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.

(The New York Times)   When capitalism meets cannabis, or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the bong   (nytimes.com) divider line 46
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

4124 clicks; posted to Business » on 27 Jun 2010 at 12:31 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



46 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2010-06-27 09:25:43 AM
And when the old, the frightened, the small-minded, and those who fear change and the world leaving them behind in the dust finally die off, we will move forward. The young have said on other matters, "You have lost, we don't care." This is as true of drugs as it is for gay rights, and sex, and any number of other social issues. We do not care, because we see the world has not come falling down because of the sin of enjoying life. Our only pitfall is the fear that when the young turn old, like the baby boomers, they will sell their souls for a piece of the action, and we will watch the world nearly fall not because of lust or gluttony, but because of greed and pride.
 
2010-06-27 09:54:59 AM
Wow. If only the fourth-week freshman Econ 101 would predict that, when the conditions for a perfectly competitive market largely prevail - particularly the "no barriers to entry" conditions - price is driven down to marginal cost of production, with profit driven down to indifference among producers between exiting from and remaining in the market.

If only my high school English teacher wouldn't crap a brick at that sentence.
 
2010-06-27 10:37:11 AM
The pot shops have exploded around here (Montana) since Obama got into office, and now the predictable backlash has started. Some want to repeal the medical marijuana law entirely, others are working hard to have all sorts of new restrictions put on the shops.

I doubt the law is going to be repealed, but a lot of other stuff is in the works. And yes, there were a fair number of people who thought, Wow, I can sell pot right out in the open! and jumped on the bandwagon. Now they're finding out that it isn't going to be as easy as they thought. (Plus there were way too many pot shops opening, to the point where it was just ridiculous.)

I always wonder what will happen when the NEXT administration gets into office, and says, "Start shutting down those pot dispensaries again." Seems like a lot of people just don't see that one coming.
 
2010-06-27 11:06:01 AM
cryinoutloud: I always wonder what will happen when the NEXT administration gets into office, and says, "Start shutting down those pot dispensaries again." Seems like a lot of people just don't see that one coming.

I just thought of that earlier today. What happens in 4 or 8 years when there's a new sheriff in town and now all these "live and let live" laws go back to "life sentences for pot addict" laws?

I think a lot depends on how much progress is made between now and November of 2012. I would imagine that if a majority of states passed laws regulating and taxing the production of weed, then it would be too late to put the cat back in the bag. Right now we're hovering around 28% of states.

I'm not saying that 26 states is a magic number but I do think that, as a politician, it would be hard to take a stand against a platform that more than 50% of Americans support. So it probably wouldn't matter how many states support it as how much of the population does. If we could get the top ten states (by population) to decriminalize I think that would be enough to do it.
 
2010-06-27 11:08:27 AM
how I learned to stop worrying and love the bong

img67.imageshack.us
 
2010-06-27 11:31:36 AM
Bottom line: The government has absolutely NO farking right to tell people of sound mind what they can and cannot do with their own bodies or with other consenting adults. I'm baffled as to why the moral crusading pieces of shiat in Washington think they have that right. To protect people from themselves? Their mistakes to make, not yours. Their life to live and lessons to learn. To protect other people from those people? If they commit a crime while under the influence of something, then that is a crime and would be treated as such, plain and simple.

I've never touched drugs. Hell, I don't even smoke or drink. However, I honestly don't give a flying fark what other people do with themselves as long as they do not endanger others. It may be really stupid, but it's our right to be stupid. It's a shame there are so many assholes out there willing to cram their own idea of what people should and should not do with themselves down everyone's throats.
 
2010-06-27 12:47:38 PM
I'd love to see state governments crawl up the assholes of other industries the way they're hassling the cannabis industry. But old stereotypes are hard to break, especially when so many people are making money off of the old ways of doing things. I'm sure the alcohol and tobacco industries are behind all these stupid laws these people are writing.
 
2010-06-27 12:58:23 PM
Durendal: I'm baffled as to why the moral crusading pieces of shiat in Washington think they have that right. To protect people from themselves?

The scuttlebutt is that Washington legislators don't personally care if pot is legal or not. But because they feel like they have to appease their voters, they bang the prohibition drum. Not that it's proof, but it's telling that in the wake of Obama relaxing enforcement of marijuana laws there was barely a peep from Republicans at the national level.

But don't expect them ever to mutter anything indicative of "the government has absolutely NO farking right ...", and be sincere about it. They believe they do have the right, nay the absolute authority, to dictate anything they damn-well please to anyone over anything. Moral, philosophical, or even Constitutional arguments against that notion are occasionally used by opposition politicians, but they quickly forget those arguments once they're the ones in power.
 
2010-06-27 01:16:31 PM
FTFA:"No M.B.A. program could have prepared me for this experience,"

No shiat. If you want to learn about business, run an actual business.
 
2010-06-27 01:23:42 PM
Durendal: Bottom line: The government has absolutely NO farking right to tell people of sound mind what they can and cannot do with their own bodies or with other consenting adults. I'm baffled as to why the moral crusading pieces of shiat in Washington think they have that right. To protect people from themselves? Their mistakes to make, not yours. Their life to live and lessons to learn. To protect other people from those people? If they commit a crime while under the influence of something, then that is a crime and would be treated as such, plain and simple.

I've never touched drugs. Hell, I don't even smoke or drink. However, I honestly don't give a flying fark what other people do with themselves as long as they do not endanger others. It may be really stupid, but it's our right to be stupid. It's a shame there are so many assholes out there willing to cram their own idea of what people should and should not do with themselves down everyone's throats.


It all goes back to DuPont and their stupid rope. To sell fake rope, ban the plant that rope comes from by demonizing it. The cannabis lobby is not fighting just the moral crusaders, but every producer of every material that hemp could replace if the government allowed it to be grown en mass. In addition, I'm sure the gangs and cartels would love to keep their products illegal, as well, so that they can maintain control over their communities of addicts.

I remember reading an article last year about farmers in North Dakota upset because folks 80 miles away were growing industrial hemp for export to the United States and were charging double what it could have been grown for domestically. But because of the trace amounts of THC in the hemp plants involved, they were barred from growing it in the US, and had to grow much less profitable grains.

This has never been about "health" but about certain commercial interests. The banning of marijuana is one of the first instances of a specific company (DuPont) astroturfing to ban a superior product from the marketplace, presenting outright lies to prohibitionists and screening movies such as Reefer Madness.
 
2010-06-27 02:03:02 PM
I have chronic knee pain from 3 ACL surgeries. I'm thinking it's arthritis, I go in again this week to see, hopefully I just need a cleaning.

Although each of the times I've tried this, I've either throw up (I had been drinking) or just nearly threw up but was able to hold it down because I hadn't been.

I need one of those inhaler things asthma users have... or a Jack LaLanne juicer. Hrm.... THC juice.
 
2010-06-27 02:04:17 PM
UNC_Samurai: And when the old, the frightened, the small-minded, and those who fear change and the world leaving them behind in the dust finally die off, we will move forward. The young have said on other matters, "You have lost, we don't care." This is as true of drugs as it is for gay rights, and sex, and any number of other social issues. We do not care, because we see the world has not come falling down because of the sin of enjoying life. Our only pitfall is the fear that when the young turn old, like the baby boomers, they will sell their souls for a piece of the action, and we will watch the world nearly fall not because of lust or gluttony, but because of greed and pride.

Aaaaaaand that's going on my favorite quotes list.
 
2010-06-27 02:13:02 PM
HOTY?
 
2010-06-27 02:16:27 PM
You know who else was socially liberal and eventually got their asses kicked?

The Romans..

Reg: All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
 
2010-06-27 02:41:22 PM
Kyoki: The Romans..

the Roman Empire fell because their reach exceeded their grasp. it had nothing to do with being "socially liberal". The Empire simply grew to large too fast.
 
2010-06-27 02:53:33 PM
darkscout: I have chronic knee pain from 3 ACL surgeries. I'm thinking it's arthritis, I go in again this week to see, hopefully I just need a cleaning.

Although each of the times I've tried this, I've either throw up (I had been drinking) or just nearly threw up but was able to hold it down because I hadn't been.

I need one of those inhaler things asthma users have... or a Jack LaLanne juicer. Hrm.... THC juice.


Try a vaporizer..

I think it's fair to assume that the government is going to get involved in this and set up rules / regulations. Seems like it should be ran similar to the Alcohol trade where you have distributors and resellers and everyone gets taxed in between.

It also makes sense that the production should be regulated much like anything else that is consumed. The FDA should be involved in that part.

Once you let the government get involved and they get their little tentacles in everything it will do away with this:

cryinoutloud:
I always wonder what will happen when the NEXT administration gets into office, and says, "Start shutting down those pot dispensaries again." Seems like a lot of people just don't see that one coming.


Once they start getting a revenue stream in they won't be able to shut it off.. Too many greedy people in Washington. They far outweigh the busy bodies screaming "You can't do that cause I don't want you to."
 
2010-06-27 03:28:03 PM
that article was WAAY to long to be a pot article and I'm not even high.
4.bp.blogspot.com
^more relevant to my interests
 
2010-06-27 03:32:26 PM
This is an example of when the government gets schizophrenic about the issue (new window)

Our Republican Governor is all for it, torn between "ah who cares" and "it is going to cause a spike in rape" prohibitionists as well as the "ooooh grant us a monopoly so we can dominate the market" types.
 
2010-06-27 03:35:15 PM
www.indelibleinc.com

/Previous bodily fluids
 
2010-06-27 03:36:45 PM
Why doesn't this resonate with the Tea Party? I'm sincerely curious.
 
2010-06-27 03:44:44 PM
Memes Ate My Balls: Why doesn't this resonate with the Tea Party? I'm sincerely curious.

It hasn't been proven to be popular enough for the teabaggers to jump on the bandwagon. Should repealing prohibition become at all popular then teabaggers will say, "See, this is the type of smaller government we've stood for all along"

However if the idea tanks then the teabagger talking point will be, "See, this is the type of conservative government we've stood for all along"
 
2010-06-27 04:42:57 PM
As much as I am sympathetic for people that cannabis seems to help, the more I read about "medical" marijuana, the more I think that the whole thing turned into a scam despite having good intentions:

- most of the "patients" seem to be under 30 and relatively healthy
- doctors are way overprescribing cannabis for pretty much "condition" in exchange for cash. also not having insurance copays to deal with = doctor win too.
- the stores give the "brands" names that would only appeal to stoners, tout its flavor, smoothness, etc.
- the stores have cannabis "milkshake night", have at best an Amsterdam coffee house atmosphere, seem to relish in stoner, hippy lifestyle. certainly not "professional" by any means.
- there doesn't seem to be any "medical" regulation of the crop vis a vis dosage, THC content, etc.

in many ways it's similar to "medical" alcohol under prohibition, where doctors who prescribed alcohol and the drugstores licensed to sell it made $millions, despite the most dubious medical benefits and "patients."

Either truly legalize cannabis or don't. This nether-region is just bad.
 
2010-06-27 04:44:27 PM
Memes Ate My Balls: Why doesn't this resonate with the Tea Party? I'm sincerely curious.

Most Conservatives I know love this. Once it's legal here I may do it to make a living. Once it's legal, it's simply farming another commodity. A profitable commodity.
 
2010-06-27 04:50:46 PM
Twenty-four-hour Webcams will be trained on every growing facility and dispensary in the state.

That seems weird.
 
2010-06-27 05:06:55 PM
Personal use pot has been legal in Finland for 35 years. I haven't heard of any social upheaval, increased deaths, mental disorders being caused by the evil weed there.
 
2010-06-27 05:10:00 PM
Tax Boy: As much as I am sympathetic for people that cannabis seems to help, the more I read about "medical" marijuana, the more I think that the whole thing turned into a scam despite having good intentions:

- most of the "patients" seem to be under 30 and relatively healthy
- doctors are way overprescribing cannabis for pretty much "condition" in exchange for cash. also not having insurance copays to deal with = doctor win too.
- the stores give the "brands" names that would only appeal to stoners, tout its flavor, smoothness, etc.
- the stores have cannabis "milkshake night", have at best an Amsterdam coffee house atmosphere, seem to relish in stoner, hippy lifestyle. certainly not "professional" by any means.
- there doesn't seem to be any "medical" regulation of the crop vis a vis dosage, THC content, etc.

in many ways it's similar to "medical" alcohol under prohibition, where doctors who prescribed alcohol and the drugstores licensed to sell it made $millions, despite the most dubious medical benefits and "patients."

Either truly legalize cannabis or don't. This nether-region is just bad.


Wouldn't be nice if the world was an efficient place where objective reason prevailed and we didn't have to pay tributes to neighbors' bullshiat ideologies just so they won't get all up in our shiat?

Too bad it isn't. But until that time:

Marijuana is for arthritis
Islam is a religion of peace
Affirmative action is OK as long as quotas are not used
We're not fat - media is creating unreasonable weight standards
etc
 
F42
2010-06-27 05:33:16 PM
davidphogan: Twenty-four-hour Webcams will be trained on every growing facility and dispensary in the state.

That seems weird.


Seems like an opportunity for advertising and product placement! Put a highly visible bag of salty snacks in the place, collect a fee from the snack maker ;)
 
2010-06-27 05:33:48 PM
from the article:

We're past the days when people call here to ask if marijuana will give men breasts

so what about when I smoke and then eat a whole tub of ice cream, almost a whole pizza, bag of chips, a shiatload of water (err cotton mouth) and top that of with the full meal I was going to eat?

If that doesn't give me man breasts then nothing will..

And all you under 25 stoners on here STFU because no you can't eat cake at 4am all your life and not expect some of it to stick.

/yeah I know 'you sound fat'
//smoke and have smoked almost everyday last 20 years..yep it does make you eat more
 
F42
2010-06-27 05:36:06 PM
Thunderbox: Personal use pot has been legal in Finland for 35 years.

The Finnish Cannabis Association (FCA) is a non-governmental organisation whose purpose is to advocate legalisation or decriminalisation of cannabis.
The FCA started operating in 1990 and was officially established in 1991. According its mission statement, the purpose of the accociation is to influence the Finnish legislation so that adults could legally use, obtain and cultivate cannabis for personal use.

/you may want to check your sources
 
F42
2010-06-27 05:38:49 PM
Tax Boy: the stores give the "brands" names that would only appeal to stoners

No, those are the names of the strains, the stores didn't name them, the stoners who kept those strains going for decades did. In fact there was an article a few weeks back about a store that changed the names to something more "family-friendly".
 
F42
2010-06-27 05:40:08 PM
Memes Ate My Balls: Why doesn't this resonate with the Tea Party? I'm sincerely curious.

Fox News didn't instruct them to resonate.
 
2010-06-27 06:01:32 PM
Tax Boy: As much as I am sympathetic for people that cannabis seems to help, the more I read about "medical" marijuana, the more I think that the whole thing turned into a scam despite having good intentions:

By which you mean, with all of your "scare quotes" throughout your screed that you are a puritanical reactionary who objects to people enjoying themselves even if medical benefits are involved.

- most of the "patients" seem to be under 30 and relatively healthy

I'm not certain what the age of the patients has to do with anything and I haven't seen any actual statistics on the demographics of the people who use the dispensaries but I have read a few articles that state how among older folks and retirees use is up.

As to the relative health of the patients I'm not certain what you're getting at there either. I think the right question to ask in response to this observation would probably be along the lines of, "how many mild conditions does this substance provide benefits for?"

- doctors are way overprescribing cannabis for pretty much "condition" in exchange for cash. also not having insurance copays to deal with = doctor win too.

Since you've already decided the population receiving the prescriptions should not be then your assertion that doctors are over-prescribing follows logically. But absent that unfounded assumption this kind of falls apart. I don't know what objection you would possibly have to the insurance companies not getting a cut though -- do you work in the insurance industry by any chance?

- the stores give the "brands" names that would only appeal to stoners, tout its flavor, smoothness, etc.

You return to the assumption that the wrong people are getting the prescriptions and assert that by extension doing things which will appeal to that demographic is also wrong.

And, wtf? Of course after the effort of breeding a strain which tastes better or is smoother they are going to advertise it based on this virtue. That's kind of the point.

- the stores have cannabis "milkshake night", have at best an Amsterdam coffee house atmosphere, seem to relish in stoner, hippy lifestyle. certainly not "professional" by any means.

Actually is is quite professional -- I think you're just not understanding what you're seeing correctly. The patients in question are seeking out an alternative medicine. Part of that includes a rejection of the notion that all medicines must be dispensed by persons wearing scrubs and lab coats. I read a story not so long ago about a center in California - one part that really stuck in my memory was an anecdote about an older man with a death sentence (cancer) who'd hang out on occasion and smoke and talk with the younger folks who'd come in, share stories and the like. That sort of thing has got to be immensely valuable for him -- and it isn't going to happen in the sterile gleaming white fluorescent lit sort of place which you'd bless as being professional.

- there doesn't seem to be any "medical" regulation of the crop vis a vis dosage, THC content, etc.

Some testing is done, certainly. I understand that having the tests run is rather expensive and because of the way the laws are structured somewhat difficult to have performed in the first place. Because of the Schedule I status of the substance in question it is effectively impossible to run well-controlled experiments inside the US. Given the relative safety of use of marijuana, that is to say the impossibility of overdose, using a strain which has not been tested for THC content is really not a big deal.

This is actually one of the areas where I think marijuana really wins over the offerings from the pharmaceutical industry. Consider the following: 12 years ago I was in a car wreck - stopped at a light, hit from behind, classic whiplash symptoms. I was a marijuana smoker at the time, and used it for pain management during my recovery. It worked extremely well for me and I could manage my dose effectively by stopping smoking when I felt relief.

I stopped using as I got older and weighed the risks vs the enjoyment and nowadays I don't even know where to get it. Two weeks ago I developed an intestinal problem which my doctor gave my vicodin for. Using it for pain management was hell at the office: I'd pop a pill (one-size fits all, too big a hammer) and 20 minutes later my brain would turn to jelly and I'd be good for nothing for about an hour and a half when I'd come down off the opium high. If I could have popped down to the plaza and smoked part of a joint I know I could have found a dose where my head was together enough for me to function but without the tremendous pain bothering me.


in many ways it's similar to "medical" alcohol under prohibition, where doctors who prescribed alcohol and the drugstores licensed to sell it made $millions, despite the most dubious medical benefits and "patients."

I recognize the similarity: we've got people and doctors carving out a niche of just treatment by the government under an unjust system. The similarities end there because the medical benefits of marijuana are far greater than alcohol.

Either truly legalize cannabis or don't.
Baby steps.

This nether-region is just bad.
No, it really isn't and I don't think you've made anything like a case supporting that statement.
 
2010-06-27 06:10:20 PM
$16 a gram, there is your problem right there.
 
2010-06-27 06:55:36 PM
SnatchTease: $16 a gram, there is your problem right there.

I'm in CO. I smoke the same stuff that goes to the shops, it's just that I don't have a card. I get it from a friend of one of the growers. $280/oz (my price) is reasonable, $16/g is pretty pricey.

Looking forward to seeing what the next 5 or so years bring in terms of full legalization.
 
2010-06-27 07:28:30 PM
Thunderbox: Personal use pot has been legal in Finland for 35 years. I haven't heard of any social upheaval, increased deaths, mental disorders being caused by the evil weed there.

Americans don't want to hear about the successes foreign nations have had with legalization/decrim, health care, etc. In fact, citing European success is almost always immediately shot down as irrelevant because "we're Amuuricans." For at least the next 20 or 30 years, American policy will remain a slave to the loud opinions of stubborn old farts who have saddle sores from watching FOX every waking minute (though to be fair, conservative mouthpiece John Stossel recently came out in favor of legalization...an event so shocking that we had a Fark thread about it).
 
2010-06-27 07:29:11 PM
I concur with the regulation of chemical content, because delta-9-thc is only ONE chemical that gets you... "high," and this is the chemical which is what most breeders have been concerned with for awhile now. And its the generalized description of 'stone' that does the rest

Really though, theres about a dozen chemicals, at least 4 main ones, which all counteract eachother, and the breeding of super-high delta-9 has diminished the others. These others are important in many of the ways that cannabis use can be deemed a threat (anxiety, paranoia, laziness, etc), and they may be even more important for these patients' needs than just the delta-9-thc content, which is what has been mostly studied

/no citations
 
2010-06-27 07:48:38 PM
BolloxReader: It all goes back to DuPont and their stupid rope. To sell fake rope, ban the plant that rope comes from by demonizing it. The cannabis lobby is not fighting just the moral crusaders, but every producer of every material that hemp could replace if the government allowed it to be grown en mass. In addition, I'm sure the gangs and cartels would love to keep their products illegal, as well, so that they can maintain control over their communities of addicts.

I remember reading an article last year about farmers in North Dakota upset because folks 80 miles away were growing industrial hemp for export to the United States and were charging double what it could have been grown for domestically. But because of the trace amounts of THC in the hemp plants involved, they were barred from growing it in the US, and had to grow much less profitable grains.

This has never been about "health" but about certain commercial interests. The banning of marijuana is one of the first instances of a specific company (DuPont) astroturfing to ban a superior product from the marketplace, presenting outright lies to prohibitionists and screening movies such as Reefer Madness.


Yup. Growing hemp is 100% legal here in North Dakota. Both the Dems and GOP in the state government were in favor of it. It provides a valuable cash crop for farmers, enriches the soil, reduces the need for harmful chemicals, and can be grown on land unsuitable for other crops. The problem continues to be the fools at the DEA and elsewhere who continue to prohibit it's cultivation.
 
2010-06-27 07:48:42 PM
There was an article in the paper around here the other day. It concluded with some idiot woman in the county meeting she was at crying and saying (and I quote) "Please, for the sake of our children, I beg you to remove this plant from our city." This of course in reference to medical marijuana.

I absolutely hate people like that. Hate it.
 
2010-06-27 08:11:26 PM
it is more than just a high (new window)

ditto (new window)
 
2010-06-27 10:51:49 PM
I have *always* disagreed with the medical marijuana gambit. It's just asking for a few Breitbart style undercover "journalist" storys to give the opposition fuel to bring the hammer down.

Pot heads should be calling out every single small government "conservative" every time. They don't have to justify wanting to smoke for fun. The opposition should be forced to justify the waste, corruption, and "big government" infringements every single time they bring it up.

When you attack the anti-pot assholes from the right, you leave nowhere for them to run.
 
2010-06-28 12:05:09 AM
GanjSmokr:
Looking forward to seeing what the next 5 or so years bring in terms of full legalization.


I'm surprised it's not already legal if for no more reason than the government can tax the shiat out it like they do cigarettes.

Cannabis will get you through times of no capitalism better than capitalism will get you through times of no cannabis.
 
2010-06-28 10:17:19 AM
Tax Boy: As much as I am sympathetic for people that cannabis seems to help, the more I read about "medical" marijuana, the more I think that the whole thing turned into a scam despite having good intentions:

in many ways it's similar to "medical" alcohol under prohibition, where doctors who prescribed alcohol and the drugstores licensed to sell it made $millions, despite the most dubious medical benefits and "patients."

Either truly legalize cannabis or don't. This nether-region is just bad.


I know a few people who take about 20x the opioid pain meds that they should be and your description above accurately describes their relationships with the various doctors it takes to keep them supplied.

I'd rather see them smoke a lot of weed...

/1300 mg Methadone/day
// walking around and sober-appearing to those that don't see the tics
 
2010-06-28 06:08:45 PM
I've used it for pain management.

I don't like narcotics, in fact codeine does absolutely nothing to me, inherited that from my Mom apparently, found this out the hard way, when I got it prescribed after getting wisdom teeth out, damned things did nothing for me, so Dr. gave me something so strong I basically slept through 2-3 days, not fun after a while. Weed helps pain without farking me up completely, and in some cases where I hurt my knee sparring and it was blown up like a balloon, or when I was getting painful acid treatments on my foot for a plantar wart, it helped a lot more than the darvocet I was prescribed.

Whatever, people are so worked up about this. Guess what, someone is always gonna abuse substances. The vast majority of people I know are responsible folks who take care of their business and families and occasionally light up when the time is right.

Losers will be losers no matter what, whether it's legal or not. F-em.
 
2010-06-28 07:07:30 PM
Tax Boy: As much as I am sympathetic for people that cannabis seems to help, the more I read about "medical" marijuana, the more I think that the whole thing turned into a scam despite having good intentions:

- most of the "patients" seem to be under 30 and relatively healthy
- doctors are way overprescribing cannabis for pretty much "condition" in exchange for cash. also not having insurance copays to deal with = doctor win too.
- the stores give the "brands" names that would only appeal to stoners, tout its flavor, smoothness, etc.
- the stores have cannabis "milkshake night", have at best an Amsterdam coffee house atmosphere, seem to relish in stoner, hippy lifestyle. certainly not "professional" by any means.
- there doesn't seem to be any "medical" regulation of the crop vis a vis dosage, THC content, etc.

in many ways it's similar to "medical" alcohol under prohibition, where doctors who prescribed alcohol and the drugstores licensed to sell it made $millions, despite the most dubious medical benefits and "patients."

Either truly legalize cannabis or don't. This nether-region is just bad.


Well a big part of the problem is, your definition of medical use versus other people's definition of medical use.

Is medical use only cures? Of course not.

Step back and look at the big picture, REALLY what is medical use? Something that takes away a feeling you don't like and replaces it with a feeling you do like.

People medicate themselves every day. They use cigarettes and drink alcohol, they pop pills because they are anxious or nervous, because they are lonely because they are in pain.

There is a huge amount of people out there that just want to legislate morality (i'm guessing your one of them) and that medical use should only be if you are in extreme debilitating pain on your death bed.

These people are incredibly stupid and close minded.

Then there is the other group that says medical use is for whatever ailes you.
Doctor: Do you have anything in you life that medical marijuanna would be helpful for?
Patient:


You call that a scam.
I call it semantics. We will legalize this drug THROUGH the definition of medical use.

You may see a problem with that

I also see a problem with 5 gazillion ads on tv trying to convince you you have a disorder and the only way to get rid of it is to give money to Johnson & Johnson and Phizer and Roche and AstroZeneca and Merck.

Wake up.
Prohibition doesn't work..
The whole nation won't suddenly be on drugs if they legalize it because THE WHOLE NATION IS ON DRUGS ALREADY!

Your being fed a line and you gobble it up hook, line and sinker.
 
2010-06-30 08:06:48 AM
To all the anti-marijuana D.A.R.E. scared mom's out there.

Do you know what the most abused drug is now among teens and young adults? Prescription opiates.

Also 85,000 people die a year from alcohol abuse and its effects.

It is practically impossible to O.D. from smoking/ingesting Marijuana. The amount needed would far exceed your ability to consume it. It is a far safer drug than even caffeine or aspirin.

Yet, we continue to demonize this plant. While you're busy disciplining Johnny for the joint your found in his room, his brother Tommy is asphyxiating on his own vomit from ODing on the Vicodin his snaked from his friend mom's medicine cabinet.
 
2010-06-30 08:09:44 AM
The second link should be:

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report