Medical Marijuana

Rockdoc wrote:

Sunshine Girl wrote: I've been out and about enjoying this beautiful Colorado day and when I got back I had a few emails suggesting that I catch up on this thread. Interesting. Thank you VL for what I think was a compliment. That was very nice of you. It's hard for me to believe as well that Rockdoc choose me to love. He's beyond a wonderful man and I'm a very lucky girl!

I'm proud to be your man. You are not only gorgeous, but everything a woman can be. I could not be happier

Ah-Do you need me to step out of this thread-? I' mean do you two need to be alone???

Thank you for the kind feedback, that has been greatly appreciated.

On another note, it has been wonderful meeting Rockdoc and Sunshine Girl on this site. You are both lovely people and I mean that in every possible way.

Thank you RenaisanceLady. Let me return the compliment that I have enjoyed meeting you on here too. Your posts are researched, factual and well written with an eye toward entertiaining dialogue onlong those pathways. I hope to be able to meet you in person.

Nice play on words in you signature. lol I love it.

RenaissanceLady wrote: Thank you for the kind feedback, that has been greatly appreciated.

Thanks for shutting Print Smith up RL..He was just going on and on and on and I wasn't getting through to the guy

The feeling is mutual RL. It would be nice to meet you in person someday.

"Hearst hated Mexicans (really most non-whites). He pushed to have it outlawed when hemp paper was competing with him very large timber interests and using overt racism to make it appear marijuana made people violent. DuPont had recently patented Nylon, with which hemp was competing. Together, they created ads and a most pernicious yellow journalism to make marijuana illegal. The greatest irony is that the loudest critic of act was Dr. William Woodward, legislative council of the AMA. The bill was prepared in secret for two years without ever receiving medical advice. Dr. Woodward's comments were even misquoted in order to help it pass.

THIS is why marijuana is illegal. Not because it's more dangerous than codine or opium /morphine derivatives. Not because it's more addictive than codine or opium / morphine derivatives. This is not to assume that it or any drug, "natural" or otherwise is automatically safe or non-addictive but that it should be regulated as with any other drug." Quoted by RL. I don't think the general public knows this. It is oddly true though. :thumbsup:

RenaissanceLady wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

Medicine Man wrote: What' going on? Everyone was getting along so well a few pages ago.

I think for the most part we are getting way off subject. The thread was called Medical Marijuana. Now we are getting into bootleg liquor and smokes, murder for hire. As a patient and caregiver I somewhat take offense to these things being compared to what I do. You don't see everyone persecuting pharmacists and calling them killers after what happened to Michael Jackson and thousands of other poor souls hooked on pharmaceuticals.

What's going on is that the good intent of the citizens of this state has be bastardized by people seeking to indulge their desires and turning a compassionate exemption into a side show of malfeasance and lawlessness. The vast majority of those who now possess, and those who have applied for, their "medicinal" marijuana cards are really nothing more than selfish individuals seeking to take advantage of the compassion of their fellow citizens for those who are terminally ill, suffering side effects of chemotherapy or chronic pain, to obtain and possess a psychotropic drug so that they can get stoned without fear of the legal consequences for doing so. They want to get stoned for recreational purposes alone and have used those who truly suffer to achieve their selfish ends. That is the truth of the current state of affairs regarding "medical" marijuana in this and every other state that has legalized marijuana for medical use.

I'll concede that it has been an effective ploy to speed up the process of full legalization, which was the only intent of those that championed the cause of "medical" marijuana, but the deceptions and outright dishonesty evidenced by the intentional chaos that has ensued since the passage of the statute clearly establishes the selfish purpose that they sought to keep hidden long enough to achieve their desired ends.

This is based on what? Was there a study which came out and stated that most people who have applied for their "medicinal" marijuana cards are "nothing more than selfish individuals seeking to take advantage of the compassion of their fellow citizens"? Could you post a link?

Please RL. Must common sense be subjected to scientific study before it is accepted? Is not the significant rise in "medicinal" sales just prior to the annual 4/20 violations of the law evidence that supports my premise? How about the median age of cardholders being 32 years old? Lots of chemotherapy patients under the age of 30 driving that statistic, aren't there. Do you remember the 527 ads 10 years ago? They couldn't have been more clear that the amendment was targeting those who suffered from cancers, nausea from chemotherapy and similarly egregious compromises to their health. Do you remember how they dismissed and distanced the argument that the amendment was nothing more than a camel's nose under the tent to full legalization? I do. I remember it quite clearly.

And yet, look where we are a scant decade later. "Medicinal" sales up drastically (one "dispensary" in Breckenridge saw a 300% increase in first hour sales on 4/20). "Dispensaries" holding discount sales on 4/20. States such as Colorado and California seeking to put full legalization on the ballots. Yeah, we need an official study to interpret the data that is a clear as the nose on Jimmy Durante's face, don't we. Empirical evidence is insufficient unless it comes from a government funded grant or a scientific poll conducted by a news agency with an error margin of +/- 3% don't you know.

The only thing worse than the fraud that has been visited upon the electorate in Colorado is the attempts to escape the obvious from the people who conceived the fraud in the first place. Disingenuous, dishonest, deceitful......and that is only the beginnings of the list of adjectives that accurately portray those involved in the deception. MM himself earlier issued a statement that was thinly veiled as help in doctor shopping if one had encountered any difficulties in arranging an appointment in front of a doctor willing to say that their once yearly headaches might be avoided with daily ingestions of "medicinal" marijuana.

I am not a fool, nor am I ignorant. I am aware of why marijuana was made illegal. I am aware that there are indeed medicinal benefits associated with the psychotropic substance within the plant. One need not be a rocket scientist, nor any other scientist for that matter, to understand that the reason the the median age of cardholders is 32 years old is that there are large numbers of young people who wish to indulge in recreational use of the plant rather than medicinal use and have fraudulently obtained an official card to do so.

Pretending otherwise insults the intelligence of everyone and makes you look foolish in the process. We can agree that marijuana should never have been made illegal in the first place without resorting to such tactics, can't we? We can agree that the anxiety most cardholders are suffering from is the anxiety that comes from not having their daily fix of pot, the same monkey that opiate junkies experience when separated from their drug of choice and plagues those who are addicted to nicotine or caffeine as well. I'm not saying that marijuana shouldn't be legalized, taxed and regulated as other drugs have been by the federal government, but I am saying that the majority of those that currently hold their "medical" marijuana cards are nothing more than recreational users looking to scam the system so that their personal desire doesn't deposit them on the wrong side of a set of bars in the local jail. I am saying that even full legalization and taxation won't put a dent in the amount of weed that is either grown outside of the law or smuggled into the country by organized criminal elements. I am saying that college students won't stop their binge drinking, but they will add marijuana to the mix when they binge drink. The number of people driving under the influence of marijuana will go up if/when it is legalized. The number of people who smoke both tobacco and marijuana will go up as well. While it is difficult to perceive that it could increase, the number of those under 18 that smoke marijuana will also go up if/when it becomes a legal substance. After all, the vast majority of people I've heard extolling the virtues of marijuana say it is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco and we already know how popular those two substances are in our high school aged children even though both are illegal for them to purchase and/or consume.

I am not so sure that the voters of Colorado were deceived. I think most voters were pretty clear where this was going and still said yes.

And I'd be willing to wager that if the voters could have looked 10 years into the future and seen the results of amending their state Constitution the measure would have been defeated. I know of quite a few that voted in favor of the amendment who are more than a little displeased with the current state of affairs.

Well...we now have a poll that might give us a little insight into that.
Personally, just don't care for the government always trying to protect me from myself.

How far does that extend for you Becky? When does it cross the line from protecting you from yourself to protecting you from me? It's one thing to require a seat belt or an air bag in a car, but does requiring you to wear it protect you from yourself or does it protect you from me? How about mandatory purchase of health insurance? Does that protect you from yourself or does it protect me from your decision not to purchase it? Should a doctor be required to treat you if you don't purchase health insurance and can't afford their services? Is that protecting you from yourself or society protecting others from your decisions?