Until this state gets its ducks in a row, we'll continue to attract this criminal element here to take advantage of the current situation. So I'm all in favor of moratoriums and bans, this mmj thing simply is not working to the benefit of the community right now. I applaud the effort at a bust, even if it was ham-handed -- these folks don't sell their pot, but it does seem to get bartered for services rendered, so perhaps the narc squad should pose as drywall contractors or something next time they seek to "harass" these poor, disabled criminals.
"Thank you for seemingly being the only one at the meeting that happened to represent the sane members of our society."
I disagree with Mr. Fielding; I think using the proceeds of a federal crime to fund law enforcement is asking for trouble and corruption -- if busting mmj providers who aren't following the law would result in the loss of the funds used to pay their salaries, what motivation would the police have to do their jobs? Catch-22.
"I know your side's talking points. They are based almost entirely on emotion and conjecture. I will, as we move forward, systematically dismantle all of your positions with fact and logic if need be."
Oh, give it a rest, Kevin. Aren't you the one who flew off the handle when I refused to agree that mj cures cancer? Emotion. Your rebuttal didn't link to any scientific evidence proving otherwise, and the only "proof" I've seen is anecdotal, so where are the facts and logic? It isn't worth anyone's time to argue with fanatics, but don't mistake the silence from all but your zealotous cheering section as some sort of victory.
But they are -- mj remains on Schedule I, federally. So let's get our definitions correct. Granted, it should be Schedule II, but unless and until that changes, dispensaries are in the business of thumbing their nose at federal law. Engaging in behavior that's against the law is the definition of "criminal"; there's no grey area here.
"Maybe the naysayers went back on vacations."
Or maybe they don't feel the need to participate in discussions with those who insult and degrade everyone who disagrees with them...
"I always love how quiet the naysayers get when a whole bunch of truth gets dumped on 'em by our side. It's such a beautiful silence."
...or waste their time rebutting anecdotal stories about mj curing cancer, or how mj's miraculous healing properties are only suppressed due to conspiracy theories about Big Pharma.
Congratulations on shouting down everyone who disagrees with you; but I'd hardly claim that as a victory. I loved that Dilbert the other week, "Did you learn to debate on the Internet?" Asserting over and over that nobody has provided any facts, when in reality you simply refuse to acknowledge any facts you are provided, while claiming that you have the facts on your side while linking to propaganda, doesn't make you right -- it makes you boring, and unworthy of being debated seriously.
"Eric this is week 4 of the saga. Where are the cops?"
Oh, it's been going on longer than that, since even before these folks were my neighbors. But you do ask a question that's on everyone's mind.
"Wiggins? How come he has not arrested anyone?"
Because it isn't his jurisdiction unless OCPD allows it (I have no knowledge of the status, there). But it's interesting that you think a pot bust is only a phone call away, and that not being busted yet is evidence of legality. I'm pretty sure these things take time, given the limited resources of local law enforcement (OCPD/RCSO).
"And just so you know Eric some of those 1,100 doctors that have recommended MMJ in Colorado have written 'recommendations' for more than 6 plants per person."
Uh, yeah, of course I know that, I've written about that. However, that doesn't make it legal. MMJ clinics have sprouted up around the state which specialize in dubious recommendations, in terms of patients and amounts. Their days are numbered.
"I know the law states 6 plants per person but i know of at least 1 person that lives in that location that has 24 plants on his/her card."
I'm aware (but the concern isn't the occupied units). Why do you think I keep advocating for a six-plant, two-ounce limit for Oak Creek, which cancels the affirmative defense for more? Being "allowed" to have 12 plants flowering constantly works out to way the hell more dope than one person can possibly consume; restricting to six plants removes concerns that the patient next door is trafficking.
"AND i hate to BURST your bubble but Jacob will not buy any product from anyone."
WTF are you even talking about? I haven't brought Jacob's name into this, nor have I suggested any such thing. My only position involving Jacob is that Oak Creek doesn't have the resources, primarily a full-time police department, to support his industry. I've also rebutted assertions that there have been no complaints, by pointing out the odor issue.
"Traditional cancer treatments do work, but the side effects are often worse than many other diseases themselves."
Which is why cannabis is so promising as a *treatment* for cancer -- non-toxic and tumor-specific, when used at far greater concentrations than are used to treat pain from cancer. While there's no research about the side effects of these concentrations, there's no evidence they're anywhere near as bad as those of the approved treatments or the cancer itself.
"You see sir, this is brainy speak for killing and CURING cancer."
No, it isn't, not by a long shot, which each of those studies takes pains to point out. Shrinking a tumor does not cure the underlying cancer, and the shrinkage is neither permanent nor does it lead to the destruction of the tumor, so you're taking a huuuuuuuge leap to call marijuana the cure for cancer. These tests have not advanced to humans yet, so there's no way to know whether the duration of the shrinkage would be longer in humans than mice, or shorter. All I will say is what I've said before, which is that MJ prohibition set cancer research back by several decades. At best, in mice with cancer, lifespan is increased -- the cancer isn't cured.
Oh, I know, organized medicine is the root of all evil. ;-) Seriously, though, the MMJ industry often comes across like the snake-oil salesmen of the 19th century. Science has *not* proven cannabis as a safe and effective cure-all with no downside.
"1,100 different physicians? Humm that is alot of docs saying MMJ has legitimate use according to the Colorado Department of Health. Average age is a 39 year old male not some 20ish year old kid. Very informative info for all!"
Useless stats which do nothing to disprove my explanations: most of those physicians are recommending MMJ to seriously-ill patients, but it's a small number responsible for most (no, I'm not going to search for a link, but this has been reported) MMJ recommendations; and average age for the approved conditions is likely much higher -- the average age of MMJ patients likely would be, too, once all the twentysomething fakers are removed. At some point the state will get around to enforcement, culling those doctors whose practices exist solely to profit off of MMJ recommendations by routinely exceeding the six-plant limit.
Pot is hot topic at community meeting in Steamboat
Until this state gets its ducks in a row, we'll continue to attract this criminal element here to take advantage of the current situation. So I'm all in favor of moratoriums and bans, this mmj thing simply is not working to the benefit of the community right now. I applaud the effort at a bust, even if it was ham-handed -- these folks don't sell their pot, but it does seem to get bartered for services rendered, so perhaps the narc squad should pose as drywall contractors or something next time they seek to "harass" these poor, disabled criminals.
June 19, 2011 at 9:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pot is hot topic at community meeting in Steamboat
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
June 19, 2011 at 9:34 a.m. ( permalink )
Pot is hot topic at community meeting in Steamboat
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
June 19, 2011 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink )
Pot is hot topic at community meeting in Steamboat
"Thank you for seemingly being the only one at the meeting that happened to represent the sane members of our society."
I disagree with Mr. Fielding; I think using the proceeds of a federal crime to fund law enforcement is asking for trouble and corruption -- if busting mmj providers who aren't following the law would result in the loss of the funds used to pay their salaries, what motivation would the police have to do their jobs? Catch-22.
"I know your side's talking points. They are based almost entirely on emotion and conjecture. I will, as we move forward, systematically dismantle all of your positions with fact and logic if need be."
Oh, give it a rest, Kevin. Aren't you the one who flew off the handle when I refused to agree that mj cures cancer? Emotion. Your rebuttal didn't link to any scientific evidence proving otherwise, and the only "proof" I've seen is anecdotal, so where are the facts and logic? It isn't worth anyone's time to argue with fanatics, but don't mistake the silence from all but your zealotous cheering section as some sort of victory.
June 19, 2011 at 8:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Pot is hot topic at community meeting in Steamboat
"DONT ASSUME Kevin and JJ are Criminals."
But they are -- mj remains on Schedule I, federally. So let's get our definitions correct. Granted, it should be Schedule II, but unless and until that changes, dispensaries are in the business of thumbing their nose at federal law. Engaging in behavior that's against the law is the definition of "criminal"; there's no grey area here.
"Maybe the naysayers went back on vacations."
Or maybe they don't feel the need to participate in discussions with those who insult and degrade everyone who disagrees with them...
"I always love how quiet the naysayers get when a whole bunch of truth gets dumped on 'em by our side. It's such a beautiful silence."
...or waste their time rebutting anecdotal stories about mj curing cancer, or how mj's miraculous healing properties are only suppressed due to conspiracy theories about Big Pharma.
Congratulations on shouting down everyone who disagrees with you; but I'd hardly claim that as a victory. I loved that Dilbert the other week, "Did you learn to debate on the Internet?" Asserting over and over that nobody has provided any facts, when in reality you simply refuse to acknowledge any facts you are provided, while claiming that you have the facts on your side while linking to propaganda, doesn't make you right -- it makes you boring, and unworthy of being debated seriously.
June 19, 2011 at 8:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Phyllis Coletta: Pot not news
"Eric this is week 4 of the saga. Where are the cops?"
Oh, it's been going on longer than that, since even before these folks were my neighbors. But you do ask a question that's on everyone's mind.
"Wiggins? How come he has not arrested anyone?"
Because it isn't his jurisdiction unless OCPD allows it (I have no knowledge of the status, there). But it's interesting that you think a pot bust is only a phone call away, and that not being busted yet is evidence of legality. I'm pretty sure these things take time, given the limited resources of local law enforcement (OCPD/RCSO).
"And just so you know Eric some of those 1,100 doctors that have recommended MMJ in Colorado have written 'recommendations' for more than 6 plants per person."
Uh, yeah, of course I know that, I've written about that. However, that doesn't make it legal. MMJ clinics have sprouted up around the state which specialize in dubious recommendations, in terms of patients and amounts. Their days are numbered.
"I know the law states 6 plants per person but i know of at least 1 person that lives in that location that has 24 plants on his/her card."
I'm aware (but the concern isn't the occupied units). Why do you think I keep advocating for a six-plant, two-ounce limit for Oak Creek, which cancels the affirmative defense for more? Being "allowed" to have 12 plants flowering constantly works out to way the hell more dope than one person can possibly consume; restricting to six plants removes concerns that the patient next door is trafficking.
"AND i hate to BURST your bubble but Jacob will not buy any product from anyone."
WTF are you even talking about? I haven't brought Jacob's name into this, nor have I suggested any such thing. My only position involving Jacob is that Oak Creek doesn't have the resources, primarily a full-time police department, to support his industry. I've also rebutted assertions that there have been no complaints, by pointing out the odor issue.
May 13, 2011 at 2:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Phyllis Coletta: Pot not news
"Traditional cancer treatments do work, but the side effects are often worse than many other diseases themselves."
Which is why cannabis is so promising as a *treatment* for cancer -- non-toxic and tumor-specific, when used at far greater concentrations than are used to treat pain from cancer. While there's no research about the side effects of these concentrations, there's no evidence they're anywhere near as bad as those of the approved treatments or the cancer itself.
May 13, 2011 at 2 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Phyllis Coletta: Pot not news
"You see sir, this is brainy speak for killing and CURING cancer."
No, it isn't, not by a long shot, which each of those studies takes pains to point out. Shrinking a tumor does not cure the underlying cancer, and the shrinkage is neither permanent nor does it lead to the destruction of the tumor, so you're taking a huuuuuuuge leap to call marijuana the cure for cancer. These tests have not advanced to humans yet, so there's no way to know whether the duration of the shrinkage would be longer in humans than mice, or shorter. All I will say is what I've said before, which is that MJ prohibition set cancer research back by several decades. At best, in mice with cancer, lifespan is increased -- the cancer isn't cured.
May 13, 2011 at 1:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Phyllis Coletta: Pot not news
"I use MMJ for injuries suffered in the military nearly forty years ago and take great insult from your comments!"
What works for you, though, may not work for everyone:
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/c...
Oh, I know, organized medicine is the root of all evil. ;-) Seriously, though, the MMJ industry often comes across like the snake-oil salesmen of the 19th century. Science has *not* proven cannabis as a safe and effective cure-all with no downside.
May 11, 2011 at 11:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Maynard Short: Oak Creek pot sham
"1,100 different physicians? Humm that is alot of docs saying MMJ has legitimate use according to the Colorado Department of Health. Average age is a 39 year old male not some 20ish year old kid. Very informative info for all!"
Useless stats which do nothing to disprove my explanations: most of those physicians are recommending MMJ to seriously-ill patients, but it's a small number responsible for most (no, I'm not going to search for a link, but this has been reported) MMJ recommendations; and average age for the approved conditions is likely much higher -- the average age of MMJ patients likely would be, too, once all the twentysomething fakers are removed. At some point the state will get around to enforcement, culling those doctors whose practices exist solely to profit off of MMJ recommendations by routinely exceeding the six-plant limit.
May 11, 2011 at 11:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )