Medical Marijuana

The Dude wrote: Would like to see the report that shows a 300% increase in first hour sales in Breck... You do realize that could mean they had 3 patients the first hour that day. Right? Eitherway


my choice is what I choose to do
and if I'm causing no harm
it shouldn't bother you
your choice is who you choose to be
and if your causin' no harm
then you're alright with me

if you don't like my fire
then don't come around
cause I'm gonna burn one down

:woo hoo: :woo hoo: :woo hoo: :woo hoo: :woo hoo:

Print Smith the problem I have with "your logic" here is that you state these things as fact and throw accusations around. They are not facts. Don't you get it? These are your strong PERSONAL FEELINGS only, not facts. Your entitled to your opinions as is everyone on here. Fine. I just can't stand people who accuse others based on their personal feelings about the subject. Boring. Maybe preface your post by saying "In my opinion...." Do you really think anyone on here believes you just because you sling it around? No. I'm not saying someone is or isn't, I don't know for certainty either way. What makes you think that your smarter or more superior to know it all. Have a crystal ball or something?

BTW - If you "KNOW" someone is committing a crime get off the computer and call the police. Help protect our society instead of slandering people.

The Dude wrote: First thanks. Yes I could have searched. I just figured you keep bringing up the article you had it handy. Second. And with all due respect.. The way you talk of the system being abused and the way you use that statistic one would think the number of patients visiting that dispensary that first hour of 4/20 would be closer to 100... If you ask me 15 people is not a staggering amount to prove your point that the system is being abused.

And why is that Dude? Do you know what the population is in Breckenridge? That there are 9 actual "dispensaries" of the "medicine" in that town, not accounting for the number of "caretakers" who limit their "patients" to 5 or fewer. The increase seen was 300% above "normal" levels. If the CO2 content of the atmosphere increased 300% would you classify that as statistically insignificant since the total concentration of CO2 was only 1140 ppm instead of 380 ppm? 1000 ppm is a 0.1% concentration, one tenth of one percent. An overnight increase of 300%, especially when one considers that it was a one day spike, gives some significance to the number given the day on which it occurred, wouldn't you think? Are you trying to say that a 300% jump for that single day can't be attributed to anything in particular? And it is more than this one piece of empirical evidence that leads to the logical conclusion, isn't it. It is the amalgamation of all the empirical evidence that leads to the conclusion, not a single piece of evidence.

Taken as individual pieces of evidence, the conclusion is more difficult to sustain, but when all of the evidence points in the same direction then Ockham's Razor really takes hold - the simplest explanation is the correct explanation. Why deny what is patently obvious to anyone with even a small amount of training in critical thinking skills? This doesn't take the genius of an Einstein to figure out, does it? Any reasonably intelligent person comes to this obvious conclusion applying nothing more than common sense, but perhaps the loss of this ability is one of the side effects of regularly ingested high doses of this "medication" - that likely would take a trained scientist to actually quantify.

That the current system is riddled with fraudulent cardholders is not something that is really in dispute at all, is it? Honestly now, we can all acknowledge this and still hold our belief that there is indeed medicinal value to marijuana, that marijuana should never have made the controlled substance list to begin with and that society won't experience a meltdown if indeed it is taken off that list and sold over the counter and taxed as cigarettes, alcohol and other "vices" are, can't we? All I'm really saying is stop insulting my intelligence with the persistent denial of what is truly as plainly evident as the nose on Jimmy Durante's face was.

Sunshine Girl wrote: Print Smith the problem I have with "your logic" here is that you state these things as fact and throw accusations around. They are not facts. Don't you get it? These are your strong PERSONAL FEELINGS only, not facts. Your entitled to your opinions as is everyone on here. Fine. I just can't stand people who accuse others based on their personal feelings about the subject. Boring. Maybe preface your post by saying "In my opinion...." Do you really think anyone on here believes you just because you sling it around? No. I'm not saying someone is or isn't, I don't know for certainty either way. What makes you think that your smarter or more superior to know it all. Have a crystal ball or something?

BTW - If you "KNOW" someone is committing a crime get off the computer and call the police. Help protect our society instead of slandering people.

It is not "my" logic SG - it is simply logic. It is fact that the "dispensary" experienced a 300% increase in first hour sales on the morning of 4/20. It is not "my" fact, it is "a" fact. It is not "my fact" that the median age of cardholders is 32, that, too, is "a" fact.

And yes, SG, I KNOW that cards are being fraudulently obtained by examination of the facts. I do not have to know WHO that someone is to know that the law is being violated. I KNOW for a fact that the DEA could go into each and every "dispensary" and arrest anyone associated with its operation because they are in violation of federal law. That, too, is "a" fact, not "my" fact.

PS - You have stated on many occasions that MM is doing something illegal. Be careful with the accusations you make on a particular individual. That is the problem that I have with what you are doing. Yes, there is a conflict between the govt. and state legislature. No one here is disagreeing with that. How that gets resolved I (and you) have no idea. Do some people get cards that shouldn't? Yes, I agree. I'm sure it happens. That is a broad topic though and not leveled at one particular person. Big difference here. Debate the subject all you want. That is fine. Slander another person based upon your "assumptions" and that's another. Consider it a friendly warning or piece of advice. Or, don't consider it at all. It's up to you. You seem like a nice enough guy to me and I don't want your passion about a subject to get you in hot water. There is a difference between calling someone a name and accusing them of an illegal activity in a public forum. That not only goes for MM, but also for his clients. And no, you don't need to be a "rocket scientist" to know that. It's as clear as the nose on Jimmy Durante's face was.

If I am right I do believe Breck voters voted to decriminalize Marijuana all together. So your example of Breck is in all reality pretty lame. Breck may have some MMJ card holders but consideriing the voters passed it I believe Breck has proven itself to have a higher population of pot smokers than most.

Point taken SG, though I have no concerns regarding my comments thus far in that respect, particularly as I was not the only person who came away with a particular interpretation of a particular post. And it really isn't disputable that any trade in marijuana violates existing federal law as written. It may, like illegal immigration and Montana's intrastate gun laws, not be a battle that the federal government is willing to fight under this administration, but it would be pretty hard to sustain an argument that there is an exception carved our for "medicinal" marijuana in the federal statutes at the present time. Prosecutorial discretion in applying the law is not the same as the existence of the law.

The Dude wrote: If I am right I do believe Breck voters voted to decriminalize Marijuana all together. So your example of Breck is in all reality pretty lame. Breck may have some MMJ card holders but consideriing the voters passed it I believe Breck has proven itself to have a higher population of pot smokers than most.

What the good citizens of Breckenridge did was to remove any criminal sanctions associated with possession of 1 oz or less of marijuana by those that are at least 21 years of age, along with removing criminal penalties for possession of associated paraphernalia. What it didn't do was make possession of same legal.

Breckenridge, CO -- November 4, 2009 -- In an effort to clarify the passing of the Question 2F, the Town of Breckenridge releases this statement:

On November 3, 2009, the voters approved a citizen-initiated ballot question which decriminalizes the private possession of less than one ounce of marijuana and related paraphernalia by adults (ages 21 or older). It is important to note that the passing of this ordinance does not legalize marijuana, but merely removes criminal sanctions through the Town's municipal court.

It is still a violation of federal and state law to possess, cultivate, or distribute any amount of marijuana in the Town of Breckenridge. It is still illegal for minors (those under 21 years of age) to possess or use marijuana. It is still illegal to be under the influence of marijuana while operating a motor vehicle. It is still illegal to openly display or use marijuana in public areas.

So no, marijuana has not been decriminalized altogether in Breckenridge or anywhere else in Colorado - yet.

PrintSmith wrote:

Sunshine Girl wrote: Print Smith the problem I have with "your logic" here is that you state these things as fact and throw accusations around. They are not facts. Don't you get it? These are your strong PERSONAL FEELINGS only, not facts. Your entitled to your opinions as is everyone on here. Fine. I just can't stand people who accuse others based on their personal feelings about the subject. Boring. Maybe preface your post by saying "In my opinion...." Do you really think anyone on here believes you just because you sling it around? No. I'm not saying someone is or isn't, I don't know for certainty either way. What makes you think that your smarter or more superior to know it all. Have a crystal ball or something?

BTW - If you "KNOW" someone is committing a crime get off the computer and call the police. Help protect our society instead of slandering people.

It is not "my" logic SG - it is simply logic. It is fact that the "dispensary" experienced a 300% increase in first hour sales on the morning of 4/20. It is not "my" fact, it is "a" fact. It is not "my fact" that the median age of cardholders is 32, that, too, is "a" fact.

And yes, SG, I KNOW that cards are being fraudulently obtained by examination of the facts. I do not have to know WHO that someone is to know that the law is being violated. I KNOW for a fact that the DEA could go into each and every "dispensary" and arrest anyone associated with its operation because they are in violation of federal law. That, too, is "a" fact, not "my" fact.

You say that the median age of cardholders is 32 but you have not provided a link for that source. Even assuming that this is true, it does not show the complete picture. A younger person who is seriously or chronically ill, or is in chronic pain would probably be more likely to take a prescription for marijuana than an older person who grew up in the "Reefer Madness" generation. I've seen this first hand when my (much older) mother had breast cancer. If someone had offered her a legal prescription for marijuana, she would have been aghast though she had no problems almost overdosing on other prescription meds. Now her drug of choice is prescription-strength Ibuprofen - though I get sick taking a fraction of the dosage she does every day, which is causing problems for her as well. The difference in her mind is that all prescription drugs are safe and marijuana causes people to go insane and die. Yes, I'm not fooling when I say that she feels "Reefer Madness" is a documentary. That's part of the problem.

There is such a thing as "generational bias" and it does not mean that one generation is smarter or better than the other but rather how they are able to frame certain situations. Think of Rush Limbaugh finding suppliers (his hired help) for his addiction to Oxycontin yet insisting on the strictest possible punishments for "drug users". His own cognitive disconnect refuses to allow him to see that he is a "drug user" who is obtaining drugs illegally and whose drug of choice is a mind altering opioid with strongly addictive and potentially fatal side effects. Yes, my mother was also on Oxycontin at one time after a painful bone operation. She would just never ever dream of using pot, even if she had a prescription for it. On the other hand, I know from my own unfortunate experience that I am deathly allergic to Codeine and would be terrified to to even try it, whereas if I was in a situation where a prescription for Oxycontin was warranted I might ask to try marijuana and see if it worked better. I have no doubt that, at least for me, it would be safer. Whereas there are many, many cases of Oxycontin-induced fatalities I have been unable to find any medical literature about marijuana fatalities on large mammals (though it can and does kill rodents when given high quantities).

Regarding the 2nd part of your quote: "I do not have to know WHO that someone is to know that the law is being violated."

OK, fair enough. I don't have to know WHO is violating the law by illegally possessing Oxycontin yet I know that this is occurring, probably by the aforementioned radio host. I am also quite confident that there are young adults and kids who illegally possess and use alcohol. Let me know when you decide to get these banned. Personally, I still accept the fact that Prohibition didn't work.

Also, you say: "I KNOW for a fact that the DEA could go into each and every "dispensary" and arrest anyone associated with its operation because they are in violation of federal law."

You know this..... how? By all means, please tell me how you know more about this than the DEA, which gets over $2 billion a year investigating this sort of thing. Are you spending your days hanging outside of these shops? That would be good information to know. It would help me to know which laws you are saying they are violating. I imagine a call to the police would also be helpful. So, please inform us all which shops are violating what laws and with whom. Otherwise, you're making a common mistake by telling what you think should be true rather than what is the actual truth. Here's a hint: Just because we want or expect to hear something doesn't make that thing true.

The one thing you're missing in this discussion is still the one thing which is most telling:

You are not disputing my research that marijuana was only recently made illegal.
You are not disputing my research that those who fought to make marijuana illegal were those whose personal interests were being threatened by hemp and who fought marijuana using the worst racial stereotypes.
You are not disputing my research that the medical establishment at that time were not supportive of marijuana being banned and were critical of being kept in the dark by the secretive measures which our government went about making marijuana illegal.

Why aren't you disputing these things? You keep stating your biggest concern is that those who don't need marijuana might somehow obtain it and that this would allow it to be legalized. Um, OK, take out the word "marijuana" and replace it with "spray paint" or "liquid paper", or "cold medicine" and "cleaning supplies." Actually, there are a whole host of things which can be harmful or fatal if used incorrectly or by someone who shouldn't. Some of these things are more regulated than others.

This is why we have a problem. When the government or corporate interests make up facts in order to pass certain laws, it affects more than just those laws. We end up with a mindset that all laws should not be respected and any government is deceptive. It is hard to place value in research when facts are invented or manipulated. This is why, one one side, we have people who assume anything "natural" is "safe", or on the other side that any prescription is "safe" and "better". Don't believe me? Just ask your doctor if ______________ is right for you. No legal drugs are ever removed from the market. Let's also keep repeating that prescription drugs used correctly couldn't possibly kill more people than illegal drugs, thus causing 1/3 of all deaths in this country.

This is a good quote:

The Florida report analyzed 168,900 deaths statewide. Cocaine, heroin and all methamphetamines caused 989 deaths, it found, while legal opioids — strong painkillers in brand-name drugs like Vicodin and OxyContin — caused 2,328.

Drugs with benzodiazepine, mainly depressants like Valium and Xanax, led to 743 deaths. Alcohol was the most commonly occurring drug, appearing in the bodies of 4,179 of the dead and judged the cause of death of 466 — fewer than cocaine (843) but more than methamphetamine (25) and marijuana (0).

The study also found that while the number of people who died with heroin in their bodies increased 14 percent in 2007, to 110, deaths related to the opioid oxycodone increased 36 percent, to 1,253.

(Oxycodone is the active ingredient in Oxycontin, which is designed to last longer in the system).

Also, please notice how I provide links for my research: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/us/14florida.html - is for the quote above.
http://www.truthout.org/111208HA - also provided me with some information.
This is a good site: http://hmc.alternativehealth.com/prescription-drugs-can-kill.htm

But by all means keep repeating the mantra that marijuana should be banned because someone might abuse it or that, you think, most people don't need it. In the Florida study, marijuana still killed ZERO, compared with Ozycodone (1,253) or alcohol (466).

PrintSmith wrote: Point taken SG, though I have no concerns regarding my comments thus far in that respect, particularly as I was not the only person who came away with a particular interpretation of a particular post. And it really isn't disputable that any trade in marijuana violates existing federal law as written. It may, like illegal immigration and Montana's intrastate gun laws, not be a battle that the federal government is willing to fight under this administration, but it would be pretty hard to sustain an argument that there is an exception carved our for "medicinal" marijuana in the federal statutes at the present time. Prosecutorial discretion in applying the law is not the same as the existence of the law.

Like I said, it's legal in CO. Conflicts still exist regarding Fed and State. My main objection was personally attacking MM (not I don't know him). One thing is for sure though PS, I can't fault you for having a strong moral character and passion even though we clearly don't see eye to eye on the subject. Good qualities for sure.