See complete forecast
You are not logged in. (Log in • Create account)
24 November 2009
at 2:43 p.m.
Now that I have read through your 3 to 1 replies to my posts, I have to suggest that you may be indulging in the old, “If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bs” argument.
I did a little research of my own, and found that mainstream scientists may not agree with the “results” you indicate on medical marijuana research.
For example, this is an excerpt from an interesting article ( http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine… )that states:
“Medical marijuana summaryThe use of marijuana or cannabis extracts for medical treatment has been extensively studied over the last 20 years. Initial enthusiasm for THC as an antiemetic or to reduce intraocular pressure has waned with the advent of new medications that provide superior medical benefits with fewer adverse effects. The main success of THC has been found in patients suffering from AIDS-related wasting syndrome and in some cases in which patients are suffering from intractable pain. However, nearly all of these studies involved the use of controlled doses of purified cannabinoids, bypassing the adverse effects associated with smoking marijuana. Dr. Robert L. DuPont, Georgetown University School of Medicine, says that most opponents of the medical use of smoked marijuana are not hostile to the medical use of THC, while “most supporters of smoked marijuana are hostile to the use of purified chemicals from marijuana, insisting that only smoked marijuana leaves be used as 'medicine,' revealing clearly that their motivation is not scientific medicine but the back door legalization of marijuana.”
Interestingly enough, when I dug around, the only sites giving information similar to the claims you are making are the sites promoting the legalization of marijuana.
Now I'm going to return to my initial point, which is this: It does not matter how this happened, people still have to deal with the end result, and the decicsion to allow or not allow medical marijuana to be sold in any one community should be an issue that the people living in that community have the right to either embrace or reject.
24 November 2009
at 8:19 a.m.
Daybyday, I tend to agree with you that to label any one of these issues as a “red herring” is inappropriate. Each of these are problems we are dealing with and need to somehow find answers for.
And wm97, although I understand your point of view, I also understand that most people see marijuana as a drug that is largely used recreationally, and that the majority of people do not use, either for fun or as a medicine.
Now that it has been voted in, what the public is seeing in the news are apparently healthy, young people claiming vague illnesses (like headaches, or nausea for example) and they are being given the ok to smoke pot as a treatment that the voters were told was for the use of severely ill and dying people, not young, healthy people.
I think seeing cases like these make the entire medical marijuana issue seem to many people, forgive the pun, a smokescreen for people who simply like to get high to be able to buy and sell pot without consequences. Like it or not, this is what it looks like to many people watching the situation, and may explain why the public is angry over the whole issue, and why they do feel duped.
And, sorry wm, but the recreational use of marijuana is still illegal, whether we agree on why or how it was criminalized in the first place. So the specific issue here is this: Should we allow marijuana dispensaries in our neighborhoods or not? That is what people really have to decide at this point.
Frankly, I don't think the entire issue was thought through very well before it was presented to the voters, and what we have now is the resulting mess to clean up, one way or another.
22 November 2009
at 8:30 p.m.
You know, I'm not so sure that's the case wm97. I seem to clearly remember seeing a piece on 60 Minutes or one of the other news shows back in the 80s about medicinal marijuana and it was prescribed by the patient's doctor, and it was dispensed to the patient in the story in the form of rolled cigarettes in a clear plastic case by the pharmacist. I distinctly remember that and how odd the thought seemed to me to think that someone in a laboratory somewhere was making marijuana cigarettes as medicine.
If they had the option to prescribe it at that time, then there must be some allowance in the law for that to have happened. I'll try to find out the particulars on that case, it was pretty interesting, but the point was that it was completely treated just like any other prescription.
22 November 2009
at 8 a.m.
Thanks for the explanation applesaday. I am not convinced that younger voters were solely responsible for this passing, but that a lot of voters who are not necessarily “pro pot” for recreational use felt that it was an act of compassion to the sick to let them have this drug as an option for treatment.
I can't help but think that if the voters had been given a clear picture of how medical marijuana would be distributed that the vote might have well been very different. I guess what bothers me the most is that the people I have heard talking about this now FEEL duped; they see medical marijuana shops as “drug dealers”, plain and simple. These are their words, their perceptions as they have expressed their concerns to me.
Given this viewpoint, I can see why there is anger in the community regarding this issue. I guess it's a little late to try to get the horse back into the barn, but I really believe if the medical marijuana proponents want to legitimize marijuana as a drug therapy, perhaps the rules for distribution should be more conventional and that medical marijuana should be governed by the same regulations as any other “non-over the counter” drug. As it now stands, it just seems to much of the average non-marijuana smoking public that this was an end run around the law.
I think that if people in the mainstream are going to accept and respect marijuana as a medicinal treatment, we need to make sure that it is treated just like any other medicine. And in my humble opinion, allowing people to open marijuana shops far removed from licenced and regulated pharmacies is not the way to make that happen.
21 November 2009
at 6:09 p.m.
I have a comment on medical marijuana being sold as a “prescription drug” by mom & pop dispensaries that are popping up all over the state.
I don't think this is exactly what the majority of pro-medical marijuana voters had in mind. I think the majority of voters who supported the medical use of marijuana believed that it would be dispensed exactly as all other prescription medications are dispensed. I also think that they voted in support of medical marijuana in sympathy for sick people who truly need relief for pain or symptoms that conventional prescription drugs did not help. I do not think that most people who voted for medical marijuana ever foresaw marijuana shops opening up in private homes in their neighborhoods.
If marijuana is indeed a prescription drug, it should be treated just like all other prescription drugs, should be subject to testing, standardized dosing, quality control, and should be dispensed only by licensed pharmacies.
Can anyone tell me, was this lack of regulation and unorthodox method of distributing a “prescription drug” addressed in the ballot issue and simply missed or misunderstood by the voters, or did our legislators allow this to happen after medical use of marijuana was voted in?
10 September 2009
at 10:32 p.m.
I am glad to see that some who serve in government are still listening to the people they serve… and I would hope that government officials everywhere would take note of this attitude. After all, the entire purpose of government is to serve the citizenry, not to dictate to them. Kudos to you who do know the difference!
18 March 2009
at 5:33 p.m.
Thanks! I think I'll settle in for a little reading.
18 March 2009
at 7:22 a.m.
Tax, I saw on another thread that you listed this resolution as being the correct one on gardening. Apparently it is not either…. H.R. 745 - Pancreatic Cancer Research and Education Act (Introduced in House) [H.R.745.IH]I'm still checking but would really like to know where you got that info.
18 March 2009
at 6:58 a.m.
H.R.845Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)Tax, can you check your HR number? (This resolution is definitely not concerning gardening.)
17 April 2008
at 11:11 p.m.
Granny, you took the words right out of my mouth. I did a little checking and if you want a good laugh, go to the wikipedia page on this guy and check out his picture. It's well worth a chuckle. Seems he was a guest on the Jerry Springer show if that tells you anything… this made me think of “Paulson for President” but I think old Pat had a lot better following. :)
or see results without voting.
This site is best viewed with
or the latest version of Internet Explorer
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Craig Daily Press. All rights reserved.