Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Denver Post)   There are so many medical marijuana applications that Colorado's health department will no longer review them before accepting them   (denverpost.com) divider line 134
    More: Cool, medical marijuana, health departments, temporary workers, Colorado, quadruple, floods, windows, lags  
•       •       •

7154 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2010 at 4:14 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



134 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-03-27 12:13:18 AM  
images.southparkstudios.com
 
2010-03-27 12:17:04 AM  
Widespread use of a general purpose analgesic with less pronounced side effects than common OTC meds? Say it ain't so...
 
2010-03-27 12:28:53 AM  
Occam's Chainsaw: Widespread use of a general purpose analgesic with less pronounced side effects than common OTC meds? Say it ain't so...

Subby thinks it's cool to have to now wait 6 months to get a license to buy legal weed?

/sad tag seen off crying in the corner
 
2010-03-27 01:09:00 AM  
Can't wait to see if California passes full legalization this November.

"Medical marijuana" was always nothing more than a useful half-step to ending marijuana prohibition altogether. Yes, there are legitimate medical users of marijuana. But you're never going to have a way to effectively sort them from the recreational users. Either the statute limits it to specific conditions like cancer and AIDS, in which case legitimately sick people will be excluded since no such list can be exhaustive, or you have a system like California where doctors become the ridiculously unnecessary and unwanted middleman for de facto total legalization. I find recreational use totally unobjectionable, but I can understand how people are angered by seeing an ostensibly "medical" exemption swamped by perfectly healthy young men.

Oh, and Obama is a lying, hypocritical asshole on the whole issue.
 
2010-03-27 01:18:40 AM  
Churchill2004: Oh, and Obama is a lying, hypocritical asshole on the whole issue.

That. I've yet to see him actually lay out a cogent rationale for continued prohibition. Probably because none actually exists.

I'm hoping that at some point in the run-up to the 2012 election, someone will nail him to the wall and make him give an answer, instead of asking an easily ducked yes/no question with zero follow-up.
 
2010-03-27 01:37:45 AM  
Occam's Chainsaw: I'm hoping that at some point in the run-up to the 2012 election, someone will nail him to the wall and make him give an answer, instead of asking an easily ducked yes/no question with zero follow-up.

images9.cafepress.com

/best I got
 
2010-03-27 02:13:40 AM  
It just recently got passed in NJ. I have a Dr.'s appt. tomorrow so I can see if insomnia is an "approved illness" under the new law.

/Google-fu sucks lately--can't find it
//If I can't get legal weed, at least I know I can get xanax
///Insomnia will OFFICIALLY suck if I can't get some good drugs out of it.
 
2010-03-27 02:22:28 AM  
Occam's Chainsaw: Widespread use of a general purpose analgesic with less pronounced side effects than common OTC meds? Say it ain't so...

Exactly.

/pot should have never been outlawed in the first place
 
2010-03-27 02:32:10 AM  
NeedleGuy: Occam's Chainsaw: Widespread use of a general purpose analgesic with less pronounced side effects than common OTC meds? Say it ain't so...

Exactly.

/pot should have never been outlawed in the first place


Outlawing pot (and alcohol) was part of the progressive movement. Why are you against progress?
 
2010-03-27 02:39:51 AM  
ScubaDude1960: NeedleGuy: Occam's Chainsaw: Widespread use of a general purpose analgesic with less pronounced side effects than common OTC meds? Say it ain't so...

Exactly.

/pot should have never been outlawed in the first place

Outlawing pot (and alcohol) was part of the progressive movement DuPont's and Hearse's greed. Why are you against progress?
 
2010-03-27 03:00:03 AM  
NeedleGuy: Outlawing pot (and alcohol) was part of the progressive movement DuPont's and Hearse's greed.

That was part of it, as was xenophobic social conservatism plus the era's naive belief in the possibilities of social engineering. The latter was a hallmark of Progressivism, and the former was far from in conflict with it. Wilson re-segregated the Federal government after all, and back on point it was FDR who signed the Marihauna "Tax" Act, and who supported and encouraged Harry Anslinger's (the first "Drug Czar") crusade to enact both state and federal bans. This was after he'd killed any constitutional limits on Federal (his, in effect) power by threatening to pack the Supreme Court.

It isn't as terribly relevant to modern politics as some make it out to be, but the fact is the Progressives were not just spunky can-do reformers fighting against the forces of social injustice and oppression. They did some nasty, evil shiat themselves, which shouldn't be denied even if you think they did more good on balance.
 
2010-03-27 03:26:15 AM  
Churchill2004: That was part of it, as was xenophobic social conservatism plus the era's naive belief in the possibilities of social engineering. The latter was a hallmark of Progressivism, and the former was far from in conflict with it. Wilson re-segregated the Federal government after all, and back on point it was FDR who signed the Marihauna "Tax" Act, and who supported and encouraged Harry Anslinger's (the first "Drug Czar") crusade to enact both state and federal bans. This was after he'd killed any constitutional limits on Federal (his, in effect) power by threatening to pack the Supreme Court.

Let's not forget that it was Republican Richard Nixon who pushed the Controlled Substances Act (although by modern standards, he'd be branded as "so liberal he sh*ts gay-married aborted fetuses"). And we don't even need to go into the ideology of Gonzales v. Raich.

This is one of few topics where "both sides are bad" is a valid response. Big Mother or Big Brother, the end result is the same.
 
2010-03-27 04:09:20 AM  
Reading this thread gives me the munchies.
 
2010-03-27 04:12:26 AM  
Pot's still not legal in Colorado?

I lived in Boulder through the 90s and half of the naughties, I'm pretty sure no one was arresting anyone for pot alone.

Pot in a "show the world the extended middle finger" smoke-fest on 4/20? Sure. Can't show everyone we allow the pot.

But any other day and/or any place besides the field by Duane Physics...
 
2010-03-27 04:18:35 AM  
Occam's Chainsaw: This is one of few topics where "both sides are bad" is a valid response. Big Mother or Big Brother, the end result is the same

Definitely. There are a few in either party who are sane on the issue (and I define sane as "total legalization" when it comes to marijuana)- Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, even Jimmy Carter until his drug czar got caught with the hookers and blow. On the right you've basically got the libertarians and liberatarian-ish: Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, William F. Buckley, George Will. ... But for every one of those you've got a dozen like Sheriff Joe or VP Joe "I'm Proud I Created the Drug Czar's Office" Biden.

That Obama doesn't even take the question seriously is what's so infuriating about him, though. At least the boot-licking badge-worshipers are perversely consistent in that they really think marijuana is so evil it justifies all the costs of prohibition. Obama clearly doesn't think marijuana is any kind of serious problem, but that won't stop him from throwing you in prison for a "crime" he (the 3rd POTUS in a row) committed with impunity. He hasn't even seriously stopped the medical marijuana raids, just some PR noise and a single DoJ memo that a Federal judge has already ruled to be worthless.
 
2010-03-27 04:29:30 AM  
Will my Obamacare pay for it?
 
2010-03-27 04:30:27 AM  
Churchill2004: Oh, and Obama is a lying, hypocritical asshole on the whole issue.

Yes! More fact-based, legitimate criticism of the president! The more of this there is and the less nonsense about death panels and socialism, from anybody in any party, the better. Thank you.
 
2010-03-27 04:48:01 AM  
brigid_fitch: It just recently got passed in NJ. I have a Dr.'s appt. tomorrow so I can see if insomnia is an "approved illness" under the new law.

/Google-fu sucks lately--can't find it
//If I can't get legal weed, at least I know I can get xanax
///Insomnia will OFFICIALLY suck if I can't get some good drugs out of it.


According to what I've read about it you can only get approved if you have something terminal. It's basically "Let the dying guy smoke some weed."
 
2010-03-27 04:50:24 AM  
Occam's Chainsaw: I'm hoping that at some point in the run-up to the 2012 election, someone will nail him to the wall and make him give an answer, instead of asking an easily ducked yes/no question with zero follow-up.

I hope he ignores these questions, then on his inauguration day in 2012, he lights up the world's largest bong. AND inhales!

/and blows it in the faces of both Hillary and Bill Clinton
 
2010-03-27 04:52:00 AM  
it's basically legal now if you shut the fark up and mind your own business.
 
2010-03-27 04:54:14 AM  
Incidentally... what's the expression? Politics is chess, not checkers?

I'm torn. I think Obama has mishandled plenty of things so far, but I also think he's intelligent enough to have a plan for actually making changes to this country, and he may honestly know what the fark he's doing.

/of course, legalization isn't simply about what he thinks, but meh
 
2010-03-27 04:54:30 AM  
bamf75: it's basically legal now if you shut the fark up and mind your own business.

Not in Texas it's not!
 
2010-03-27 04:54:50 AM  
puffy999: Occam's Chainsaw:
I hope he ignores these questions, then on his inauguration day in 2012, he lights up the world's largest bong. AND inhales!



The first bong?
 
2010-03-27 04:59:53 AM  
puffy999: Occam's Chainsaw: I'm hoping that at some point in the run-up to the 2012 election, someone will nail him to the wall and make him give an answer, instead of asking an easily ducked yes/no question with zero follow-up.

I hope he ignores these questions, then on his inauguration day in 2012, he lights up the world's largest bong. AND inhales!

/and blows it in the stupid monkey faces of both Hillary and Bill Clinton
,and they would have to just sit there, grooving on it.

FTFY
 
2010-03-27 05:00:14 AM  
I suppose it'd be nice if it were legalized. It'd save me from having to drive all the way across town every few months.
 
2010-03-27 05:03:35 AM  
soseussme: bamf75: it's basically legal now if you shut the fark up and mind your own business.

Not in Texas it's not!


double negative aside, What the fark is wrong with Texas?
 
2010-03-27 05:04:36 AM  
Churchill2004: Oh, and Obama is a lying, hypocritical asshole on the whole issue.

i42.tinypic.com
 
2010-03-27 05:07:40 AM  
category_five: Churchill2004: Oh, and Obama is a lying, hypocritical asshole on the whole issue.

but honestly, how much shiat would he take for being the first black president AND the one to legalize marijuana?
 
2010-03-27 05:08:44 AM  
category_five: Churchill2004: Oh, and Obama is a lying, hypocritical asshole on the whole issue.

Who cares? HEALTH CARE!
 
2010-03-27 05:11:36 AM  
img717.imageshack.us
 
2010-03-27 05:13:27 AM  
TheyCallMeSirr2:
but honestly, how much shiat would he take for being the first black president AND the one to legalize marijuana?


Does that somehow make him not a lying hypocritical asshole?
 
2010-03-27 05:19:13 AM  
puffy999: I hope he ignores these questions, then on his inauguration day in 2012, he lights up the world's largest bong. AND inhales!

That's a straight-up free-rainbows-and-unicorns line of thought. Stop that. You're giving fodder to the Fark Independentstm.
 
2010-03-27 05:20:21 AM  
Well, it stands to reason.

There are so many Medicare/Medicaid claims that nobody reviews those, either...eh, it's only a hundred billion or so stolen each year. No biggy, butBush, amirite?

Legalize pot - soon as somebody lays out the tax structure, how the field sobriety test is going to work, and so on and so forth regulation-wise.

I just hope pot snobs aren't as annoying as beer and wine snobs.
 
2010-03-27 05:22:32 AM  
bamf75: soseussme: bamf75: it's basically legal now if you shut the fark up and mind your own business.

Not in Texas it's not!

double negative aside, What the fark is wrong with Texas?


I don't think that is technically a double negative. A double negative (such as "I don't have no" creates a logical construction that implies "I DO have"). The potential for confusion is what creates the "error."
My post breaks down to "Not in Texas" and "It's not," and I don't see any potential confusion there. But as a former copyeditor, I'm not going to argue punctuation unless I'm getting paid, and I don't have a style guide anymore anyway, largely because as long as the meaning is clear, there's not really a problem, especially in an informal discussion like this.
I unfortunately do not have time to even begin to explain what's wrong with Texas. I'm not sure I could if I tried, but it would be a best-selling book that would get me rich and then shot, because that's the spirit of Texas...
 
2010-03-27 05:27:39 AM  
soseussme: bamf75: soseussme: bamf75: it's basically legal now if you shut the fark up and mind your own business.

Not in Texas it's not!

double negative aside, What the fark is wrong with Texas?

I don't think that is technically a double negative. A double negative (such as "I don't have no" creates a logical construction that implies "I DO have"). The potential for confusion is what creates the "error."
My post breaks down to "Not in Texas" and "It's not," and I don't see any potential confusion there. But as a former copyeditor, I'm not going to argue punctuation unless I'm getting paid, and I don't have a style guide anymore anyway, largely because as long as the meaning is clear, there's not really a problem, especially in an informal discussion like this.
I unfortunately do not have time to even begin to explain what's wrong with Texas. I'm not sure I could if I tried, but it would be a best-selling book that would get me rich and then shot, because that's the spirit of Texas...


I'm just happy to see you using the ellipse correctly.
 
2010-03-27 05:28:23 AM  
ScubaDude1960: everything's the fault of progressives, even when it's not

Derp derp derp
 
2010-03-27 05:40:00 AM  
category_five: Does that somehow make him not a lying hypocritical asshole?

I was pleasantly surprised when Eric Holder ended federal raids on pot clinics, what 2 months into Obama's term. It sucks for everywhere else I guess and I'm not like "fark you I got mine" on the issue, though. What candidate Obama promised was to end the federal raids and that's what we have, congress has to repeal the Tax Act, the Sentencing Reform Act and the Comprehensive Crime Control act and knowing those motherfarkers, how likely do you think that is? For instance, legalizing marijuana at the federal level by repealing this acts will remove mandatory sentencing for selling or possessing most drugs.

So you go through amendments to each one, each one gets stalled, takes a year to get the votes, finally passes and then you do the same thing over and over and over. Each time the Republicans are saying "OBAMA IS LEGALIZING HEROIN" "OBAMA IS PUTTING LSD IN THE TAP WATER MIND CONTROL" because congress is actually repealing acts that affect sentencing for heroin and lsd etc.

I say let the states decide. Could bring a lot of money to California to be the Amsterdam of the Pacific and I'm already damn good at cleaning it so it would be win-win even if I didn't (I don't) smoke it. Oregon, Colorado, Mass, NJ, NY and Wash would probably follow 1 or 2 years later and it would probably be faster than trying to do it at the federal level.

The question is whether Holder will allow raids on large growers that aren't protected by a card. He said he defers to state law on it, but I don't trust some lawyery dude as far as I can throw him.
 
2010-03-27 05:41:53 AM  
-License to Ill, baby...
 
2010-03-27 05:46:21 AM  
You can't really expect Obama to tackle the legalization issue in his first term if he wants any chance of reelection, can you? Maybe my perspective is tainted because I'm drowning in the ultra-conservative ocean that is Kansas, but I think that any national politician that comes out as openly supporting legalization of marijuana would be committing political suicide at this point in time.

I know that anytime that I've ever came out and said that I was in support of legalization, I've been immediately labeled as a pothead. And no, I don't smoke (mostly because of the fear of being caught) but that doesn't stop me from recognizing the societal benefits of its legalization. The teabaggers would be estatic if Obama came out in support of legalizing pot.
 
2010-03-27 05:49:31 AM  
bamf75: I'm just happy to see you using the ellipse correctly.

I love ellepsis and honestly way overuse them. Sometimes I look over an email I've written and half the sentences end in ellepsis.

/Exiting, I know...

I'll just add that copy editing is a horrible job. Ninety percent of writers act like you're rewriting Shakespeare when you make any changes, but if you miss anything it's even worse. Two or three times in about 10 years I had a writer say thanks for a catch.
It's usually boring too -- but generally on deadline, so it's a tense kind of boring.
 
2010-03-27 05:51:14 AM  
img694.imageshack.us
 
2010-03-27 05:54:53 AM  
oops wrong thread. too many beers.
 
2010-03-27 05:57:26 AM  
soseussme: Churchill2004: Oh, and Obama is a lying, hypocritical asshole on the whole issue.

Yes! More fact-based, legitimate criticism of the president! The more of this there is and the less nonsense about death panels and socialism, from anybody in any party, the better. Thank you.


I felt your sarcasm lacked a certain, evidence....
new window

Obama being a lying hypocritical asshole on the whole issue, just in case you missed it last year.
 
2010-03-27 06:00:32 AM  
soseussme: bamf75: I'm just happy to see you using the ellipse correctly.

I love ellepsis and honestly way overuse them. Sometimes I look over an email I've written and half the sentences end in ellepsis.

/Exiting, I know...

I'll just add that copy editing is a horrible job. Ninety percent of writers act like you're rewriting Shakespeare when you make any changes, but if you miss anything it's even worse. Two or three times in about 10 years I had a writer say thanks for a catch.
It's usually boring too -- but generally on deadline, so it's a tense kind of boring.


Adventure, excitement, a copy editor does not crave these things.
 
2010-03-27 06:13:23 AM  
Trezuraat: oops wrong thread. too many beers.

I think it fits right in.

soseussme: I love ellepsis and honestly way overuse them. Sometimes I look over an email I've written and half the sentences end in ellepsis.

I hate when people end every sentence with an ellipsis. From Wikipedia, "They are also used to infer that someone or something is stupid or lacking in intelligence." Add to that the implied pause that ellipses denote and it can cause an entire message to simultaneously imply stupidity on the part of the writer and a lack of respect towards the recipient. Used very sparingly they are effective at conveying tone. Overuse is just.. no.

bamf75: I'm just happy to see you using the ellipse ellipsis correctly.

Oh, the ironing is delicious!
 
2010-03-27 06:15:35 AM  
NannerPuss: You can't really expect Obama to tackle the legalization issue in his first term if he wants any chance of reelection, can you? Maybe my perspective is tainted because I'm drowning in the ultra-conservative ocean that is Kansas, but I think that any national politician that comes out as openly supporting legalization of marijuana would be committing political suicide at this point in time.


I know that anytime that I've ever came out and said that I was in support of legalization, I've been immediately labeled as a pothead. And no, I don't smoke (mostly because of the fear of being caught) but that doesn't stop me from recognizing the societal benefits of its legalization. The teabaggers would be estatic if Obama came out in support of legalizing pot.


I disagree, his supporters are generally in favor of reform so it's not as if he would alienate his base. The people it would lose are people he never had to begin with. Furthermore. there are many staunch conservatives that are in favor of reform (after all it is states rights and freedom from big government) as a result I predict it would help him in a I don't like him but I respect him sort of way. It would also get the "pothead" demo to the voting booth because they aren't going to let someone approaching the subject with sanity slip away. He has already decided that he was getting health care done even if it costs him reelection so why stop now.

/At the very least he needs to reclassify cannabis out of schedule 1 (where it doesn't meet the standards) and get the feds out of the medical side of it.
 
2010-03-27 06:16:08 AM  
drayno76: soseussme: Churchill2004: Oh, and Obama is a lying, hypocritical asshole on the whole issue.

Yes! More fact-based, legitimate criticism of the president! The more of this there is and the less nonsense about death panels and socialism, from anybody in any party, the better. Thank you.

I felt your sarcasm lacked a certain, evidence....
new window

Obama being a lying hypocritical asshole on the whole issue, just in case you missed it last year.


He said he didn't think it is a "good strategy to grow our economy". That is all he said.

So feel free to provide evidence of when he contradicted that direct statement or acted in any way hypocritical regarding it.

Difficulty: Having smoked it doesn't make him a hypocrite whatsoever.
 
2010-03-27 06:19:58 AM  
category_five: Trezuraat: oops wrong thread. too many beers.

I think it fits right in.

soseussme: I love ellepsis and honestly way overuse them. Sometimes I look over an email I've written and half the sentences end in ellepsis.

I hate when people end every sentence with an ellipsis. From Wikipedia, "They are also used to infer that someone or something is stupid or lacking in intelligence." Add to that the implied pause that ellipses denote and it can cause an entire message to simultaneously imply stupidity on the part of the writer and a lack of respect towards the recipient. Used very sparingly they are effective at conveying tone. Overuse is just.. no.

bamf75: I'm just happy to see you using the ellipse ellipsis correctly.

Oh, the ironing is delicious!


it's ironic that I spelled ellipsis incorrectly after calling someone on a double negative?
 
2010-03-27 06:22:05 AM  
TheNyquilKid:

I disagree, his supporters are generally in favor of reform so it's not as if he would alienate his base. The people it would lose are people he never had to begin with. Furthermore. there are many staunch conservatives that are in favor of reform (after all it is states rights and freedom from big government) as a result I predict it would help him in a I don't like him but I respect him sort of way. It would also get the "pothead" demo to the voting booth because they aren't going to let someone approaching the subject with sanity slip away. He has already decided that he was getting health care done even if it costs him reelection so why stop now.

/At the very least he needs to reclassify cannabis out of schedule 1 (where it doesn't meet the standards) and get the feds out of the medical side of it.



I find significant fault in your analysis.

1. The people that have the largest effect on elections are NOT the base, no matter how well you mobilize them. That is what MAKES them your base. The people who generally decide elections are in the middle, and guess what, there are a lot of crazy middle aged and older farks who are generally centrist but still have this "drugs are bad mmkay" attitude, and it would turn them off completely. Not to mention, undoubtedly, the media would slam him for it, because that's what they do.

2. The staunch conservatives you mention, it has already been shown, would never vote for him even if he ran on a platform of loving cute puppies and bombing the hell out of iran. They are just too farked up and stupid (remember how 47% of the people voted for sarah farking palin?) They would just use this as another excuse, and display one more level of hypocrisy, just like every other time they go "states rights matter except when it's a democrat who wants them!"
 
2010-03-27 06:22:09 AM  
The All-Powerful Atheismo: So feel free to provide evidence of when he contradicted that direct statement or acted in any way hypocritical regarding it.

Difficulty: Having smoked it doesn't make him a hypocrite whatsoever.


If I had to lay a finger on the hypocrisy, it would be that he knows the stuff first-hand, and being Hawaiian he knows that even chronic use is less harmful than eating a Baconator every day. Now contrast that with his staunch position of no on legalization, his denial that legalization would be a net benefit to the economy, and the statements of his drug czar. He's also not ordered BATFE to drop marijuana prohibition to its absolute lowest priority, also within his purview.

So no, that one statement doesn't make him a hypocrite. The rest of his actions do.
 
Displayed 50 of 134 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report