Medical Marijuana

Medical Marijuana (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

jester51 -> Medical Marijuana (1/12/2010 7:00:55 PM)
Hi , my state allows the use of medical marijuana , many dont. Just wanted to start a thread on this subject and see where it goes, things are changing in regards to marijuana laws here in the US , Some imput from Europe or overseas would be interesting also. This subject might raise a few eye brows , but Thank You Collarme for The Free Speach

LadyEllen -> RE: Medical Marijuana (1/12/2010 7:05:07 PM)
Never mind that - your avatar pic is the original photo - Paul has a cigarette (air brushed out usually today). Clearly this makes me want to take up smoking. E

jester51 -> RE: Medical Marijuana (1/12/2010 7:10:05 PM)
I always liked that pic !

Wolf2Bear -> RE: Medical Marijuana (1/12/2010 7:14:41 PM)
Several provinces in Canada also allow the use of medical marijuana.

JonnieBoy -> RE: Medical Marijuana (1/12/2010 7:44:31 PM)
Some of you folks here are aware of why I might be posting this : It's not allowed (on the record) here ... my GP (doc) knows and turns a blind eye. I never smoke it. Research I'm more than familiar with indicates clearly that it works for neuropathic pain. [;)] Pirate

LafayetteLady -> RE: Medical Marijuana (1/12/2010 8:13:21 PM)
FR NJ is in the process of making it legal. They will be the 15th state to do so.

NormalOutside -> RE: Medical Marijuana (1/12/2010 8:18:22 PM)
fast reply It's a hugely political issue, but like many things that are, shouldn't be. It's a medicinal plant with uses in recreation, spirituality, textiles, and food. It should never have been made illegal, and millions of people shouldn't be in jails right now because of it. The injustice that has been done already is MASSIVE. Too many people have suffered and too many have died for an incredibly useful plant that has never killed a single person. (If you haven't heard that stat before and you can't believe it, I invite you to look it up yourself.)

jester51 -> RE: Medical Marijuana (1/12/2010 8:35:45 PM)
you must also wonder how foolish our system is for all the Lost Tax revenue and where its going ?

chiaThePet -> RE: Medical Marijuana (1/12/2010 8:47:19 PM)
Dude, where's my car? chia* (the pet)

DarkSteven -> RE: Medical Marijuana (1/12/2010 9:28:16 PM)
I live in Colorado. It's sorta legal here... the patient must be certified by a doctor as needing it for medicinal purposes. For some reason, the legislators allowed each patient to have six plants (!). Dispensaries have sprung up everywhere to cater to the patients, and the legislators are now trying to implement all kinds of laws to... well, basically to prove that they can pass laws, so they are in control. Note that the laws do not do anything sensible such as tightening loss control so no product leaks out into the illegal realm... In my opinion, legal mj is a win-win. Local growers get money that otherwise would have gone to growers in Mexico, the trade becomes legalized and less subject to control by criminals, the police are freed up for other uses, and the transactions are made legalized and taxable.

JonnieBoy -> RE: Medical Marijuana (1/12/2010 9:37:15 PM)
Realistically, most places that have it penalised do so because they struggle to milk it for tax (it grows in yer back yard if tou want it to), yet allow poisons that CAN be easily taxed to be freely available. If pain reaches certain levels ... they ain't gonna lock you up if they know you are self medicating ... because they know that all the chemical pills they could throw at you whilst you're incarcerated won't do the same job ... therefore you would be an EXPENSIVE inmate to excercise a "duty of care" over. Natural substances that are benificial to health and wellbeing have existed long before the TAXmen and judges of modern "civilisation" have ... Just because they treat us as their subjects ... does not mean we are. Just because they have and impose "laws" ... does not mean they are "just". To Put It Delicately ... Click Here Pirate

EnforcedFitness -> RE: Medical Marijuana (1/13/2010 12:30:35 AM)
DarkSteven, I don't think six plants is an unreasonable number for a patient to have. There are literally hundreds of strains of marijuana, each with different--sometimes wildly different--effects. The best anti-emetic strains, creativity-promoting strains, and pain-relieving strains for a given person may or may not be one and the same. (And yes, I mentioned "creativity-promoting" in the same breath as "anti-emetic" and "pain-relieving." Writer's block should be considered a medical condition.) Even if I didn't use marijuana--and I'm not officially stating that I do--the FDA's stance on it would strike me as the most enduring symbol of governmental belligerence, cruelty, hypocrisy, and greed of our age. There have undoubtedly been worse instances of government than the war on marijuana since 1937, but I would argue that none has harmed as many peaceful people over as long a period. Quoting jester51: "you must also wonder how foolish our system is for all the Lost Tax revenue and where its going ?" I'm not doing any favors for my side by admitting this, but if the day ever comes when marijuana is taxed, the only people who will be making any money from me will be vendors of indoor gardening equipment. But those who are desperate for tax revenue hardly need fear a few dedicated, personal-use growers. Consider the number of people who already spend outrageous sums on pot when they could be growing their own.

JonnieBoy -> RE: Medical Marijuana (1/13/2010 1:05:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EnforcedFitness I'm not officially stating that I do Join the club ... you're one of billions. It works better, with less side effects and no physical addiction than almost all manufactured (at a cost) drugs and can be taken/ingested in a number of much healthier ways ... including by non smokers. Should you ever be in a position to offer an official public opinion on it ... I'm sure your unsupressed comments could be very valuable. Government appointed expert Proffesor David Nutt made some interesting public statements on the subject. Pirate

Mercnbeth -> RE: Medical Marijuana (1/13/2010 4:44:07 AM)
quote: ...Even if I didn't use marijuana--and I'm not officially stating that I do--the FDA's stance on it would strike me as the most enduring symbol of *governmental belligerence, cruelty, hypocrisy, and greed* of our age. There have undoubtedly been worse instances of government than the war on marijuana since 1937, but I would argue that none has harmed as many peaceful people over as long a period... this slave agrees with you but would like to add that you forgot to add racism to your list of enduring symbols. back in 1937, Anslinger read into U.S. Congressional testimony (without objection) stories about ‘coloreds’ with big lips, luring white women with jazz music and marijuana. He read an account of two “Negro” students at the University of Minnesota doing this to a white coed “with the result of pregnancy.” The Congressmen of 1937 gasped at this and at the fact that this drug seemingly caused white women to touch or even look at a “Negro.”

EnforcedFitness -> RE: Medical Marijuana (1/13/2010 12:32:58 PM)
You bring up a good point. The fact that Anslinger's conscious goal was to make marijuana illegal, not to promote racism, shows just how pervasive racism must have been at the time. He wouldn't have appealed to the fear of "darkies" unless he felt certain that fear was damn near ubiquitous in the good white folk. The lack of any congressional objection proves he was right. I don't know if I would go so far as to call the war on marijuana a symbol of racism, though. Blacks just happened to be Anslinger's most convenient target. If he'd lived today, he would have invoked "terrorists," as the anti-marijuana ads that had teenagers saying "I helped fund terrorism" did in the early zeroes. (A helpful follow-up ad might have asked stoners to take the patriotic plunge and start growing their own. "Support your country. Buy certified American hydroponics.") I'm more than open to being convinced that racism has played a central role, and not just an incidental one, in marijuana prohibition.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Medical Marijuana (1/13/2010 12:56:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EnforcedFitness You bring up a good point. The fact that Anslinger's conscious goal was to make marijuana illegal, not to promote racism, shows just how pervasive racism must have been at the time. He wouldn't have appealed to the fear of "darkies" unless he felt certain that fear was damn near ubiquitous in the good white folk. The lack of any congressional objection proves he was right. I don't know if I would go so far as to call the war on marijuana a symbol of racism, though. Blacks just happened to be Anslinger's most convenient target. If he'd lived today, he would have invoked "terrorists," as the anti-marijuana ads that had teenagers saying "I helped fund terrorism" did in the early zeroes. (A helpful follow-up ad might have asked stoners to take the patriotic plunge and start growing their own. "Support your country. Buy certified American hydroponics.") I'm more than open to being convinced that racism has played a central role, and not just an incidental one, in marijuana prohibition. If you consider the whole picture, Anslinger wasn't alone in his racist fervor. His good buddy Hearst had been promoting racism through his tabloid version of journalism for quite some time. quote: ...Starting with the 1898 Spanish American War, the Hearst newspaper had denounced Spaniards, Mexican-Americans and Latinos. After the seizure of 800,000 acres of Hearst’s prime Mexican timberland by the “marihuana” smoking army of Pancho Villa, these slurs intensified.* *The song “La Cucaracha” tells the story of one of Villa’s men looking for his stash of “marijuana por fumar!” (to smoke!) Non-stop for the next three decades, Hearst painted a picture of the lazy, pot-smoking Mexican, still one of our most insidious prejudices. Simultaneously, he waged a similar racist smear campaign against the Chinese, referring to them as the “Yellow Peril.” From 1910 to 1920, Hearst’s newspapers would claim that the majority of incidents in which blacks were said to have raped white women, could be traced directly to cocaine. This continued for 10 years until Hearst decided it was not “cocaine-crazed negroes” raping white women - it was now “marijuana-crazed negroes” raping white women. Hearst’s and other sensationalistic tabloids ran hysterical headlines atop stories portraying “negroes” and Mexicans as frenzied beasts who, under the influence of marijuana, would play anti-white “voodoo-satanic” music (jazz) and heap disrespect and “viciousness” upon the predominantly white readership. Other such offenses resulting from this drug-induced “crime wave” included: stepping on white men’s shadows, looking white people directly in the eye for three seconds or more, looking at a white woman twice, laughing at a white person, etc. For such “crimes,” hundreds of thousands of Mexicans and blacks spent, in aggregate, millions of years in jails, prisons and on chain gangs, under brutal segregation laws that remained in effect throughout the U.S. until the 1950s and ‘60s. Hearst, through pervasive and repetitive use, pounded the obscure Mexican slang word “marijuana” into the English-speaking American consciousness. Meanwhile, the word “hemp” was discarded and “cannabis,” the scientific term, was ignored and buried...Jack Herer,Chapter 4

MasterG2kTR -> RE: Medical Marijuana (1/13/2010 5:05:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JonnieBoy Realistically, most places that have it penalised do so because they struggle to milk it for tax (it grows in yer back yard if tou want it to), yet allow poisons that CAN be easily taxed to be freely available. Jonnie, you hit the nail on the head here. Taxes may well be one of the biggest issues for more and more states pushing for (at least limited) legalization of marijuana. With big tobacco revenues dropping every year, states have pretty much pushed the practical limits of how much tax they can place on tobacco. Once marijuana becomes commonplace and generally accepted in public, it will be fully legalized. It will then become a win-win for the government. There will no longer be any expense of prosecuting and housing criminals. They will also gain the benefit of vast tax revenues (cuz you know they're gonna capitalize on that). In the same light though, who do you think is best equipped to process and and distribute a legalized marijuana? One guess.....of course....Big Tobacco! So guess what? They win too and still get their government subsidies.

jester51 -> RE: Medical Marijuana (1/13/2010 5:28:11 PM)
There has been some interesting response on this subject , I believe in freedom and cant really see any Excuse our government has to continue with its foolish stand. It seems the west coast for some reason is Way Ahead in regards to lighting up ! Sure be nice to hear from anyone from Holland , Amsterdam etc Again ! Lets give credit to Collarme and Free Speech

DemonKia -> RE: Medical Marijuana (1/13/2010 6:34:46 PM)
Okay, I'm in Northern Cali, in what I like to call the Emerald Triangle, lol. Not really triangular, but very emerald with forests & all the barely hidden cannabis growing operations, indoors & out, throughout the Pacific Northwest. But in particular, in Northern California cannabis is the number one cash crop, despite how big & significant all that other 'vanilla' agriculture is to the state's economy . .. . . It's quasi-legal, all one needs is a recommend, which can be procured independent of the rest of one's health care stuff so as to avoid 'tainting' one's insurance profile, job stuff, etc. Tho' the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 provides legal cover for testing dirty for many occupations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. & recommends can be obtained for a wide range of physical & mental ailments. There has been a lot of sequelae in the ensuing dozen plus years of cannabis being quasi-legalized. Enforcement has been way stepped down. The police do not like to get their hands slapped by the courts & it didn't take much of that to get them de facto off of pot smokers in general. I have quite openly smoked pot all over the north state, with & without a recommend, & I know quite a few others similarly inclined. Even without a medical recommend, possession of under an ounce is the legal equivalent of a speeding ticket, it's a citation. $100 fine & seizure of the pot & any paraphernalia . . . . Prices have come down slightly over that time frame, & prior to that they had been gradually inflating, alongside everything else. I suspect we're closing in on the 'legal pricing'. Further, given the global, national, & state economic situations, I'm leaning optimistic that we may be the first US state to straight up legalize it. Mostly because of the not-insignificant costs of maintaining all that cannabis-related incarceration. Between all that newly-taxable legal economic activity & the savings of billions of dollars in law enforcement costs, yep, got my fingers crossed. If the state default on its debts, my estimation of those odds goes up a smidge. Each year of lingering economic malaise, my odds estimation improves. Circa 2012, 2013, could be . .. . . . We'll see .. . . Ah, & as to quantities. & qualities, while I'm at it. Smoking anything is bad for the lungs, there are ways to reduce the harm of that. One of them is to eat the cannabis rather than to smoke it, tho' overdoses (which do happen, are unpleasant tho' not lethally so) are more likely with eaten & much less likely with inhalation methods. Typically, tho', eating takes more of the material to produce the same effect as a smaller quantity smoked or vaporized. Cannabis extracts into fats or alcohol, so conventional extractions & tinctures can be made. I'm partial to (edible vegetable) oil extracts. Drizzle the oil onto food & voila . .. . . & super-strong cannabis & cannabis concentrate (ie, hash, keef, & etc) are 'good' in that it takes less of them to produce the desired effect. This is especially crucial when inhalation methods are used. Ah. & lastly but very far from leastly. The US gov't. decided that they would 'prove' once & for all that cannabis is 'bad' by allowing it to be run thru the (gold standard science) Carcinogenity Assays funded thru the NIH. Two studies were funded using mice & rats specifically bread to pop out tumors at higher-than-normal rates. They were fed cannabis extracted into corn oil, & their blood concentrations of metabolic breakdown products of cannabis was recorded, as were the resulting tumors compared to the expected rates . . . . . The results were published circa 1993 or 1994, I've got a hard copy around here somewhere, if y'all can't find the cite online, I'll dig it out . . . & what were those results? Why didn't you hear about this? Well, because there was a dose-dependent decrease in all tumors, both studies. The more cannabis they gave them, the fewer tumors the little tumor-inclined rats & meese popped out . . . . No shit. Seriously. If it had been some obscure Siberian grass that a multinational corporation could patent the genes of, it probably would have been hailed from the cover of Time magazine as a potential cure for cancer, but instead . ... . . Yeah . . . . Oh, oh, must end this tirade with a Bill Hicks quote. Which one, which one? Oh, yes, but of course: Why is marijuana against the law? It grows naturally on our planet, serves a thousand different functions, all of them positive. To make marijuana against the law is like saying that God made a mistake. Like on the seventh day God looked down, "There it is. My Creation; perfect and holy in all ways. Now I can rest.... "Oh, my Me! I left fuckin' pot everywhere. "I should never have smoked that joint on the third day. "Hehe, that was the day I created possums. "If I leave pot everywhere that's gonna give people the impression they're supposed to...use it. "Now I have to create Republicans." "...And God wept", I believe is the next part of that story. - Bill Hicks

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875