larger plant and for hemp longer fibers. Longer fibers are more valuable because they can be twisted into stronger ropes.
So I am pretty sure that Geo Washington was producing hemp for rope making --- cannabis sativa --- and not cannabis for smoking --- cannibas indica.
But, hey, your version could certainly be true --- in your mind?
Give it a rest, Ding Dongs.
@ Sun ---
Ask a narc and I think you're only an honorary Ding Dong. If the narcs won't tell you, I will eventually.
As the other Ding Dongs would say --- your a Ding Dong too!
And hey, have a nice damn day!
JLM, aka JackLumpMoron, why don't YOU give it a rest.
Your facts about hemp are coming from where? Please state your sources. You seem so determined to ACT like you have some knowledge of all plant genouses and species and how they all work...especially the Cannabis plant. Do you have some kind of horticulture degree? Your ideas related to hemp seem to reside only "in your mind". Whether or not George Frickin' Washington puffed on doobies in the backyard of the White House is no matter. The fact that you keep refering to people who use mj as "stoners" and "Ding Dongs" only shows that to debate with you is futiless. It sure seems to me that you either twist up a big blunt of mexican, chemical-ridden schwag and burn one down as you type your comments, laughing because you feel the exact opposite and are only posting for shock value.... OR, you type them just after you get off work from your "real job", whatever-the-F that might be (maybe a lawyer, or a City official or something....you definitely have your claws in a government paycheck of some sort I'm sure...you're too sarcastic to work for anyone else)....and as you get home you grab a nice, healthy-for-your-liver bottle of American-made Jack Daniels or start on your case of vitamin&mineral rich Budweiser...$hit, you probably pop a good-ole, U-S-of-A appetizer: Vicodin... it goes hand-in-hand with any alcoholic beverage it seems!! And the reason I say this, you bigotous, self-depricating moron, is because you have intelligence hidden somewhere under the repeatedly ridiculous "Ding Dongs" and "give it up(s)" and "narc(s)"... I see the knowledge. But, no, because your brain seems to be in contact with people who medicate with cannabis, then we must all be complete idiots with no basis to anything we do.... So, I see now why you have nothing better to do than come on this comment section and call people Ding Dongs, if we were sitting across from you at your government job and we too, were collecting government checks or at least earning our money the same way you do, then you might humble yourself enough to give us the benefit of the doubt. But, no, we use marijuana, so our level of intelligence automatically is worthless and we are all just a bunch of Ding Dongs. Well, when your sorry, pathetic exsistence finally leads you to your deathbed, I hope the cynical heart and mind, that you so foster and enjoy, hasn't eating your soul up completely. It saddens me to know that such shallow people still have a chance in hell on this planet, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised....shallow people like you, JLM, have been here forever and will always, somehow, find some other shallow, pathetic person, to encourage you to stay the way you are.
So, JackLumpMoron..... YOU have a nice DAMN day!
Okay, first and foremost, the George Washington/Cannabis thing is a very important issue. We're talking about the man that established an almost god-like reputation during his time as one of our nation's greatest patriots. The whole idea behind the country, that men like George were trying to build from the ground up, was freedom. The people that came to settle these lands we know as America were seeking freedom and independence from tyrannical reign and unfair/unjust rule. If part of the freedom they were fighting for included the freedom to grow cannabis/hemp, for any purpose, what in the hell gives our current government the right to deny us the same?
And sure, they did a lot of crazy s#!t back then like own slaves. But don't try to push the argument in another direction. The issue here is female marijuana plants. If in fact things are the way you say they are, the female marijuana plants still would have produced flower buds that contained high amounts of THC and CBDs. Are you suggesting that these farmers merely threw the flowers away and made only rope from their plants? Please tell me that's what "your" saying.
Doc GaGa --
Get a grip, old boy. You're absolutely palpitating with furious ignorance. It's not healthy, sport.
Don't drink much, no government job, don't smoke the ganga. Do know more than a bit about Ding Dongs.
Your level of intelligence, well...............it's what you demonstrate in your ranting and ill informed and erroneous comments. Mean folks might say --- "not much!". I am not that mean.
Simple truth of the matter, pal, is YOU don't know what you are talking about with all your pseudo psycho-babble about marijuana and Geo Washington, etc.
So, Ding Dong, have a nice damn day!
"Your" posting blatant lies and misinformation about marijuana and it's different types, and Doc GG and I are the ding-dongs?
Hemp plants have only about 0.5% THC regardless of how you play with them. You can't concentrate something which does not exist.
Dope plants have 15-20% THC content.
Smoking hemp weed would be less effective than drinking "near beer".
You could smoke a whole field of hemp buds and you would only get bad breath. Very bad breath but no buzz.
Sheesh! This is some pretty damn simple plant genetics and chemistry, Ding Dong. Deal with it. Try dealing with it while not stoned? Maybe?
And, hey, Ding Dong, have a nice damn day!
Well, you've called me a ding-dong enough times. I must be wrong.
Does anyone else find it odd that a self-professed non-consumer of marijuana is arguing with two people on here that have a combined canna-sseur experience of over 20 years?
Hmmm, I guess only rapists have informed opinions about rape, Ding Dong?
Maybe not so much!
Really, that's the best you can come up with? Rapists? And "your" sure that "you're" "Reefer Madness" reference was simply a joke?
And I'm interested to know exactly why "your" so infatuated with the whole marijuana debate? What do you feel you have to lose or gain from any of it?
Since you have been going back and forth to no avail, I thought I'd join in.
I speak as a supporter of medical MJ, but I still have a few problems with the process. There are a few things that will need to change before the general public begins to accept medical MJ.
When getting ANY other prescription, it comes with some required information: How much to take, how often to take it, how long (duration) to take it, when and how often your prescription can be refilled, what strength to take, etc. Until medical MJ gets out of the practice that you can buy (and I'm not totally sure of my facts here so please correct me cuz I know you will) at least an ounce a day everyday for the duration of your prescription (which I don't even know if it has to be renewed - do you have to go in for follow up visits etc) the perception of the non-believers won't change.
I hope that makes sense, I'll clarify more if needed.
Ding Dong, Reefer Madness --- the bible by which I live. LOL
I am interested in any public policy issue which impacts our great country particulary misguided ones which would seek to expand criminal behaviors which damage the social fabric of our great American civilization.
I also love people, including Ding Dongs, and simply hate to see them wander off the gameboard of life thereby damaging their fragile life force. Even Ding Dongs are made in the image and likeness of God.
And, lastly, I hate the drug traffic which destroys the lives of so many good people and which enslaves the lesser amongst us to the pathetic and miserable escapism which steals from them the opportunity to enjoy life to its fullest.
But, really, Ding Dong, I love a good debate and hope one day to get one from you. But maybe not to be!
And, Ding Dong, truly have a great day, a great damn day!
Dosing information in regards to marijuana is an extremely relative matter. Different strains have different qualities, that effect different people in different ways. The dosing requirements that patient "A" has may be completely different than patient "B." And then you start talking about edibles and it becomes even more relative to the individual. Body weight and composition are also things that can be factored in. Most of the community is not that scientifically medical about it but people like DocGreenGenes and myself do possess a fair amount of knowledge about the different strains and their common effects. As I've heard from many that are in the industry, knowledge of marijuana is similar to knowledge of wine. In-depth knowledge of the subject only comes with experience and the desire to learn information that some would say is widely held as taboo. The best way for a patient to figure out their own dosing information, especially if they're a new patient, is to sit down with someone who knows what they're talking about and can provide the proper guidance in the right direction.
Expand criminal behaviors? When the prohibition of alcohol was instated, how much contraction did criminal behavior/activity see? None! It exploded! When they abolished prohibition, the crime subsided. What the hell are YOU talking about JLM?
And I've got a doosey of a quandary for you. If all the "drug traffic" is destroying so many lives, why are there so may people in favor of legalization? Why did Californians get the issue of legalization put on their ballot next year? Why did Breckenridge vote to legalize it already? Why do over 25% of the states in our Union support medical marijuana? Why are another 25% considering medical marijuana legislation with-in the next year? Why has our Commander-in-Chief told drug enforcement authorities to back off medical marijuana patients and their suppliers?
Save "you're" religion for another comment board. But since you brought it up, didn't "God" give us all herbs & spices for us to delight in? Since you believe in this "God," what's "you're" theory on how marijuana got here? Aliens? Or wait, we're probably the only life in the universe though, huh?
So many questions! And I bet you've got all the answers too.
Of course it is relative, just like other pain meds, but even "take as needed" meds have some info. Could you imagine a doctor giving out ANY other pain meds to patients as much as they want at whatever dosage they want? I understand that they're not the same and there is the argument that one cannot overdose on MJ. I get that. I'm not claiming they are, but the buffet of strengths and dosage that you get at a dispensary and the lack of regulating strength lends itself to scrutiny. There are no guidelines. Self medication and self diagnosing what your own prescription should be should not be the practice for anyone. Once you get a prescription or whatever it is they call it, you can get however much you want, whenever you want, for however long you want. As you say, "The best way for a patient to figure out their own dosing information, especially if they're a new patient, is to sit down with someone who knows what they're talking about and can provide the proper guidance in the right direction." THis is the same for ANY current meds. There needs to be that extra step in the MMJ industry that then says how much, when etc the patient should be taking the meds. If it wants to be taken seriously as a medicine (which I truly believe it IS) then this extra step is necessary.
Ok, JackLumpMoron, talk about palpitating with utter ignorance.... When you simply come back with the "You're wrong and I'm right" rebuttal and numerous "DingDong's" and jabbering babble.... you have proven that your knowledge lacks basis. I am done with you. You ask for a good debate, but then simply assume all of the comments we reply with are guided through clouds of smoke. It's obvious you are a Christian, with your "in God's likeness" comment..... I don't see Jesus ever calling people derogatory names in the Bible....just WWJD, right? I guess Jesus would recommend that I would continue following the path that the God-ordained Doctors had me on, right? The one of useless pill bottles & wicked side-effects, only because it is the "law of the land" and the Bible says, we are suppose to abide by the laws of the land, right? I'm glad you love people, but loving people includes empathy for each and every person's situation. Let's hear a loving and compassionate comment, that doesn't include any "Ding Dong's" or "Damn Days".... I assume that the "public policy issue" you speak of above is Medical Marijuana....and you say it's "expand(ed) criminal behavior" that is "damaging the social fabric of our Great American Civilzation."....well, when 70%+ of the fabric of our nation is leaning toward legalization, it looks like you will be the one palpitating with ignorance for a long time to come. Keep barking up whatever tree you want to, your voice is getting smaller and smaller. Go tell your pastor or priest, they'll comfort you. But as for the rest of us, we make our own choices based on the Truth, not based on what the media or gov has to say. Your love for people is blinded, by your self-centered, self-righteous focus on what YOU think is right...taking no consideration of people and their situations. Go ahead and mask your judgements with the word "love".... Go ahead and cover up your control with supposedly, love-centered manipulation. People see through that crap.
Please bring something useful to the comments section this time, JackLumpMoron
jaded- Starting to understand the name.
The extra step lies with the patient. It's the patients' responsibility to find what they are looking for in the medicine. This information is possessed by those that are professionals in the industry. If you're looking for my recommendation for a great place to start, you might want to talk to DrGreenGenes.
I would love for DGG to help me with my misunderstanding of why this industry alone thinks that it should be exempt from all other regulations and recommendations that every other medication has to abide by. Remember, I am a supporter, but unlimited access and unregulation lends itself to scrutiny. Play by the rules, and you will have a much better time convincing people that you are legit. It seems as though the MMJ patients want their medication of choice but don't want the medical community to have any say in how they should be taking it. - Just let me take what I want when I want, I'll figure it out on my own - that doesn't fly for me
jaded.... I agree with you. Never should it be a simple free-for-all... This issue is a VERY complicated issue, because the medicine we are talking about has always been (and still is by the Federal Gov) considered to have no medicinal value (mostly because the gov that developed under Harry Aslinger, barred all research for many years...we relied on foreign research to prove to the great State of California that Cannabis does indeed have more medicinal value than any sole plant on the planet). So, with no research to lead up to the mmj law being passed in California in 1996, had never been given any intention by any facet of the FDA to regulate or create dosage recommendations. There are numerous teams of scientists trying to set this area straight currently, but it is a difficult thing to do. In Amsterdam, where if prescribed (and doctors DO prescribe it there), you pick up your medicinal marijuana at a pharmacy like any other medicine. It's the same strain of medicine everytime and it's supposedly proven to have the best medicinal properties overall. But, still, it comes in a small container, and even though the doctors recommends a dosage the patient can freely intake all the medicine on the first night if they so choose. They same can happen with any prescription. We have to trust the patient, at least a little bit. As a caregiver, one should take on the responsibility of regulating the amount of medicine supplied to a patient. Many dispensaries limit the amount of medicine a patient can purchase in one month. But, it is the responsibility of the patient to understand their own needs and to be responsible for the own intake. Even if some scientist came up with some dosage amount, it varies per person, per body weight, sex, age.... you name it. Just as it does with any medication.
Ding Dongs, behave yourselves and stop covering yourself with spittle during your crazed rants.
Let's establish some basic points.
You have absolutely no knowledge about the difference between hemp and dope. Go smoke hemp!
You have a bit of knowledge about dope because you are, well.....dopers. Legal or otherwise, you are dopers.
"Medical" marijuana is a complete fiction as this drug has not been subjected to the type of scrutiny that would suggest it is, in fact, a medicine.
Very, very few medical doctors would stand for the proposition that MMJ has any real medical benefits. Sure, it gets you stoned but medicine? Hmmm, not bloody likely.
MMJ has not been "licensed" based upon normal drug development protocols.
MMJ is not distributed through the normal channels through which licensed pharmaceuticals are distributed.
When MMJ distribution was first instituted in California, in complete defiance of Federal law, the abuses were gargantuan. They still continue.
MMJ is just the first salvo in an intellectually dishonest attempt to legalize dope. MMJ proponents admit as much freely and clearly. The California iniitiative is just the next logical step.
I really don't oppose MMJ if it could be shown through normal clinical tests and drug development protocols to be an effective medicine and were then distributed through normal channels rather than bogus MMJ channels.
Why should the "medical" MMJ get special treatment?
And, hey, Ding Dongs, you have a nice damn day!
Thanks for your comments, but I still don't see the MMJ industry doing this regulating on their own very much. If one gets a prescription for Xanax and takes it all the first night or sells it to someone else, they have to wait until their prescription is up for renewal again to get it filled. If a MMJ patient takes it all the first night or decides to sell it to someone else, they get more the next day, and the next day, and the next day. You stated earlier that you are one who gives out prescriptions - do YOU limit how often they can get refills, and if not, do you allow any OTHER prescriptions the same unlimited access. You are right, it is like any other medication - there are differences in age, body weight etc that must be taken into account. Why doesn't the MMJ industry acknowledge this and do something about it? There is a reason that the doctors and pharmacists are the ones telling patients how much and when other medications should be taken. For you to say "it is the responsibility of the patient to understand their own needs and to be responsible for the own intake" goes against all established medical practices for any other prescription. You want to be treated the same but do not want to be subject to the same rules. It is a blatant double standard and one that the MMJ industry desperately needs to address.
jlm, You were creating a humorous little stir for a bit, but now you are just stirring for the sake of aggravation.
JackLumpMoron writes "Very, very few medical doctors would stand for the proposition that MMJ has any real medical benefits". About 5 years ago the APA accepted that mmj has numerous medicinal value and just a few months ago, the AMA agreed and is asking the Feds to reschedule it, because they are wrong. And so are you. Have you looked in to any of the recent studies? You have no clue what you are talking about.
I clearly know the difference between hemp and "dope". Clearly much more than you. But, you have convinced yourself that you know it all.
Holy Cow jaded, maybe it is because the doctors that prescribe it understand the fact that if you take your whole mmj prescription in one night you are going to wake up in the morning having to figure out how you will pay to have your next script filled, but if you take your whole prescription of xanax you are not gonna wake up in the morning. Big pharmaceutical companies are so regulated because the crap they are feeding you will kill you!!!
jaded.... the MMJ Industry is doing exactly what the law allows. The problem you are frustrated with roots in the Federal Gov. Ask them these questions. Why doesn't the FDA step in?? Got me.
I am not a doctor. Guess you got that from my silly psuedonym. But, no, I am a caregiver. And if I ever felt my patients were abusing the medicine I gave them, then I would not give them any. Period.
jk, JackLumpMoron is not aggravating. This lump is embarassing.
Ding Dong ---
As usual you are full of smoke. You grossly misrepresent the action by the APA (American Psychiatric Association).
The APA sent an "action paper" --- not 5 years ago, 2 years ago --- to their Board of Trustees indicating their concern that even though 12 states had authorized the medical use of marijuana the Federal government and Federal law characterized such activity as "criminal".
They were objecting to the criminalization of the recommendation and prescription by their member shrinks of MMJ to their patients in violation of Federal law but in conformance with changing state law.
The APA is an association of psychiatrists and does not conduct medical research.
This action paper did not offer any opinion as to the efficacy of marijuana as a medicine.
You, Ding Dong, are full of smoke!
And, hey, have a nice damn day!
OK, the bogus AMA issue too? Again?
Let me give you an excerpt from the actual document propounded by the AMA wherein they only called for the reclassification of MJ from Class I to an acceptable class upon which to begin conducting research.
"Though delegates called for reviewing whether marijuana fits into schedule I, the house's new policy said the recommendation "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.""
All the AMA has officially agreed to is that MJ may merit a bit of study and that the current studies do NOT rise to the level for its use or approval as a prescription drug.
Sheesh, Ding Dongs, you gotta lay off the weed for a couple of hours per day! Please.
OK, Ding Dongs, as long as we're at it how about the FDA's view of things.
First the FDA looks askance at any purported medicine which is delivered by inhaling smoke. That whole lung cancer fixation they have.
The FDA has approved both Marinol and Cesamet which are synthetic and chemically identical to THC but they don't provide the ability to smoke them because they are capsules rather than burning flotsam and jetsam.
The problem wih the FDA is that they are in the actual drug business, safe drugs hopefully while the MMJ guys are in the faux --- smoke 'em if you got 'em --- pot business.
The Ding Dongs don't want medicine, they just want to be Ding Dongs and smoke dope which the FDA says is not a safe delivery methodology for a real medicine.
In spite of all of his, I would still be in favor of MMJ if its proponents would refrain from pretending it is medicine and just say it is an herbal remedy, regulate it, pay a big tax, surrender their drivers' licenses, stay out of restaurants during the evening rush and get a Ding Dong branded on their foreheads.
And, hey, Ding Dongs, have a nice damn day!
Wow! Branding?! Can we go through and brand all the idiots, like you, when we're done getting it?
mmj22 , hey I wasn't making a " bad joke " comparing the anti-marijuana posters like Aich , Dukey Boy , Seeuski and all the rest to Hitler ... I am very pro marijuana and just tired of Fasicists like these idiots posting their drool ....as you know the marijuana Tax act of 1937 was passed to protect corporate profits...and don't know if you have noticed lately [ the last 50 years or so ] our white house has become headquarters for corporate America...we could argue the definition of fascism , here's my take , arrogance , bully like behavior , and when your country is run by the corporations ....here's my point , by keeping marijuana illegal we give the power to the corporations [ money ] also to drug cartels , the Taliban , etc. etc. so by supporting the law , the law supports Fasicism and the corporations , so anybody that supports the anti - marijuana law is Fascist....Hitler was a Fascist . people have become so dependant on the corrupt sytem that they actually defend it...people like AICH , SEEUSKI AND DUKEY BOY that's why the comparison boys , just look at SEEUSKIS posts , arrogant and bully like behavior without an ounce of intelligence...personnal attacks on people , just like Hitler used to do ...if they don't agree with you then off with there heads...I rest my case
Hey, you don't have to offer a defense to me. In case you haven't noticed, I tend to play both the choir and the preacher on this issue. I went and read back through my posts and didn't see, nor do I remember, me saying it was a bad joke. If I did, I didn't mean to offend. I thought the reference was spot on.
Your conclusions about the rest of the goons on here, the ones that pretend to have something to offer to the actual debate, is also correct. It seems as though a lot of them have the assumption that we're just a bunch of brain-dead morons and nothing is quite as gratifying as proving them wrong.
mmj22 you were replying to seeuski , using the lord's name in vain...etc. etc. near the beginning of this thread and no offense taken , I was just saying that this isn't a joke to me...and I was totally serious about the comparison to Hitler...It might have come off as sarcasism to seeuski or aichy , but it's not ....then he replies with an F-BOMB ....typical Neanderthal response from the American sheep...Aichy , JLM , SEEUSKI , DUKEY are all Neanderthal's and have not yet evolved to the age of reason and intelligence...they need to know that they are a dying breed and soon as they expire this planet will be a better place for all of us ...I'll bet you a dollar that they are all ex military or police mentality with a dash of war monger on the side .... definitly bully's and arrogant to be sure .. I grow tired of there verbal vomit on MJ ...PEACE
OK, Ding Dongs, let me get this straight --- you are all "enlightened" though you cannot follow even the slightest thread of intellectual reasoning, have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and constantly misrepresent the position of the APA, the AMA and the FDA but you are right even when you are wrong?
So this is what your ganga has wrought? A bunch of self-gratification?
MJ is illegal. The APA, the AMA and the FDA are NOT suggesting it should be made legal. The MMJ crowd is just trying to slip in the back door. And the primary "medical" benefit is apparently getting YOU high.
OK, thanks for the enlightenment but not too much, You're almost incoherent in your reasoning and inability to tell the truth. But then you are STONERS, right? And what can the world expect from folks whose primary mission is to escape reality?
C'mon, Ding Dongs, even you can do better than that. Take a half day off the ganga and give reality a whirl.
JackLumpMoron, you still don't state your sources and YOUR facts are all wrong. I am referring to the American Physican's Association and the American Medical Association. Screw the American Psychiatric Association...of course those idiots don't see medical use in marijuana. But, if you pulled your head out far enough to find some recent research that is not dated and worthless, you would see that both the AMA and APA are in favor of medical marijuana. Check out phoenixtears.ca and and tell me that medical marijuana has no medicinal value.
JackassLumpMoron, Why don't you take a half day off whatever it is that has disconnected you from the truth.
Must be religion. Gotta be. And in a related matter, I wonder if JLM is short for "Jesus Loves Me?"
And anyone looking for factual, real and informative reading on the plant itself(mostly this is pointed at JLM), this is a great resource. It even has pretty little pictures for those that fancy such things. One of my favorite pictures is the one that shows all three major sub-groups of cannabis, lined up next to each-other( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cannab2_new.png ).
If in fact, like JLM claims, George was growing some cannabis for the elicit purpose of having long fibers, for rope production, he would have been growing some good ol' cannabis sativa. I don't think I need to enlighten anyone as to what else this particular variety of cannabis has to offer besides long, hearty fibers.
Here's the link...
And another reasonable point of view coming from another elected official?! I don't believe it...
freerider- It's obvious that most of those folks have something to gain from marijuana remaining illegal. They all seem fairly hostile and it would be more than fitting if some, or most, of them were in some way tied to law enforcement and/or drug enforcement agencies.
In speaking to the ex-military mentality, I'll say that not everyone that exits military service is a war-mongering fascist. Point-in-case, I myself am former military. I maintain a fairly militant stance on the issues that are of great importance to me but, like many veterans, I understand that the entire premise that this country was founded upon, and the main reason most of us enter into service, is freedom. Namely, the freedom to believe whatever you want to believe and the freedom to preach about it peacefully, without fear of persecution and/or imprisonment.
In paraphrase from Family Guy, "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I'll defend, to the death, your right to say it."
There is a fine line between having an opinion and forcing your opinion on those that hold a different viewpoint. Fortunately for us pro-potters, most of the lunatics provide ample and exemplary demonstrations of the kind of throat-cramming, opinion-pushing that makes them look like Fascist pigs. Makes things a little easier.
And JLM- Not that "your" looking for anyone to agree with you on any of this(because we all know that "your" just here to make a stink), but why don't you team up with aichempty on these comment boards? You two seem like you'd make quite the dynamic duo on here.
Am I the only one who found it interesting that this question of the week has not been followed by another weekly question for over a week and a half?
I think that people should look at the history of the effort to legalize marijuana since the 70',and it has endured all of this time in the voting booths,petitions,e.t.c. that shows that there has long been an effort to make it legal that never really has stopped.If this plant is a gate way drug to the truly horrific drugs,cocaine, meth, heroin,prescription misuse, huffers,speed,and what ever the destructive potion is,why doesnt any of the supporters of those groups come forward to put them on the ballot to legalize meth lets say?Because even they know what they are doing is so wrong and terrible for them they would be ashamed that they even do it .There is where the true drug problem lays,but the plant got mis classified long ago in the same boat as the others,I maintain that it was a gross mistake that was made and never corrected.Now somehow the voters have managed to say that it is medicinal and some people refuse to de-classify it in their own minds along with the law and this creates the predjudice that goes on now.My point is that please take that energy and use it where it is needed and that is persueing the meth and cocaine heroin,terroism,starvation,e.t.c.Pot shouldnt be out and out legalized, because alcohol ,even tobacco is controled.I think people are on the right track to what they are doing now and give it a chance ,fix it better ,or what ever it needs(medical marijuana) this is a work in progress for a long time for the voters of the country,it seems to live on.
So what does it say about the community of Oak Creek that someone has applied to open a marijuana dispensary at 200 Sharp (the old bank) next to Black Mountain. I think it would be a good thing. But a town where the Town Board was willing to keep inept,inexperienced and unprofessional police for so long and never actually took any action (the business community said fire them and they resigned before the next board meeting), I have fears that the nutters will show up and the Town Board will find a way to avoid approving it.
Planning Board consideration on Jan 20. Town Board the 28th.
Scott your comment above is inept,inexperienced and unproffessional.You are trying to cause trouble before anything even happens.If you want to discuss the oak creek police department do it in the proper column.I read this as stirring up trouble against the town,or are you saying that the business owners need to go to town hall and bully their policys into place?What is a nutter?Just back off of oak creek,they will do what ever they have to and as far as the police officers ,that is your opinion and not hard and fast truth.You are not helping a community by being so negative.I suppose you think people should never move to denver because they have had specific incidents of mistakes by police officers?That is saying that there actually were incidents where the police misbehaved,there are allegations that they occured.Im sure you can find storys of good things that those officers did,its over any way ,this is now .Good luck living there as you are so negative and who knows,the nutters might show up!(what is a nutter?I will add that to the search list....ding dong,nutter.........twinkie
I would disagree with your assesment here sun. Scott has a long history of posts on these forums and has always tried to stay away from personal attacks and general negativity. You may or may not agree with his opinions, but that is what these forums are for.
It is a hard and fast truth that it was not hard for the OC business community to come to the conclusion that Chief Russ and Sergeant Erik were incompetent and should be fired. There were serious concerns expressed by the public in the March police forum. Town Board did nothing then except censor Mayor J Elliott for bringing up a resolution trying to get rid of them. The business community did not even focus on the bungled arrest and tasering of Cargo, and the bungled investigation of that. It was inept police work on reported crimes and so on that convinced the business owner that the officers should be fired.
A nutter in the case of mmj is the type that will argue that a dispensary will sell meth to kids. Or, in the case of police, say it is fine for the police to break the law. (If Erik had followed the law that night, he could have put Cargo in serious legal jeopardy. Instead it was case dismissed and she has a lawsuit that has merit).
And it took San Jose, an urban city with expensive real estate that makes Steamboat look affordable, less time to decide to allow residential chicken coops that rural town Oak Creek. Some things should not be rocket science. And the Oak Creek Town Board sometimes ends up with Board members quite confident that something as simple as a wheel will never work, and instead they should use warp drive because that will work so well.
You'll have to excuse me for one moment,just wanted to comment on the Steamboat 700 taking shape story(seems I cant comment anywhere exept on the "question of the week' page).FREERIDER is a genious.
I have also had problems signing on and posting comments, maybe something that the Pilot can look into? Thanks in advance for checking into this.
I have been following the chat, and find it a bit distrubing that some have resorted to name calling, Although a bit ironic that aich referred to his child as a polyp.....
if one would call his own such name in a public forum.........well, once again proves what his stance is on the rest of human kind........
I was able to post a test comment on the Steamboat 700 story, so it appears to be working OK now.
bandmama, is it really you, or Mr. bandmama?
When I had trouble posting in the past weeks, I figured out that if you click on the masthead the software returns you to the home page, where, if you repeat the usual process, you'll find the comment box at the foot of the comments ready for your opinions.
Merry Christmas to Christians and those of other faiths in America who are the beneficiaries of two hundred years of shared heritage.
We have the right to voice opinions without fear of government retribution. Among our most cherished right according to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is the right to be wrong, to hold unpopular beliefs. What a blessing! While there are frequent atheist skeptics on these pages, my opinion is that their expression of opinions, anti-religion based as they are, would not be tolerated in the majority of other countries that do not have a Judeo-Christian heritage.
May we all agree to disagree in 2010, as the likelihood that these postings will change minds is apparently nonexistent. Fun though.
Taichi, Mrs Bandmama here, Mr Bandmama was naughty and lost his posting rights!
Thanks for the masthead help, it seems to be working!
Merry Christmas to you as well.
Many of the differing views of 2009 have been based upon conjecture. The next year we will have an opportunity to compare campaign rhetoric to performance. I suspect that the pendulum of "hope and change" will swing in the opposite direction as "hype and contraction" have not worked out so well thus far. We shall see!
Merry Christmas to all men of good will!
I surely hope that you're talking about your own mis-informed and ill-conceived conjectures. I've quoted and offered sources on numerous occasions to back up what I say. Let's face it, you're not exactly Mr. Bibliography. You get on here and spew manifestations of your own fear-inspired ignorance. You don't have any valid points and you can't seem to defend any of your allegations about cannabis, no matter how much time you've had to come up with answers.
Secondly, what in the hell does your comment have to do with this post anyway? Kinda sounds like you're another Obama-hater looking for some soap-box time.
Merry Christmas, MMJ!
Touche'. Good comeback. Now I have no clue what to say.
mmj, how about you say nothing and continue to, as you promised if your grammar was incorrect. Mostly all you say is you love weed and think its great. however, it is not currently legal for all, and the abuses going on in the med marijuana are great. It is not (mostly) being used for medical need, but pleasure. Alcohol makes me feel better, but i dont think its a medically necessary drug. nor should i be driving when under its influence, while you brag of being medicated and driving.
if anyone had any sense, they would be advocating for legal weed, under the control of the government. By control, i mean they grow, sell, and tax it. The revenue would cure many ills in todays society. But currently there are private citizens making a killing off this plant which has been controlled for years by the govt(laws). Non profit or govt control would make things much better for all (except the dispensaries). You could grow your own, for yourself, or buy from the govt, to the financial benefit of all. Dispensaries and competition will only lower the price to a level far below that which has been common for over a decade.
Further, Scott Wedel, where do you get off debasing the oak creek town board for its backwards action, wasnt it your beloved mayor who continued the chicken conversation with his objections? And your support for a woman suing her own town, classy. Why not complain about her drunk driving, are you getting a piece of her lawsuit action? or are you just a nutter also, one who doesnt condemn drunk driving. you are forgiven, slightly, for the good points you bring up about alcohol being the main gateway drug, and that weed slinging is a gateway to selling harder drugs. Ive known many users and sellers, the sellers are much more apt to graduate from weed to hard drugs than the users are apt to graduate to using harder drugs. Govt control could get rid of this gateway for dealers, bring in incredible revenue, and eliminate some of the mexican weed traffic.
pps to JLM- i have heard of many very stong varieties of both sativa and indica weeds, which have high thc levels. Never heard the term ditchweed used to indicate any strain, varietal, family, species, etc.
Drgreengenes, you grow good weed, ive seen you offer it to others on the ski lifts. You bring out good points and a well stated opinion. not like the ranting mmj. i hope ur nonprofit (at least give yourself a good salary) coop/dispensary continues its success. Are you the one who offers free gram fridays?
Well honestabe, if you continued reading after the point where I said I would quit posting due to grammatical error(by the way, it seriously took you this long to comment on it?), you would have seen that I soon after said how ridiculous it would be for me to quit posting on here. There is too much ignorance on here to stand idly by and let lies and misinformation prosper. And the fact that alcohol makes you feel better and it's legal only serves to point out how retarded it is to prohibit marijuana. Alcohol pickles your internal organs and has the possibility of killing you if you imbibe too much of it. Marijuana possesses neither of those two qualities, nor does it affect driving abilities in the same manner that alcohol does.
Giving, or attempting to give, control of marijuana distribution and production to the US Government would be laughable at best. Even if this were to ever have the possibility of actually happening, who in their right mind would buy pricey government weed when they can grow it, at a markedly lower price, in their own basement? Many people make the claim that government grown/sold/controlled weed(medicinal) would be the solve-all for our economic doom. This is not true. Only by allowing American industry to thrive with industrial hemp will we see just how much of an effect cannabis can have on a culture.
And by the way, the Mexican weed traffic would be completely eliminated by legalization in America. In case you're not following the other canna-articles, here's a link from the dispensary ordinance article on here:
Getting back to the source of this debate and the question of the week, that has yet to be followed by another, even for three weeks;
"Do medical marijuana dispensaries negatively affect a community's character?"
Well, I think it's safe to assume what the response is from the medical marijuana community. Only a resounding and unanimous "NO!!!" will ever be heard from anyone enjoying the greenness of the grass on that side of the fence. And it seems as though they've even named their capital city.......
I love the irony of HonestAbe being an anonymous poster. A person with so much integrity that has to hide behind an anonymous name.
It was not J's best moment when he raised objections to the chicken coop ordinance. Nor did the rest of the board say that this was easy enough and plan to allow it. But I do not believe I lose the right to criticize elected officials just because a person I generally support participates in a poor decision.
I have said on numerous times that it is wrong to drink and drive. Will you now say that, as the DMV hearing officer ruled, that it was wrong for the police to enter Cargo's house without a warrant? I think the investigation into the circumstances of her arrest and tasering was so inept with there appearing to be enough facts suggesting police misconduct that she is right to sue. There is no reason to let inept police do that to her with the official response from the town currently being that there was nothing wrong or even questionable about that night.
I will receive nothing if Cargo wins her lawsuit against the Town. You should be ashamed of yourself for creating lies like that. But spewing baseless accusations is sadly what is expected from HonestAbe.
Scott, yes, it was beyond wrong what the police did. I believe the town saw and said that the tasering incident was questionable at best. If they didnt state it loudly, possibly it was because they were very smart and knew a lawsuit would be coming, and didnt want to give Cargo any more ammo.
Finally, there were no accusations, only questions. Are you really that disturbed/paranoid or did you just read wrong? you are forgiven if it was only your misunderstanding of the question. Thanks for your answer though, its presentation was enlightening.
i personally think J is a great mayor
So stuff like: "I hear you like children. Are you a pedophile?" is okay with you because it is just asking questions? It is absolutely not acceptable to have one factual statement followed by an offensive question. And what a joke that you post that sort of stuff anonymously under the moniker of "HonestAbe". The paper should remove the "anonymous" tag and have your posts authored as "HonestAbe (absolutely not)"
The Town never got an outside or independent investigation or review of Cargo's arrest or of Chief Russ's "investigation". The Town Board never passed any reprimand or criticism of either. Town Board Member Dave Ege had a few pages of questions regarding both, but he never got any answers from Chief Russ. (If he had they would have been public records and the Town says no such records exist).
Cat got your tongue abe?
I note many occasions in your postings where you criticize posters for anonymity.
You have an argument, but I have also observed calls for economic retaliation for unpopular opinions, and I remember once the suggestion of violence as retaliation, but can't be more specific. I think it had to do with Oak Creek issues.
I wonder if you also considered that anonymity also allows for the expression of bare knuckle opinions, some, as you note above, not in good taste by any standard. By using your name and Oak Creek identity, in an ironic way you are making a pre-emptive strike against someone who might claim that you are an idiot, or worse. It would be helpful for a Colorado attorney to chime in here, but my guess is that libel laws do apply to these comments, so while suggesting, by way of example, that an avatar or nom de plume identity's opinions are caused by latent homosexually probably would be not libelous to the identity, they might be to a real person. Do you think that the Pilot won't disclose anonymous posters in court proceedings in answer to a subpoena? Not good odds on that Duke_bets.
You may impune the integrity and courage of an anonymous poster, Scott, but if the goal of this forum is to explore unfettered opinion, you may actually be casuing posters to pull their punches with you, and in that sense, the argument could be made that you are the one hiding behind your identity. Just a thought.
Happy New Year. I feel so much more secure on the slopes knowing that you dopers are passing fatties around on the chair lifts and in the gondola.
But none of the posts here are truly anonymous. The paper requires that they know the true identity of those that register here even if they allow the person to post under an anonymous moniker. Thus, people like Brent Boyer who do read these posts are seeing each post with the knowledge of everyone's real identity.
Thus, if libelous comments are directed even at an anonymous moniker then that person could presumably sue easily enough because obviously there are people at the paper that know the victim's true name. I am not a lawyer and that is not legal advice.
In is my intent to not criticize people solely for posting anonymously. If I have ever personally criticized a poster for the arguments they have made then I'm sorry.
It is my intent to criticize anonymous posters that make personal attacks on people, anonymous or named, that post. I think it is truly morally bankrupt when an anonymous poster makes personal attacks against someone that is posting under their real name.
And OMG, mmj and decriminalization has led to people smoking a joint in the gondola? Say it is not so! It must be terrifying to think that fellow skiers might be high on pot. Someone needs to inform the ski area and have them stop this terrifying practice. We need to stop this before it spreads. Skiing while high? What idiot started that trend?
Oh, I've been told people have been skiing high forever. Also, that the song Rocky Mountain High is not just about feet above sea level. Apparently, no need to be outraged or worried.
I don't know the law of Colorado, but in most anglo-saxon based jurisdictions, the civil offense would not be complete until the victim of it suffers damage to his reputation. As an identity has no reputation the only person who could be persuaded to think less of the 'victim' here is our publisher, Brent, who, truth be told, probably thinks we're all loopy.
I guess that you're ok with skiing while intoxicated.
As I asked before, "Why do we need another legal intoxicant?" Nobody answered that one. I surmise that the response is that we already have a social one, if not legal, so why not surrender? "Look at all the good that has been done with liquor taxes" they are saying when they make a parallel argument to regulate and tax mj. All you have to do is ignore the down-side of legalizing an intoxicant. There will be as many as there have been with alcohol. I'm ignorant; never smoked mj or had it in brownies. That makes me disqualified to comment about it until a child or relative gets splattered on a highway by someone 'one toke over the line, sweet Jesus.' By the same standard, if you aren't among the only 3% of Americans who've ever served in the armed forces, then shut up about military matters. Such is the depth of intellect of the dopers here. I'll give them high marks on being articulate, but low marks for wilfully ignoring the harm that legalizing mj will cause society.
A tort of defamation (slander, libel) would be pretty hard to make stick simply because of the anonymity of the participants --- you can't harm a mythical person and absent some form of identification how would one prove any real damages? A tort claim which results in the award of no damages might be grounds for the defendant making a "frivilous lawsuit" counterclaim and thereby recover attorney's fees and costs.
It would be virtually impossible to overcome the issue as to whether a "blog" is a publisher (pertinent only to libel which requires some form of publication as a basic element of proof) as this is a highly evolving matter of the law with many simply taking the view that a blog is nothing more than a casual conservation transcribed for the benefit of its participants. There is not much said in a blog which might otherwise not be said at a cocktail party or at a bar.
Weird as it sound, the issue of qualified privilege --- pertinent to journalists --- may apply as the comments are arguably published in a newspaper at the invitation of its publisher making each and every blogger tantamount to a journalist.
The offering of an "opinion" or a "fair comment on a matter of public interest" are all defenses which would be very difficul to overcome. The best defense, of course, simply being the assertion of the "truth".
One might also profess that simply posting of a blog comment is tantamount to providing "consent" to any and all parties to make any and all observations about the commentator or the comment.
Given the above, it is difficult to believe that an anonymous commentator would be able to successfully claim damages against another anonymous commentator or frankly to actually sustain any real damages.
One has to ask the question that if "mmj" --- medical marijuana --- is what is being smoked on the gondola, then is that not a justification and the factual basis for what many have indicated is their legitimate concern with that program >>> the abuse of the availability of mmj for simple intoxication rather than for a legitimate medical concern?
Does that no make all the protestations to the contrary of the dopers on this blog empty and false?
What medical condition justifies the use of mmj but is not so debilitating that it precludes skiing?
While I have huge misgivings about any substance which suggests it delivers medicine by burning and inhaling the combustion byproducts --- that lung cancer thing --- I would certainly be open minded enough to allow the FDA to investigate, ponder and consider legalization as a medicine.
If it is just a guise to smoke a joint on the gondola while skiing, then I think we have our real answer as to the objectives of those who sing the praises of mmj --- it's simply a charade to gain access to mj. Period.
I will take a small stab at that MrTai. When I argue for the legalization of these intoxicants, it is not because I support their use/abuse. I support legalization because of the following:
A. We are currently dealing with the problems of drug use and abuse.
B. Those problems would not be dramatically worse than they are right now.
C. Spend our resources on treatment and education instead of incarceration and
Most Americans would ignore these drugs just like they do right now. The legality of the substance is not what stops most people it is their own internal common sense. By creating the black market for illegal drugs we have unwittingly funded the largest private armies in history. The gangs control more money and firepower than the police. The problems of guns/gangs/violence cause more problems in our society than the drugs themselves do. By eliminating the profit margin on these substances we can do more to control the gang revenue than any other single thing that is possible.
America is losing the "War on Drugs". These substances are freely available to anyone that looks for them and anyone that wants to participate in their use can do so at will, Just ask any student at the High School.
Treatment and drug education will not do much to stem the tide of drug abuse, but maybe, just maybe if we treat those in trouble like patients instead of criminals we might save a few more. Making substances legal just not necessarily make our society accept their use. There are many that have been shunned for their failure to control alchohol or gambling addictions but we do not throw them in jail except in extreme circumstances. Why have we classed one set of behavior as so severe that simple possession of the substance is reason to be thrown in jail.
It seems to me that simply possessing and using illegal substances is not the real problem here. The real problem is those individuals that either choose to put others in danger by their actions, place themselves in danger by their continued abuse. The one mistake demands action and punishment, the other calls out for help that jail time will not fill.
The failed "War on Drugs" has worked just about like the prohibition of alchohol did and has caused many of the same social problems with gangs and guns. It is time to try a new approach to this problem.
Where are most of the gangs with guns coming from these days?
bakrodr, they come from inner city povery, lack of education and opportunity, a proliferation of cheap guns and expensive illegal drugs.
So legal cheap drugs are worse?....somehow increasing violence, crime and death?
To suggest that the leglization of mj is going to reduce the violence associated with the production, distribution and use of crack, coke, meth, heroin, etc. is simply not true.
These are all dangerous drugs from a personal health perspective as well as the behaviors they induce. Much crime --- crime not related to drugs --- is committed while under the influence of these drugs. To suggest that the legalization of mj will not adversely impact this gateway to more desperate drug use is dangerous thinking.
To suggest that the legalization of mj and the treatment of addictive behavior as an illness is to completely abdicate the possibility of showing mj use for its marked unhealthy impact alone.
Much crime associated with mj is committed under the influence of mj. To provide a greater supply certainly raises the specter of more crime.
One of the reasons we are not making progress on dampening the demand part of the equation --- our side of the border --- is that we have a President who was a drug user and distributor in his youth.
Thank you Trump for a rational and civil argument.
So many of the rejoinders to comments here on this subject are characterized by emotions. The degree and ferocity of emotioinal investment that the 'pro' forces have suggests to me that mj is central to their lives. If one were to apply the standards applied to alcoholics, I'd bet that more than a few line up, like looking forward to the next drink/ hit. Planning for the opportunity to consume without being caught by a boss or relative; being unable to remember a day when the drug was not administered; consuming every time to the point of intoxication. What do you call a mj 'alcoholic?'
I wonder if they stop to question whether the plants they are growing in the basement are serving them, or they are serving the plants. Instead of a little pellet of food that falls into the cage, they are rewarded for prospering the species with good vibrations, euphoria. The plant has figured out that if it concentrates the effect, it's genes will be cultivated, protected from preditors and nurtured. This isn't an original tought, of course, the Nat Geo channel picked mj out as one of four plants that are cultivating human behavior, but in repeating it maybe one reader out there will ask himself if serving the plant doesn't truly make him a dope. OH wait, wait- here comes the response, " We cultivate corn and potatoes too!" Well, we are mortal and require fuel for our metablolism to function. Mj is not recreationally needed for a full life.
Dopers on the mountain take heart, you may still distinguish yourselves in this life with a major accomplishment, the 2010 Darwin award.
Thank you JLM for the response to the tort issue. Beware, however, that I became aware this past year that Colorado in particular is aggressive in pursuing unlicensed practice of law incidences. The one I heard of was the prosecution of an out-of-state attorney for advising a Colorado relative, (can't be more specific). It seems like a stretch for the committee of profesional standards to care about your post, but who would think that curbstone advice to a relative would tweak their interest.
Disregard last two sentences.
jlm, no offense, but our last three presidents have been former drug users, with gwb being a drunk with a dui and a cocaine issue. As to your previous post, medical marijuana is something that is necessary/very helpful to some, however, i feel as an issue it needs to be separated from full decriminalization/legalization. It is a shame that the two are being lumped together and that mmj is being used as a ruse to get full legalization. I believe that there is a need for mmj for some, and that people who dont need it and get licences are posing a risk to legitimate mmj.
ps by the way, the majority of the best skiers/snowboarders are high on weed most of the time. i have yet to see the gateway it has provided to users of coke, meth, crack, heroin on our mountain.
I take no offense at the dopey conduct of anybody let alone the Three Stooges --- dopers, liars, vainglorious imprudent men. I find all of them to be singularly irrelevant persons when looking for a role model --- which is very, very sad. It is really not a political issue. I am a firm believer in redemption so I also do not think the fact they have colored outside the lines once or twice is a disqualification for them to make important contributions to mankind.
I am quite open minded as to the efficacy of medical marijuana but tire of its obvious "camel in the tent" strategy as a means to lead to the legalization of marijuana. It is hamhanded, obvious and tiresome.
If one is legitimately attempting to reap the medical benefits of marijuana, then turn it over to the FDA and the pharmaceutical companies to follow the appropriate drug development protocols. In fact, there are two FDA approved drugs which provide THC to afflicted persons given the right prescription. They are not particulary unique as there are literally hundreds of other approved drugs which provide the same benefits.
The real problem is that no medicine is going to be approved in which the delivery methodology requires the inhalation of combustion byproducts --- that whole lung cancer thing. And the marijuana user really wants that entire cultural ritual of lighting up the joint or bong or other delivery system. They really want the dope not the benefits.
You really have to be stretching your credulity to the snapping point to fail to see the allure for drug distribution when a marketplace snaps up marijuana but is alleged to turn its head at coke, meth, crack, hash, heroin. That is totally inconsistent with actual experience.
Risk taking behavioral addictions lead to more of the same. And the graduation to more risky drugs is as natural as going from the greens to the double black diamonds.
@ Mr Tai Chi ---
One should never be surprised at the viciousness with which lawyers will protect their livelihood. One only has to look to the current health care legislation --- completely devoid of any semblance of tort reform and, in fact, providing protective assurances of continued tort activity.
What is the difference between a lawyer and a prostitute?
The prostitute will stop screwing you when she thinks you are dead!
difference between a rooster and a lawyer: A Rooster clucks defiance.
"To suggest that the leglization of mj is going to reduce the violence associated with the production, distribution and use of crack, coke, meth, heroin, etc. is simply not true."
JLM- When did anyone ever suggest that legalization of marijuana is going to reduce the violence associated with production, distribution and use of crack, coke, meth, heroin, etc...? I certainly have never made such a suggestion. However, the point I was making, and the point that others have made, is that legalizing marijuana(or at the very least re-classifying it) will offer a safer alternative to the deadly, and often more violent, drugs. Marijuana has been proven to be safer and offer more medicinal benefits than anything else that shares it's current classification as a schedule 1 narcotic.
Another point that a lot of people have made, including myself, is that both alcohol and aspirin are legal despite their "ability" to kill you as a result of abuse. It just doesn't make much sense to outlaw something that is proven to be less deadly, and less addictive, than many things that are available over-the-counter, behind-the-counter or around-the-corner. Well, it doesn't make sense to the average citizen. But maybe it's not supposed to make sense to us. Maybe the law is only supposed to make sense to those that are in a position to profit from the illegality of marijuana.
"Much crime associated with mj is committed under the influence of mj. To provide a greater supply certainly raises the specter of more crime."
Once again, and I'm sure it won't be the last time, I would love to know what your source is for this information. Regardless of where it came from, the generalization of "much" in any debate is grounds for questioning. Next, and I'm sure I can come up with countless sources for this one, to suggest that there's some pothead crime wave that's using up law enforcement resources is complete and utter BS. When people use, or even abuse, marijuana the likelihood that they will go out and commit a crime while under it's influence is slim to none.
To clarify, reasonably defining a "crime" in this situation becomes critical. To classify any activity involved in the purchase, use or propagation of marijuana in this situation would be a bit ridiculous. Let's go ahead and assume that "crime,"in this instance, is meant to include things like violence, theft or crimes of a similar nature.
And to come to the conclusion that an increase in the supply of marijuana will somehow spawn a spike in crime rates.......well, I'm having a little difficulty coming up with the words that correctly/justly describe how ignorant that statement really is. The government already tried to negatively argue both sides of the issue of what affect marijuana has in an "aggressive" or "passive" capacity. The first piece of BS they came up with was "Reefer Madness." What a masterpiece!(insert sarcastic remark here...) Anyone with half a brain knows that marijuana has nothing to do with the way those people portrayed it's effects. Marijuana does not inspire any crazed, lust-inspired fits of murder or rape. I've never smoked a joint that made me want to go out and murder anyone. Despite having increased feelings of arousal while enjoying marijuana, I've never felt the urge to go out and rape anybody. That's just rude.
MrTaiChi- Hilarious! Thank you for sharing that with us today. Thoroughly enjoyed it.
@ mmj --- your entire intellectually pretentious argument appears to devolve to the sophomoric supposition that if there are any legal substances which equal or exceed the negative characteristics of marijuana, then marijuana by default should also be legal.
BTW, I thought Reefer Madness was a documentary? Is that not right?
I hope you're joking about the Reefer Madness question.
And my argument pointed to one central question;
Why does marijuana get special treatment from our justice system and our government?
"Why does marijuana get special treatment from our justice system and our government?"
Uhhh, cause it's illegal?
Uhhh...really? I had no idea.(insert sarcastic snicker and roll of the eyes here...)
Actually, the illegality of marijuana is precisely what I was referencing when I said "special treatment." Why isn't marijuana, something that can't kill you if you take too much of it, treated the same way that alcohol is treated? Why is it considered special? What are the specifics of why you think it is a more dangerous substance than alcohol?
mmj, thanks for putting up the good fight. Although you may sometimes feel like you are all alone, I would like to let you know that others support you. MJ prohibition has always been a tool for bigots to persecute those that they are afraid of, whether it be those of a different color, poitical stance, etc. All the B.S. that these guys throw out, and they still can't site any hard evidence that mj is dangerous. If they were truly concerned about the wellfare of society they would be spending all this effort railing against a truly dangerous drug that is destroying life everyday in our own community, alcohol. I find it ironic that while this blog is going on, in one week the paper has articals on two deaths due to alcohol related violence and five new liqour license approvals. Not a peep from our esteemed ones. Kind of shows you where they are truly coming from. Shamefull.
Marijuana is hugely different from alcohol.
I can enjoy a glass of wine with a meal and it simply adds to the enjoyment of the tastes making the savory meal more stimulating and enjoyable to my palate. The glass of wine having made its contribution to the meal's tastiness, imparts no narcotic or inebriating quality. This would be fairly characterized as a "moderate" use of alcohol.
Marijuana, on the other hand, appears to have no desirable benefit short of inebriation or intoxication. Folks smoke week to get high. The marijuana high is a destination onto its own and seemingly an escapist mechanism which dulls the inhibitions of the smoker thereby leading to behavior no longer guardrailed by societal norms.
Marijuana's desired effect is imparted by a dangerously unhealthy delivery mechanism which introduces poisonous toxins into the body including the byproducts of combustion. It is literally a step removed from inhaling car exhaust in that the desired narcotic effect is delivered in company with carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and other dangerous substances produced when anything is burned.
There is no heroin user in America who indicates that they did NOT first smoke marijuana. While marijuana users recoil at the depiction of marijuana as a "gateway" drug, it is beyond all refutation that meth, heroin, opium, crack users have all smoked marijuana as a PRELUDE to being "liberated" to the harder drugs. Cocaine use correllates in a similar manner though it does not typically require a combustion delivery system.
This is a tiny bit more subtle argument than simply saying that marijuana leads to harder drugs. The point I am making is that ALL hard drug users started with marijuana.
Even criminal organizations (e.g. La Famiglia, a fairly new Mexican gang in the lower US) which today have "graduated" from marijuana to cocaine began as organizations distributing marijuana. Their violent and illegal behavior was spawned by the marijuana trade though their product mix was diversified to cocaine. Cocaine was more lucrative because it dollar volume per volume of drug was superior to marijuana. It's easier to logistically "sell" a million dollars worth of cocaine than it is a similar amount of marijuana.
On the basis of its original intent, delivery system, correllation with hard drug use and violent criminal distribution system --- marijuana is very, very different from alcohol.
Scott, do you really feel that arguements, opinions, or ideals posted here would be as thought provoking if forced to use real names? Many who express an opinion, do so as honestly as possible. If forced to use real names and a personal opinion veered from what is 'acceptable" by society, many of us would never express what we really think. I think you would be surprised to learn how many of us have good respectable jobs, take care of our families and contribute to the community in a positive way. This method of expressing these opinions is a healthy, good way to really know what many are thinking, as well as what is really going on in your town. You may not always agree with the opinions given, but fear of backlash keep many of us in the shadows. Although I dont agree with the fact that the Pilot requires personnal information, it does keep some sort of responsibility within the equation.
I personally had issues with an ex employee of the Pilot who traced me from a comment I posted on the Gary Wall/drunk driving incident. This employee called MY employer and complained. What I posted was in no way out of line but it was not in favor of an article written by this employee. Thankfully my employer understood my position, but had they not agreed with my right to free speech, it could have been very damaging to my career. This particular article is about smoking weed, reasons vary, but this is what it is about. What if someones employer does NOT agree with the right to speak freely about a printed article. Are you willing to force one to choose between expressing an opinion and keeping their job? Although I am very happy for you that you are not in this portion of the public, many of us are, and would you really want someone to loose a job or whatever, just so if you see them on the street you can point out their "scarlet letter"? Annynomous posting does the community a huge favor in educating others. Dont try to take this away with an over zealous attitude.
Bandmama will try to refrain from other posts again for awhile............
First, it seems very convenient for you to be focusing so negatively on one sole delivery method of marijuana as medicine. You are either ignorant to, or choose to leave out, the information regarding the other methods of marijuana ingestion like vaporizing and edibles. Neither of these two approaches have any of the same negative health effects as smoked marijuana. So, I'd like to hear(or see rather) your health concerns about vaporizing or eating edibles(like pot brownies).
I can hear it now, "well, brownies make you fat and vapor is just another form that the devil takes!"
Secondly, as for your assumption that marijuana is useless other than for intoxication or inebriation(by the way, inebriation refers to alcohol), you could not be any more off base and incorrect. What a surprise!!!
If you were a marijuana user you'd know that it makes everything better; eating, sleeping, working, working out, working on cars, making love and even debating with ignorant people, such as yourself. Now don't read too much into it when I use that word. Ignorance is simply a result of not being exposed, either willfully or coincidentally, to the truth. It happens to a lot of people. But you should try to correct it if you catch yourself swimming in it.
And last but not least, you sure do have a lot of opinions(let's just call them that, for lack of a better word) about marijuana users in general. You admit that you don't use marijuana but yet you know SO much about how it affects people. I'm sure we'd all love to know just how many marijuana users you know personally, not "ran in to" or "heard of." You barely fall short of accusing every marijuana user of being addicted to meth, coke, heroin and glue sniffing. Your logic is, "well, if they deny it or say anything in defense of an alternative viewpoint, they must be on it and trying to cover it up or something." None of what you said in your last post, or any of your posts for that matter, has any basis in reality. But it does make me question again whether or not you were serious about your "Reefer Madness" question.
And yet again....and again, and again, and again...no sources. I could sit here and make up a bunch of BS that makes marijuana look even better than it really is.
But I don't. I offer sources. I offer facts. I give my opinion(s) but I've never told anyone all about how dumb they are for not smoking marijuana. I'm not the one pointing out grammatical errors(which your writing has as well), as if they had some valid place in the debate. It would seem as though, at least with-in the realm of this debate, you're the one that's backed into a corner. And it's not even that great of a corner. It's a rare occurrence that someone gets on here in your defense. But you seem to enjoy yourself all the same.
You seem to confuse the debate as it moves between mmj and plain old maryjane. Let me clarify.
I am highly skeptical of the medical impact of mmj when smoked and support the FDA's postion that it is not a "medicine" and that its Class I classification is appropriate. The delivery of mmj's "benefits" through the inhalation of combustion byproducts seems terribly flawed.
I am supportive of the FDA's position as it relates to FDA approved methods of oral delivery of appropriately approved drugs in the form of pills. Though these pharmaceuticals have hundreds of alternatives that deliver superior results, the fact that the FDA has approved them is more than enough for me.
I am indifferent to the delivery of mmj through vaporization though I certainly concede it does not suffer from the combustion byproduct issues. If the vaporization delivery technique and protocol were similarly researched and approved by the FDA, I would also be supportive. I have the same basic view as to foodstuffs which contain marijuana.
I am opposed to the legalization of marijuana for the reasons I have previously propounded.
I hope that's clear for you, mmj.
Your comments fail to persuade on a couple of specific and important points.
While I described the apparently innocent ingestion of a glass of wine in moderation to enhance the quality of a meal, you fail to suggest that the use of marijuana can provide any utility short of getting high. There is no desirable physical effect other than getting high.
Apparently that is your basis for suggesting it enhances the experience of "working out". It defies logic to suggest that introducing combustion by products into your body to the extent of intoxication --- getting stoned --- enhances fitness. Really? Come on, that is silly.
I fell well short of making any statements as it relates to the conduct of marijuana users pertinent to "hard" drugs. What I did say very carefully and made it a point to reinforce the specificity and tight focus of the statement is that EVERY meth, coke, crack, meth addict had also used marijuana. Every single one. And therefore the argument that marijuana is a gateway drug is an argument that must be given very close scrutiny.
I also made the statement that the progression of criminal activity from marijuana to other hard drugs is a dangerous and deadly phenomenon in the US as demonstrated by specific Mexican gang activity.
All of the above comments are focused on "illegal" marijuana not mmj. That is a slightly different debate though I firmly believe that mmj is simply the "camel under the same tent" as well demonstrated by the industry's own utterances.
Hope that helps.
I'll bet EVERY meth, coke, crack, meth addict had also used alcohol, probably before they ever tried mj. Alcohol, the gateway drug.
I am absolutely certain that the abuse of alcohol is a step on the path to drug addiction of all kinds.
That argues for careful consideration of alcohol abuse and its dangers rather than the legalization of marijuana, wouldn't you think?
Well, if it's a lack of evidence that supports claims that marijuana truly is medicinal, try a couple of these out. ( I know. Me and my sources.)
This is my gift to you for the New Year. Maybe now you'll have some actual facts you can share with people in 2010. Enjoy.
I also doubt the true medical use of mmj. If there was something so medically good in mj then big pharma would have found it. Too much profit in the drugs for the symptoms claimed by mmj advocates for big pharma to ignore the chemistry.
But I note that Prohibition left open a medicinal use of alcohol and not just for sterilization, but to take to treat medical symptoms. And today the consumption of alcohol for medical symptoms is not widely accepted either.
The history of tobacco would note how it too was promoted to treat various medical symptoms. That use is now widely rejected.
I think mmj is better than mj being illegal. mmj puts reasonable limits so the mj should stay out of the hands of children and the level of use by the patient is not that heavy.
I think it was a historical mistake to make mj illegal instead of being regulated like alcohol or tobacco.
All of them can be abused. All of them can be used in moderation. None of them are healthy.
The fundamental problem of mj being illegal is that it is so widely ignored and instead of reducing usage, it being illegal instead benefits criminal gangs and creates smuggling rings.
So you allege that marijuana is medically useless because big pharma hasn't tried to re-arrange and re-sell the compounds in cannabis? Very interesting.....
Other than that, good points on the gang stuff. I bet legalization would deal a fatal blow to gang activity and violence.
Holy smoldering hashish batman!!! Another great article.
Sorry JLM, but I don't see the logic of dealing with the problems of one drug with "careful consideration" and the other with complete prohibtion. I believe that this approach has it's roots in a deep bias against a stratum of society that the mainstream wishes to nominalize. I agree that MJ can have detrimental effects to society, similar to all intoxicants when abused. I also beleve that the use of one substance over another is not a moral question. Trump has put forth the best argument for dealing with the problem of substance abuse. When the use of an intoxicant becomes the overwhelming purpose of a life, then that life is best saved by treatment and education. Making someone a criminal seems counter intuitive to the chances of rehabilitating that individual.
I don't doubt that big pharma has tried to extract drugs as good from mmj as claimed by mmj. In theory, the resulting drugs should be much better because they can optimize the concentrations of the medically relevant compounds.
I think Marinol which virtually everyone agrees is not nearly as effective as what mmj patients get from mmj goes to show that mmj is not full of medically useful compounds.
I do not doubt that mmj or alcohol can be used by some patients to better cope with chronic symptoms than prescription drugs. But that should not be the issue.
The issue should be whether there is a consensus that it should be illegal. It is pointless to keep it illegal when it is so widely used and personal use has been decriminalized.
@ h & t ---
Alcohol --- as an example a playful, naughty little pinot filled with pleasing citrus notes and a smooth finish --- can be used in moderation in such a manner that it does not even induce a "buzz".
Marijuana appears to have a single objective --- getting high. There is no ability to moderate its effects.
Alcohol is delivered in such a manner that its delivery does not have other harmful side effects. Alcohol enhances the aesthetics of the dining experience and enhances the palate. Red wine in particular is noted to have cardiac medical benefits and its use is recommended by physicians for a healthy heart.
Marijuana is delivered in concert with known carcinogens --- combustion by products like car exhaust --- which provide significant health concerns.
While it is pretty clear that the first glass of that mischievous little pinot does not impart any element of abuse, the first drag of the marijuana joint comes full on with its carcinogenic killers in hand.
It is difficult to see how a reasonable person might become comfortable with the ingestion of just a bit of carcinogen.
h & t ---
OK, you've really got me stumped on the following statement ---
"I believe that this approach has it's roots in a deep bias against a stratum of society that the mainstream wishes to nominalize."
WTF does that mean? I am not going grammar postal on you, you just really have me puzzled as to what that is intended to mean? Help.
Referring to a bunch of citations provided by entities which are obvious advocates and proponents of any cause results in a series of self serving supportive statements. No surprises there and as predictable as snow in the winter.
This is tantamount to asking Nancy Pelosi if she thinks the Health Care bill is a "good idea". NP: "Hmmm, I think the health care bill is a great idea!" Duh!
Big pharma is in the business of developing drugs to make money based upon the unique efficacy of new drugs. This is their business. They do it to make money.
If THC based drugs were "unique" --- imparted results which could not be attained by other currently licensed and legal drugs --- or if the "efficacy" of the drugs were superior --- they worked better --- big pharma would be all over it.
Be honest about the issue --- the ritual of smoking marijuana (not unlike the ritual of a great dining experience) and getting high is the real end product that folks desire with medical marijuana as there is absolutely no disease which mmj purports to treat which does not have a legion of other legal drug treatments which provide equal or superior results.
If that were not the case, marinol would be flying off the shelf.
The FDA is not going to approve a medical delivery system which requires a patient to inhale carcinogenic combustion by products. And they should not.
Scott, Without doing the research to back up these statements, I believe that big pharma has been largely prevented and discouraged from mj research by both regulation and govermental pressure. I would have to dig pretty deep to prove this, so.... Anyone dig up a link on this topic??????
JLM, your research topic comes under the title of "college student alchohol poisoning" and "cirrosis of the liver" I believe you should further research the information that MADD has collected about alchohol abuse and it's effects on individuals and families.
Once you have that information absorbed, You should come back and tell us your findings. I have a question or two for you.
Have you ever even one time experienced the effects of marjuana either injested or smoked? If not, how do you purport to know so much about its effects?
Have you ever been around someone that you knew and trusted to later find that they were actually stoned when around you?
For the record, the compound known as THC is only one of hundreds of compounds that exist in mj. the cannabanoid family of chemicals directly interact with the brain compounds and chemicals in ways that no one has ever fully studied or documented. It is unknown what effect those compounds are having other than the "stoned" effect from the THC. One of the things that has been documented is that smoking mj can reduce the internal eyeball pressure in glaucoma patients which helps doctors control and prolong the eyesight of someone who has that disease. No extract has ever been identified that produces the same effect. You can be sure that if big pharma could sell us an effective drug for glaucoma they would be all over it. Why have they been unsuccessful?
Thanks for the response. I am not here as a proponent of the use of mj. I am also not opposed to the enjoyment of alcohol, in moderation of course. My purpose is to bring some balance to the argument for or against the prohibition of mj. What I was trying to say is that I believe that this prohibition has more to do with a long held bias that our society has towards the type of individual that uses this particular substance then any actual danger to said society. Not to say that this substance is not abused by some, but surely with no more harmful consequences then alcohol abuse has visited upon our own community. I am sure that most would agree that treatment and education are necessary steps that society can take to prevent and treat substance abuse. Where the discourse comes from is the belief that incarcerating these individuals is beneficial to society. I propose no. I feel it is a drain on our economy, that it will not help the individual, and in fact fosters further criminal behavior. Disregarding the whole illegal drug industry for the purposes of this discussion and concentrating on the issue of rehabilitating a life lost to substance abuse, I propose this question; how can criminalizing that individual possibly help? I would argue that nominalizing the individual by giving them a criminal record is not condusive to their rehabilitation. At the very least it will make it harder for them to get gainful employment and become a self supporting member of our community. It can even be argued that mj prohibition may be the gateway to real criminal behavior. Great place to learn about how to commit crime is in the cooler.So again, how can we resurrect these individuals if we take away there ability to find significant employment, as well as define them as a criminal?
This is what debating with you is most like. Futility is an understatement.
The Most Useless Machine EVER!??!!!
by Frivolous Engineering
@ ts ---
You write ---
"One of the things that has been documented is that smoking mj can reduce the internal eyeball pressure in glaucoma patients which helps doctors control and prolong the eyesight of someone who has that disease. No extract has ever been identified that produces the same effect."
Ocular hypertension is routinely treated with eyedrops of a multitude of legal types. Ocular hypertension as a symptom and cause of glaucoma has been researched in great detail as it afflicts 1 in 10 seniors over the age of 80.
Here is a quote from the 2003 study/position paper by the Americna Academy of Opthamology ---
"...no scientific evidence has been found that demonstrates increased benefits and/or diminished risks of marijuana use to treat glaucoma compared with the wide variety of pharmaceutical agents now available."
The big knock on mj as a reliever of IOP (interocular pressure or ocular hypertension) is that the benefit lasts for only 3-4 hours. What was also interesting was that the benefit was equal whether taken orally or by smoking meaning that there is no requirement to "smoke" marijuana to achieve any benefit even the shortened benefit noted above.
The problem which is presented by the "medical" use of mj is that it is not particularly effective, has a myriad of other more efficacious alternatives and is preferably delivered in a manner --- smoking --- which is extremely dangerous.
While mmj advocates energetically sing the praises of mmj, the real problem is that the sheet music is devoid of notes and those that they pretend to find simply do not resonate with real medicine.
I like the way you continue to attack all comers without bothering to answer the legitimate questions posed to you. Kinda like Fox News "Fair and Balanced".
My point stands, mj does have an affect on glaucoma doesn't it? Big pharma has not identified why, have they? Yes, there are other substances and treatments that are effective I never argued that point at all.
A good source of information pertaining to glaucoma is the Glaucoma Research Foundation which provides an authoritative discussion of the current state of drugs used to treat glaucoma and its attendant IOP or ocular hypertension.
It discusses mmj as follows:
"Advocates of medicinal marijuana cite evidence that hemp products can lower intraocular pressure (IOP) in people with glaucoma. However, these products are less effective than safer and more available medicines. Most research regarding marijuana use took place before some current medications with fewer side effects were available.
The high dose of marijuana necessary to produce a clinically relevant effect on IOP in the short term requires constant inhalation, as much as every three hours.
The number of significant side effects generated by long-term oral use of marijuana or long-term inhalation of marijuana smoke make marijuana a poor choice in the treatment of glaucoma, a chronic disease requiring proven and effective treatment.
To date, no studies have shown that marijuana— or any of its approximately 400 chemical components—can safely and effectively lower intraocular pressure better than the variety of drugs currently on the market."
Of course, there is always the chance that some stoner knows more about these things than the American Eye Institute but may not, eh?
@ trump suit ---
Did I read correctly that you said:
"No extract has ever been identified that produces the same effect." ???
Obviously that is TOTALLY wrong as evidenced by the myriad of drugs which are listed as effective treatments at the Glaucoma Federation Institute's website.
In addition the GRI's own site indicates that mmj is not as effective as these medications.
Smoking mmj for the treatment of glaucoma and its attendant IOP is NOT AS EFFECTIVE as the approved medications and RAISES SIGNIFICANT HEALTH CONCERNS.
Medical marijuana is "...a poor choice for the treatment of glaucoma."
Other than wanting it to be so, what exactly recommends an ineffective drug with a dangerous delivery system to be used to ineffectively treat a serious disease?
Speak the truth or STFU, my friend.
Happy New Year!
OK, my friend, you have stumped me again. WTF does this mean?
"I would argue that nominalizing the individual by giving them a criminal record is not condusive to their rehabilitation."
WTF does "nominalizing the individual" mean in plain English?
"At the very least it will make it harder for them to get gainful employment and become a self supporting member of our community."
Actions have consequences. In today's employment environment to have a criminal record of any type is an amost insurmountable impediment to obtaining employment. One cannot be a part time US Census worker with a criminal record.
Any reason why actions should NOT have consequences?
We all make decisions and have to live with the consequences. In school there will be one kid who does his homework, keeps his nose clean and obeys the rules; and, another who decides to ignore his school work and smoke dope. Each makes their own decisions and determines their own outcomes.
Why should the slacker be able to eat out of the good kid's chili bowl?
What's with the passive-aggressive hostility? And besides, you telling any of us to "tell the truth or STFU"(very classy), is about as potent as a bite from a gardener snake.
And let me see if I've got this right; any source on a subject that is procured from a proponent of the issue at hand is completely invalid? Who would you rather I look to for correct information, the federal government? There's a good laugh!!! Why not ask rape victims if their experience was traumatic?
And besides, no one is asking for anyone else's chili. We have our own chili, thank you very much.
The bottom line that I see here is that some people of inferior character quality look for any easy opportunity to try and get a leg up on someone else. Marijuana users are easy targets in this case due to the 70 years of this plant being something that is taboo in our society. Throughout the entirety of mankind, over thousands of years of marijuana use, and, somehow, suddenly humans get dooped(for 70 years) into believing that it's evil and un-beneficial? Gimmie a break!
If you go and research(which is asking a lot, I know) the beginnings of the prohibition of marijuana, you'll find that it was primarily a move against Mexicans. There wasn't some huge new study that came out, or some horrific accident that killed hundreds if not thousands of people, and there wasn't a sudden rash of marijuana related deaths. Despite the non-existence of these things, the perpetrators of the marijuana prohibition tried desperately to convince people that marijuana-crazed Mexicans were going around raping all the white women. Their solution to this made-up problem was simple. Ban the weed = Mexicans won't rape your wives and daughters. Fibbing seems like a bit of an understatement here.
In fact, if you look at the roster of people involved in initiating the prohibition of marijuana, you'll see that a good number of them had ties to companies like DuPont and pharmaceutical companies. To draw a modern day comparison, it's like a former big gun at an industrial war machine(Dick Cheney) getting all tangled up in war-mongering across the Middle East with a failed oil exec(ol' Georgie boy) at his side. Some would see the alignment of such facts as something other than "coincidence," to put it lightly.
Once again, nice attack..... Keep em coming so we know who you are.
You still have not answered the two simple questions asked:
Have you ever even one time experienced the effects of marjuana either injested or smoked? If not, how do you purport to know so much about its effects?
Have you ever been around someone that you knew and trusted to later find that they were actually stoned when around you?
Allow me to take one less bullet away from JLM that he could use as a "point."
Garter snake is what I was referencing earlier, not a gardener snake.
So the business about:
"No extract has ever been identified that produces the same effect."
I take it we are in total agreement that what you said was total baloney and you, sir, are full of it, no?
While I have no intention of being deposed by you on any subject, please rest assured that I have ample knowledge of marijuana, the effect of marijuana on people, the cost that marijuana abuse extracts from its victims and the progression of sorrows that marijuana presents. More than enough to know that my views are based upon fact.
Your rendition of the history of marijuana and how it became to be banned in the US is as close to the truth as you are capable of being on the subject but --- so what?
Regardless of how marijuana's tangled ancient history came about, it's prohibition is a sound decision from any of a number or perspectives.
It is a good decision for the times particularly given the nonsense of medical marijuana which purports to have mysterious medicinal benefits which are apparently indiscernible to the FDA and the AMA. To say nothing about Big Pharma which knows how to make a buck from medicine.
There is not a single malady for which mmj proponents sing the praises of their beloved weed for which there is not a superior legal drug with which to provide effective treatment.
The baloney and lies posted here about the mythical powers of mmj as it relates to IOP or ocular hypertension is a perfect example of the intellectual and factual dishonesty with which this phoney product is promoted. Worse still are the ignoramuses who believe such tripe.
The prospect that "medicine" is effectivelly delivered in concert with carcinogenic combustion by products is the height of nonsense.
At the end of the day, this is all about stoners promoting other stoners and sober folks see it for what it is --- nonsense promulgated by charlatans.
Sorry JLJM, what you have proved is that you do NOT know what you are talking about. Your comparisons of strains and effects is so far off base it cannot be taken seriously. It is quite clear that you are spouting the propaganda that you have heard, and have no direct experience of your own.
Point conceded, no not at all, if you would do your homework assignments you would learn more. The absolute truth is that mj does have a positive effect on glaucoma patients. You may scream and yelll all that you would like to the opposite effect, but the "truth" remains the same.
"Your rendition of the history of marijuana and how it became to be banned in the US is as close to the truth as you are capable of being on the subject but --- so what?
Regardless of how marijuana's tangled ancient history came about, it's prohibition is a sound decision from any of a number or perspectives.
It is a good decision for the times particularly given the nonsense of medical marijuana which purports to have mysterious medicinal benefits which are apparently indiscernible to the FDA and the AMA. To say nothing about Big Pharma which knows how to make a buck from medicine."
Let's take these one at a time, so you can have ample opportunity to explain.
First, since my story on the initiation of the marijuana prohibition seems to be a bit comical for you, what's your story? What were the deciding factors that convinced everyone that marijuana was so evil? What's your version of the truth? And it'd be really nice if you could site a source, rather than offer more opinion and fantasy.
Secondly, you claim that regardless of the original circumstances through which it first became illegal, it was a good idea. Why is this so? Because our government said so and they obviously know what's best for us? Gimmie a break!!! Would one of your "sound reasons" for prohibiting marijuana be to perpetuate gang and criminal activity? Because that's what happens when you tell people that they can't have something they want. They WILL find a way to get it and there will always be someone willing to get it to them. Do you have any idea how profitable marijuana is for gangs? It's their #1 product. If it were to suddenly become OK for people to procure marijuana on their own, what purpose would gangs and drug dealers serve? Logic would dictate that legalization would deal a fatal blow to financial well-being of most every drug dealer in America, if not the world. Geee, that sounds really horrible, huh JLM?
Thirdly, and my most favorite, you are completely clueless. You do NOT know what is going on with current marijuana issues and you do NOT know how marijuana affects everyone. And most importantly, you do NOT know what the AMA's stance on marijuana truly is. Point in case, the third paragraph in the article represented by this link should set you on your heels, if just temporarily. But then again, probably not a very trustworthy source. They're probably just a bunch of stoners, huh JLM?
Ouch JLM, MMJ posts direct repudiation of your points with actual facts and truth to back it up. Can you respond with facts and research or are you just going rogue and attack the source again
OK, so as you have indicated, we are in agreement that your comment ---
"No extract has ever been identified that produces the same effect."
is just sheer utter nonsense. If I were not more charitable I would describe it as a lie.
Ther simple truth of the matter is ---
"The number of significant side effects generated by long-term oral use of marijuana or long-term inhalation of marijuana smoke make marijuana a poor choice in the treatment of glaucoma, a chronic disease requiring proven and effective treatment.
...these products are less effective than safer and more available medicines."
More to the point, you, my friend, are full of baloney. When you find yourself in a hole, the first line of defense is to stop digging.
This fellow gives the history of marijuana prhibition much better than I can. Worth a read, if you're into the truth. But hey, maybe he's just another stoner.
The AMA's position is quite innocuous, in that it "...asked the federal government to revisit the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug, like peyote or LSD, because that status inhibits research on its potential medical benefits."
I have no problem with researching the medical benefits of marijuana. To suggest this has not been done overseas under the auspices of American pharmaceutical companies is a canard. Big pharma has researched mj to their heart's content and have legalized a single American drug --- marinol.
Marinol has absolutely no unique benefits that cannot be duplicated by more reliable, proven and effective drugs. While marinol is capable of delivering the benefits of mmj, it does not deliver the "smoke".
The simple truth of the matter is that "medical" marijuana users do not want the drug benefit, they want the narcotic, intoxicant benefit. They all want to SMOKE dope.
No responsible doctor or medical organization is going to embrace a drug delivery protocol which involves the introduction of combustion by products into the lungs. Not going to happen.
In what universe does Marinol deliver the same benefits as smoked marijuana?
And again, you are relentless in omitting any concessions to the benefits of other methods of ingesting marijuana. Vaporizing is slowly becoming the future of marijuana delivery systems. Tinctures(basically an essential oil made from marijuana) have zero negative health effects and offer a completely different quality of pain-relief.
In all fairness though, marijuana users(mostly those that are not suffering from impeding respiratory issues) will most likely never abandon the time honored tradition of smoking a joint or loading a bowl, at least every once in a while.
Oh, and I guess the AMA's position is only valid when it supports your argument? That seems about right.
JLM, we do not agree. except that we agree to disagree.
from the eyecareamerica.org website...........
"Initial studies in the 1970s reported that smoked marijuana resulted in lower IOP hours after administration.[4,5] The NEI-sponsored studies demonstrated that some derivatives of marijuana did result in lowering of IOP when administered orally, intravenously, or by smoking, but not when topically applied to the eye. The duration of the pressure-lowering effect is reported to be in the range of 3 to 4 hours. Benefits also include euphoria as an acute effect. Also, earlier when fewer therapies were available for glaucoma, some patients might have had few acceptable or well-tolerated alternatives. There are no studies directly comparing the IOP-lowering effects of marijuana with currently available therapies."
One thing you do have correct is that the risks of smoking outweigh the benefits to glaucoma patients.
For the record, and please dig into my previous postings on this issue. I am not a fan of all things mj. I have not smoked mj for over 20 years. It does have many negative effects to its users that cannot be denied. Smoking is simply NOT a healthy lifestyle.
The argument here is this:
Our Gov't has intervened in the lives of millions by criminalizing behaviors that cannot be controlled. Their attempts to legislate morality have failed miserably. Further, their attempts to control these substances have created the black market and subsequent gangs/guns/violence problems that are far worse for our society than the drugs themselves. Especially in the case of mj, they have taken a fairly innocuous substance and made it worth billions on the black market. It is simply impossible to OD on mj, and the affects that it has on human anatomy are not as addictive or injurious as legal substances like alchohol and tobacco.
One of the more serious side effects of this legislation is that our medical community has been unable or unwilling to fully research mj due to its schedule 1 classification and gov't efforts to completely discredit institutions that tried to research mj.
In specific terms of the mj/glaucoma debate:
mj does have a positive effect on glaucoma patients.
big pharma has been unable to duplicate these effects with an mj extract. only the injestion or smoking of the complete plant has produced that effect. In this article they used the term derivative. What is not known is which one of the hundreds of cannabanoids cause this effect. The THC that makes one stoned is the side effect in this case.
Yes, there are other drugs that equal or exceed the positive effects of mj on glaucoma with fewer side effects.
To continue, my points are these:
The "War on Drugs" has failed to produce the intended results, and has in fact produced side effects that are more serious than the drugs themselves.
MJ is not as dangerous as freely available substance like alchohol and Tobacco.
Government policies have prevented research into mj.
I would extend my legalization argument to all drugs including the ones not yet invented... When Big Brother tries to legislate morality it is doomed to failure. It has been proven time and time again that our citizens will act the ways that they desire regardless of the legal framework. We rebelled against taxation, we rebelled against prohibition, we rebelled against drug laws, and we may very well rebel against taxation again. (Think Tea Party Here)
JLM, I will not be going tit for tat with you. I actually think you know very well the point I am making. I believe that your tactic is to try to prevent the conversation from going in a direction that makes you uncomfortable. But my purpose here is to stir this discussion to what I feel is the real issue, which is that the purpose of the prohibition of mj has more to do with the bias mainstream society has against certain individuals then any real threat to the country. Whether it was Mexican immigrants, black jazz musicians, slacker Snowboarders, or most famously, Vietnam war protesters, mj laws have always been more about nominalizing (Websters- to make small, trifling) these individuals.
Once again, we are treated to a Police blotter full of drunk driving arrests this morning. But not a word of outrage from our community, not a long dicussion on the Pilot blog site about this very real danger to our fellow neighbors. But, of course then, alcohol is inherently legal, right? The drug of the mainstream. Makes your dinner more enjoyable, makes it so I feel like I am risking my life to drive at night. It is not the particular substance involved, it is type of involvment of the substance that is the problem.
To those that are interested:
There will be a show on 9news this morning @ 10:30 that is premised around a central question,
"With the recent news around marijuana dispenseries, why not review the purpose of legalizing marijuana?"
I'm sure that there are more than a few of you out there that would like to tune in.
So, are the prohibitionists taking a day off or something?
Ahhhh, how sweet! You missed me. Sorry but I was and will be pre-occupied for a couple of days. I'll try to get back as quick as I can to set you and the other slackers straight.
I hate the idea --- and I know you do too --- that you and the other stoners are wandering around aimlessly without the benefit of my guidance. Kind of scary really.
In the meantime, please stay warm and safe and have a Happy New Year!
Yeah, I missed you. You've found me out. I just don't even know what to do with myself. I guess I'll just keep researching.
Great little picture(for those that need bright, graphic stimulation) that shows just how medicinally efficacious marijuana really is.
OK, I'm back but if you start slobbering and crying, I am going to leave again. So behave yourself.
Did you see that the 8th US Circuit of Appeals made a decision on 22 Dec 2009 on the Controlled Substances Act pertinent to the N Dakota hemp farmers? I just got a copy and read it.
They decided the case in favor of the DEA and effectively upheld the national ban on hemp growing (cannabis sativa L) and paid no particular attention to the 1% THC content of the plants or the N Dakota state law.
This case puts quite a bit of pressure on states who have passed any kind of law on mj as it stands for the proposition that Federal law --- the Controlled Substances Act --- is the law of the land.
I was frankly surprised to see the decision come down that way for a number of reasons.
"Under the CSA, marijuana is defined to include all Cannabis sativa L plants, regardless of THC concentration. ... The CSA likewise makes no distinction between cannabis grown for drug use and that grown for industrial use."
Substitute the word "medical" for "industrial" and you have a pretty good view of what the Courts are going to say right now.
The great irony of this case is that right across the border from N Dakota in Canada they are growing and have been growing industrial hemp for years. In addition, all kinds of oil and fiber products are routinely imported into the US which are hemp products. Go figure!
I hope you are warm, safe and getting ready to root for the Longhorns tonight.
Does it make you sad JLM that because of the ruling that they will continue to cut trees down on a gigantic scale for paper products that could be lowered by making paper out of the hemp?I think that this is a good example of how ignorant a judge can be and how it effects the planet in a negative way.When will the predjudice stop and we can start rebuilding the planet like it should be to stop the global warming and leave the darn trees alone a little bit?
I think that anonymous posters are better and I really dont want to know your names ,It interferes with the ability to just look at the opinion without predjuice to the person.I do wonder at the motive of someone who would want to know everyones name,what would an opinion have to do with where we work or live?Would that change the way you view the truth?If the comment dosent hold water then many people will let you know and that is all that matters the truth.Why would some one want to Know the names?Maybe because they would want to influence things in an ugly way.Maybe they are considering running for the presidents job,just testing the waters for public support,power,political influence.I have no desire to feed a megilamaniac,that wants to rule the world,I hope you never find out who we are and shame on you for constantly whining that we tell you,maybe you should expand your expertese to the FBI.
@ sun ---
The Court which decided the case was an Appeals Court --- 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals, I think --- and so therefore it was not a single Judge. They were simply affirming the decision of the lower Court.
I am not certain as to what prejudice you are noting?
I think growing hemp would be just fine for the US --- we allow the importation of many hemp derived products into the US --- but of course that is not really what folks are fighting about, is it?
Hemp is really a proxy for the continuing assault of the legalization of marijuana and the fact that the hemp plants with their low THC intoxicant levels are of the same genus as the high THC intoxicant levels is where the mischief begins.
The beetle makes me sad. There is nothing worse than looking at the beetle killed trees on the mountainsides. I hope this winter is cold enough to kill those little SOBs.
Oh, yeah, global warming --- hmmm, not so real?
JLM I have a shirt that I had given to me in the that was made out of hemp cloth looking like denim,that thing lasted forever,the strongest material that I have ever seen.It would be nice to get that kind of wear out of cotton,maybe the cotton farmers dont want hemp developed ,that would be competiion?.You are so right about the beetle kill as being needed to be cut,but that is short term solution,Live trees need to be left alone to clean our air ,like you said beetle infestion or others diseases can kill more and more forests as quickly as it has done here(dutch elm disease)The predjudice I see is classifying the uses together at all.Like you said the industrial strain is not smokable ,so it shouldnt even be in the same catagory as the smokable, and by letting this situation go on for what ever reasons,only hurts our planet and people.If they would let them farm hemp it might invigorate the economy ,and start new business interest and spending.It would be like creating a new future that is planet friendly.Bringing hope to future farmers and people ready to try something new.It seems like medival to me or superstision sorta,some one said it was bad 70 years ago.They screwed up for sure as far as the industrial classification is concerned,and that needs to be corrected now.Why do we need to import hemp and be dependent on another country for it when we could grow it ourselves?Thanks for that legal info I do find that very interesting and did not know of it.
Also that is silly to say we dont need to think about global warming,the ice caps and glaciers are melting away and the sea is rising,maybe we wont see a change in our life time,but it is happening. When it does occur that generation will wish we were not so ignorant in this time and would have changed a few ways,the bad ways.At least we can try.
In my lifetime, I have lived through a period of global cooling in which the NYC harbor routinely iced over. I have walked across NY harbor. We were facing the next ice age and it was every bit as "certain" as what we face now.
Now, the earth is "warming". OK! LOL
The funny thing is that almost every thing that could be contemplated to be done by humans to forestall global warming could be justified simply on the basis of reducing air pollution.
We will look back in ten years and see for certain that this was one of the great hoaxes ever visited upon the world. BTW, the polar bear population is at an all time high and for every thinning ice sheet, there is another that is at a record thickness. Be careful what you believe.
"hoax and chains"
During WWII, the US grew hemp and used it for cloth and rope. The hemp seed was crushed for oil which was used for gun lubricant. If you find an old piece of military canvas from WWII, it might be made of hemp. It's a bit coarser than canvas.
BTW, this is where the Southern fascination with "ditchweed" comes from because after the war they eradicated it and it continued to thrive in ditches in the South. To this day, you can find ditchweed (cannabis sativa L) growing in places like Kentucky and Tennessee. It has less than 1% THC content.
People in the fabric business do not particularly like hemp and it is considered quite inferior to "long" fiber cotton --- like Egyptian or Sea Island cotton. The days of making rope from hemp are long gone.
Its best use is twine.
Once again(and not that it's surprising to ANYONE by now), you're clueless about the plant that you don't use. Cannabis sativa L does NOT contain less than 1% THC content. I don't know what gives you the idea that you know more about cannabis than the people who take cannabis seriously, to the level of passion, but it sure is fun watching you try to flex your "intellectualism" on the subject.
The days of making hemp rope are far from relegated purely to the pages of history. It was the best rope around back then and it's still pretty damn good by today's standards. Point in case;
Now, do you see how easy research is? All it takes is google and that funny looking configuration of letters and numbers(aka keyboard) that sits in front of you.
And no one here is talking about the people in the fabric industry. We're talking about consumer desire. People like clothes that last longer. Who wants clothes that wear out quickly?
In reading the news from the denver post this morning there is an article about global warming,"Global Impacts accelerated,worsened since 1997 Kyoto Pact,by Seth Borenson":The ice sheets are melting,North American Pine Forests are dying,colorful frogs are endangered along with polor bears,and butterflies.The ocean has risen1 1/2 inches and there an increase of carbon dioxide of 6.5 per cent,I was wrong in stating that we may never see the changes,lets save the lumber for building and use the hemp for paper.
JLM you are pretty sharp guy,how do we go about getting industrial hemp legalized?Sign petitions all over the country and get it on the ballot for the actual voters to straighten out?Isnt there an easier way?What other products from hemp could help save the planet at this point? Isnt saving the planet more important than stopping people from potentially smoking it,considering that anyone who wants to find it to smoke illegally can and will find it with or without medical marijuana and that is just a reality.The only one not getting the benefit is the planet being able to utitlze this product that will only help to clean air and create jobs?That is the predjudice that I am talking about and it is being overlooked as everyone is just trying to smoke the stuff for medicinal value,what other plant is so versitle,popular ,usefull and valuable?
Also it was very ignorant of the writers of these laws to legalize the medicinal aspects and leave out the industrial uses that would actually help the enviroment.What is up with that?Just concerned with half of the uses of hemp so now you cant get it legal without the other uses included(industrial) .So lets start over and legalize the whole plant in what ever form and stop this madness.Make the paper mills in this country go to hemp.Make the clothiers use hemp as a major cloth, demand it in the market.It would save lots of money if your jeans never wearout.Put the whole plant back together and dont ditch the hemp ,medicinal people, or you are making a mistake.Just take the good buds and leave the rest,that is just not planet friendly is it?
Very good last point Sun. However, I think I can offer the "logic" of why hemp is frowned upon with-in the textile industry.
Think about it for a minute from their perspective. Now that hemp has flooded the marketplace and people are starting to acquire clothes that don't wear out as quickly, they're not going to be buying them as often, will they? If you now buy your pants at 2 or 3 year intervals, instead of 1 or 2 year intervals, you are creating less profit for the manufacturer of the clothing.
Planned obsolescence is a huge part of our industrial complex and we have leaned towards being suckers for it for a long time. However, and due in no small part to our current economic status as a country, things are starting to change. People are starting to demand things that last longer. People are starting to see the errors of their wasteful ways and the world will be a much better place when we ALL wake up to the amount of waste that we generate as a people.
It seems that the electric cars got shelved so the oil companys can still do their thing,how much longer can this planet take the trash and excesses of people,we just shove it on to the future and do nothing about it today,and today is all that we have to change the world.maybe the fashion industry is as guilty as the oil companys and they are not even under suspician because they want us to buy the new fashions and send the old style to the thrift store or dump,will it take a total shutdown of the planet to stop the wasteI I really think that if the future ballets for legalization contained legalization of the whole plant and its uses it could be the key to make people aware of the need to change our source of paper ,material(cloth) and any other byproducts that can help the planet from hemp.What do you think JLM?Can you tell me how to get the whole plant legalized?I know its not an easy issue but do you have a idea how it can be done?Ill bet you do,you could help save this planet,come on ,please.
Come on, Ding Dong, one of my New Years resolutions was to be a little less strident with you but I guess that's not going to work. Kind of a sympathy thang. LOL
Pay attention, Ding Dong ---
The reference to cannabis sativa L subspecies sativa variant sativa --- that's "hemp" to you Ding Dong --- is what was mentioned in the appellate case I was commenting upon.
The N Dakota fellas were trying to get permission to grow hemp which the State of N Dakota had authorized but the DEA had a problem with as it violated Federal law. The N Dakota farmers had a particular batch of seeds which they believed would grow plants containing less than 1% THC.
Part of their legal argument was that this low concentration of THC did not rise to the level of "materiality" and was, in fact, inadvertant. The trial court and the appellate court thought otherwise.
Here's a quote from one of your beloved sources which says the same thing.
"Cannabis sativa L. subsp. sativa var. sativa is the variety grown for industrial use in Europe, Canada, and elsewhere, while C. sativa subsp. indica generally has poor fiber quality and is primarily used for production of recreational and medicinal drugs
The major difference between the two types of plants is the appearance and the amount of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) secreted in a resinous mixture by epidermal hairs called glandular trichomes, although they can also be distinguished genetically.
Strains of Cannabis approved for industrial hemp production produce only minute amounts of this psychoactive drug, not enough for any physical or psychological effects.
Typically, hemp contains below 0.3% THC, while Cannabis grown for marijuana can contain anywhere from 6 or 7 % to 20% or even more."
Hope this helps, Ding Dong. You really need to work on your reading comprehension this year. Read it through slowly and use your finger to follow the words. Try to absorb it.
And, hey, have a nice damn day, Ding Dong!
The big problems with hemp rope is that it rots, supports combustion and loses strength with the passage of time. It has devolved to a one use product.
There are very few uses for hemp rope for which there is not a synthetic fiber which is not cheaper and stronger and has better long term characteristics.
One can still get an analog phone, but that does not mean it is a good idea.
There is no shortage of hemp in the world and anybody in the US who desires it can buy it, create products and import the finished product.
As with cotton --- China produces 3 X the US production of cotton --- the fibers need to be grown where the manufacturing is going to be located.
BTW, India grows 2 x and Pakistan grows almost the same amount of US cotton.
There is really no need to grow hemp in the US as demonstrated by the viability of external cotton production for the US markets.
JLM(or would you prefer I call you a silly name, like dinkus or something?)-
So the current out-sourcing of a ridiculous amount industry is a good thing? Sending and/or keeping American jobs overseas is good? Is that really what we're supposed to get out of that?
While it is interesting to speculate about the uses of hemp, even when hemp was legal in this country its market share for its many uses was a dwindling market share and its economic viability was already on decline. The same is true even now in Canada in which hemp production is legal today.
Hemp clothing --- the original canvas/cannabis --- was not well received by the market place which preferred the smoothness and consistency of cotton. There are tons of places to buy hemp products today but none of them are particularly equal to or better than competing cotton products or synthetics.
Hemp rope --- has already been declining because it required the addition of "tar" --- British 'Tar Jacks' as they called the sailors who worked the halyards and sheets in applying tar to them to prevent rotting and deterioriation --- and "manila" rope from the abacoa or abaca plant (banana plant relative) did not. Manila rope long since replaced hemp rope even before there was any special attention drawn to cannabis.
Hemp paper --- is not as smooth and stable in the manufacturing process to say nothing of the additional step of separating the hemp fibers from the stalk which is not required with either wood chips/wood pulp or cotton fibers. In addition, the wood chips are in many instances an otherwise unusuable byproduct of the timber/lumber business and thus have an extremely low cost.
The real problem with hemp is that there is simply no economically feasible market demand and that most products produced from hemp fibers are inferior given other alternatives.
Having said that, I am a bit interested in the production of hemp as a "bio-mass" product used to create methane and alcohol/ethanol. Contemporary otton farming has produced yields 2-3 times greater per acre over the last 50 years through the use of fertilization.
I suspect that hemp yields would perform as well if the same techniques were used thereby making the hemp yield very attractive for bio-mass. I think hemp could easily replace corn as an ethanol producer. Alas, the corn lobby in the US is strong and will not allow this to happen.
So, I see no practical economic driver to propel hemp toward legalization from an economic perspective. I suspect if there truly were, then it would be happening but even worldwide hemp production where it is legal is declining while worldwide cotton production is increasing.