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)   New York State Supreme Court Justice, suffering from pancreatic cancer, begs state legislature to legalize medical marijuana: "It is barbaric to deny us access to one substance that has proved to ameliorate our suffering"   (nytimes.com) divider line 320
    More: Sad, new york state supreme court, supreme court justices, New York, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, state legislature, state senate, marijuana, palliative  
•       •       •

1773 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 May 2012 at 11:34 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



320 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-18 07:46:38 AM
I HAVE VERY STRONG OPINIONS AND I WILL SHARE THEM WITH ALL OF YOU

THEY ARE CORRECT

BECAUSE I AM SAYING THEM

DAMN STONERS
 
2012-05-18 07:48:41 AM

dumbobruni: Nrokreffefp: GAT_00: Ryan2065: GAT_00: I don't have a problem with it in principle, and I see no legitimate reason to deny it to people like this. But the guidelines for getting it have to be toughen up to stop stones.

I see no legitimate reason to deny it to anyone 18+

My refusal to fully back it is because I view the majority of supporters are nothing more than stoners looking to circumvent the laws. They care nothing of medical ethics, they just want to snicker and pretend they are sick and ask for weed. Look at how many dispensaries have nothing to do with medicine. I refuse to support such activity.

I shouldn't have to, and don't, ask idiots like you for shiat. For one, I'm willing to break the law when it is operating outside of its boundaries. For two, you are a worthless pissant with no authority to make that decision. Your logic is the most retarded, juvenile reasoning behind being against something I've ever heard of. I seriously hope you get to watch someone suffer because of the legal status of marijuana.

many were against the approval of oxycodone due to the potential for abuse.

they were proven to be right, no?


And Oxycodone naturally grows where?
 
2012-05-18 07:49:12 AM

PonceAlyosha: Effects of THC on driving performance, physiological state and subjective feelings relative to alcohol.

This study shows any "impairment" causes them to drive more carefully. You'd need way more study, but it doesn't seem like it's a problem.


Some guy weaving all over the road and running stop signs: alcohol.
Four guys in a beater driving half the speed limit and waiting for a stop sign to turn green: weed.

The last time I was stuck behind a mobile hot box at a persistently red stop sign I was laughing my ass off so hard that I was probably more of a danger to other drivers than they were.
 
2012-05-18 07:58:16 AM

Without Fail: fark the nanny state FDA. We don't need our tax dollars wasted on that sort of thing!


Also the medical effects of marijuana are so well documented that all the evidence you might want is there already. Bonus, some of the data was collected way back in the early part of the 20th century. Indeed when it came to making marijuana illegal doctors were against it. Except for the head of the AMA, who lied through his teeth to Congress about the effects of marijuana. Had he not lied? It's quite likely marijuana would've at least been a prescription issue and an outside chance it wouldn't have had its legality legislated at all. Granted the medicinal side of it was just a side argument, the real reason a lot of people wanted it to be illegal is they were afraid of uppity you know who getting stoned and raping all the white women.
 
2012-05-18 08:02:11 AM

dudemanbro: People should just mind their own farking business. Don't like weed? Don't smoke it. Simple.


It's odd that so many people who usually love simplistic solutions won't accept this particular brand of simple.
 
2012-05-18 08:32:36 AM

Nrokreffefp: NaziKamikaze: I'm a firm believer that the US would be a better place if pot were legal: less crime, more revenue/business, less cost to services, etc. I doubt anyone could change my mind.

I'm also slightly less positive about decriminalizing all drugs, as I think we go about it the wrong way. But that's far more complicated than the marijuana stance.

It is a very simple issue, actually. How many people do you know that want a more harmful/dangerous drug than marijuana who cannot find it? The war on drugs prevents nobody from doing any drug, it only serves to drive up the costs of those drugs, and to fuel the prison system. There is a reason we hold such a disproportionately high percentage of our population in prison for victimless crimes - its a great way to justify an ever bigger black hole for tax dollars to be funneled into police and prison unions pockets. Those same unions turn around and lobby politicians with the public money they siphoned.


Prison union? WTF is a prison union?

The privatization of prisons and militarization of police have put a lot of money on the side of longer sentences for lesser and lesser crimes. The drug war bullshiat has led to elimination of civil rights and made things like indefinite detentions seem a small step rather than the major leap they really are. Tens of thousands of dead people on the Mexican border, shootings in our cities--these are the results of prohibition. Unions have fark all to do with it.

Medical marijuana probably helps a lot of people deal with their chemo, MS or whatever. Still, the problem is and remains the prohibition. Society isn't going to collapse tomorrow if you can by weed at Circle K.

It would be better for society if these drugs were legal, the money we waste on The War on Drugs converted to treatment and the de-schedulization (OK, I made that word up) to allow proper medical studies of pot to create even more effective treatments would be a net plus for general society.

Further to this, authoritarians biatch about the pro-legalization movement as a bunch of dirty hippies and stoners, stating they do more harm to their cause by being stoners all probably know some person who has a job, house, family, probably in a professional position who likes to go out to their garage in the evening and suck down a doob. These people aren't marching in pro-legalization protests because the drug war is so all-consuming, they cannot afford the risk.

I would prefer complete legalization, then follow with medical studies and medicinal treatments. Maybe we can regain some civil protections and possibly cut the death toll from 25k a year to half that or more. These days, pro-legalization has become a humanitarian issue.
 
2012-05-18 08:35:59 AM

jso2897: dudemanbro: People should just mind their own farking business. Don't like weed? Don't smoke it. Simple.

It's odd that so many people who usually love simplistic solutions won't accept this particular brand of simple.


Same as changing the channel on TV if you don't like what's on. Not hard at all. Don't like booze? Don't drink the shiat. No one is going to force anyone to smoke pot.
 
2012-05-18 08:39:06 AM

cman: If only more people would stand up and demand change, change will happen


People who like weed are notoriously bad at the whole "stand up" and "demand" thing.
 
2012-05-18 08:42:59 AM
Gat, you are a prejudiced, authoritarian dick. Fark you.
 
2012-05-18 08:48:01 AM
I have no problem with people using medical marijuana, so long as it's FDA-approved, covered by insurance, and dispensed at CVS.
 
2012-05-18 08:54:05 AM
Weed isn't the only substance that helps. So no means no you bunch of potheads.
 
2012-05-18 09:00:58 AM
How about you take Marinol like the rest of us, your honor.
 
2012-05-18 09:01:11 AM

Mearen: Weed isn't the only substance that helps. So no means no you bunch of potheads.


Okay, so you're fine with making alcohol illegal because you can stimulate the same receptors with pharmaceuticals? fark that.
 
2012-05-18 09:04:51 AM
encouragedbygodsword.com
 
2012-05-18 09:09:49 AM

Coelacanth: There's another gateway for hard drugs other than marijuana. It's called pain.

There are people who live in incredible pain who are unable to obtain health care and try to manage their pain as best as they can. And the truth is that illegal drugs are cheaper than a visit to the emergency room or doctor's office these days.


Not to mention that in some places, it's a lot less hassle getting some weed than it would be to find someone to treat you for chronic pain. And your dealer is not going to give you a dirty look and assume you are a degenerate lowlife because you just want some farking relief from your constant misery.
 
2012-05-18 09:09:53 AM

PonceAlyosha: thorsmistress: Ryan2065: GAT_00: I don't have a problem with it in principle, and I see no legitimate reason to deny it to people like this. But the guidelines for getting it have to be toughen up to stop stones.

I see no legitimate reason to deny it to anyone 18+

I honestly believe the only reason it's not legal for 21+ like alcohol is that the police can't measure it in your system like BAC.

You'd have to do a study to show marijuana impairs you before such a thing is necessary. Otherwise just slap a generic "do not operate large machinery while under the influence" warning on the packaging.


I'm not saying it does or doesn't impair performance. I just think in our criminalize-it-at-all-costs society, that restrictions would have to be in place before they would legalize it.
 
2012-05-18 09:23:44 AM
Why's it gotta be a medicine? Why can't it be what it is: a plant?

Our farking consumerism, greed and corporate culture apparently prevent us from looking at something that can help people, and not wanting to monetize it.

Let's turn it into pills. Let's require a prescription! Let's set up entire agencies dedicated to preventing abuse. New law enforcement tools will be required! We can get those contracts rolling today. New laws to 'prevent abuse', distribution centers! We can introduce the same three-tier system that we have for beer in this country. We can all happily enjoy one of the 3 varieties of pot provided to us by InBev and Miller/Coors! There will be "regular", "bold" and "light" varieties and they will all taste like hammered shiat, and they won't even get people high!

Problem solved!

/We're overcomplicating the issue. Because we farking lost our way.
//Well before any of us were born, mind you.
 
2012-05-18 09:29:53 AM

YELLOL: I hope this judge loses his job. He is admitting to criminal behavior while he sits in judgement of the law.

Such a hypocrite.. he must be a democrat.


Glad at least 1 person is calling him out on this. But you don't go far enough.
 
2012-05-18 09:35:03 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: For me it's Randroids and I readily admit it.


It's perfectly rational to hate evil, ignorant assholes.
 
2012-05-18 09:37:10 AM

BeesNuts: Why's it gotta be a medicine? Why can't it be what it is: a plant?

Our farking consumerism, greed and corporate culture apparently prevent us from looking at something that can help people, and not wanting to monetize it.

Let's turn it into pills. Let's require a prescription! Let's set up entire agencies dedicated to preventing abuse. New law enforcement tools will be required! We can get those contracts rolling today. New laws to 'prevent abuse', distribution centers! We can introduce the same three-tier system that we have for beer in this country. We can all happily enjoy one of the 3 varieties of pot provided to us by InBev and Miller/Coors! There will be "regular", "bold" and "light" varieties and they will all taste like hammered shiat, and they won't even get people high!

Problem solved!

/We're overcomplicating the issue. Because we farking lost our way.
//Well before any of us were born, mind you.


In Alaska it is illegal to own up to five plants and something like two pounds at a time. I'm totally fine with that. Seriously, it's a plant.
 
2012-05-18 09:52:10 AM
While I don't agree with Gat (and he could probably give a crap if I didn't) I see the point he's after. I don't agree with him, and think his view here is refutable, but I don't begrudge the guy his belief. I've seen post after post by this cat making valid rebuts against seriously lame stuff constantly. He's not long conning, he isn't an authoritarian freak, he shouldn't get a fark you over this. Mostly I refuse to let a difference of opinion with someone I know to be solid make me act like the kind of knee-jerk, hate what's different, fundy twats that are grinding the country down.
 
2012-05-18 09:57:11 AM

Shaggy_C: A Dark Evil Omen: Why not? Here's a question: If all drugs were legal now, what would be your argument for rendering them illegal?

The same reason we ban trans fats, driving without seatbelts, and make smoking illegal in restaurants. They're harmful to the well-being of society.


Which is worse for our society Pot, or the drug war and prohibition of Pot ?
Please look at what the alcohol prohibition got us.
 
2012-05-18 10:00:42 AM

PonceAlyosha: BeesNuts: Why's it gotta be a medicine? Why can't it be what it is: a plant?

Our farking consumerism, greed and corporate culture apparently prevent us from looking at something that can help people, and not wanting to monetize it.

Let's turn it into pills. Let's require a prescription! Let's set up entire agencies dedicated to preventing abuse. New law enforcement tools will be required! We can get those contracts rolling today. New laws to 'prevent abuse', distribution centers! We can introduce the same three-tier system that we have for beer in this country. We can all happily enjoy one of the 3 varieties of pot provided to us by InBev and Miller/Coors! There will be "regular", "bold" and "light" varieties and they will all taste like hammered shiat, and they won't even get people high!

Problem solved!

/We're overcomplicating the issue. Because we farking lost our way.
//Well before any of us were born, mind you.

In Alaska it is illegal to own up to five plants and something like two pounds at a time. I'm totally fine with that. Seriously, it's a plant.


You know if you push really hard on your eyes for a couple minutes you can get a little dizzy and it makes it hard to see for a while. Maybe we need to develop a way to tax and regulate that. Maybe devise a test so we can bust people for driving under the influence of eye-pushin'.

/The "debate" depresses me.
//Pretending to solve "problems" that we invented in the first place.
 
2012-05-18 10:03:35 AM

BeesNuts: PonceAlyosha: BeesNuts: Why's it gotta be a medicine? Why can't it be what it is: a plant?

Our farking consumerism, greed and corporate culture apparently prevent us from looking at something that can help people, and not wanting to monetize it.

Let's turn it into pills. Let's require a prescription! Let's set up entire agencies dedicated to preventing abuse. New law enforcement tools will be required! We can get those contracts rolling today. New laws to 'prevent abuse', distribution centers! We can introduce the same three-tier system that we have for beer in this country. We can all happily enjoy one of the 3 varieties of pot provided to us by InBev and Miller/Coors! There will be "regular", "bold" and "light" varieties and they will all taste like hammered shiat, and they won't even get people high!

Problem solved!

/We're overcomplicating the issue. Because we farking lost our way.
//Well before any of us were born, mind you.

In Alaska it is illegal to own up to five plants and something like two pounds at a time. I'm totally fine with that. Seriously, it's a plant.

You know if you push really hard on your eyes for a couple minutes you can get a little dizzy and it makes it hard to see for a while. Maybe we need to develop a way to tax and regulate that. Maybe devise a test so we can bust people for driving under the influence of eye-pushin'.

/The "debate" depresses me.
//Pretending to solve "problems" that we invented in the first place.


Currently in Alaska it is legal to have up to four ounces of cannabis or up to 25 plants.
 
2012-05-18 10:11:09 AM

dumbobruni: WhyteRaven74: dumbobruni: is there any sort of framework for stopping DUIs for pot?

I'm not aware of any state that doesn't already have on its books a law for driving while impaired by any number of drugs. So it's a non-issue.

for pot its currently "anything" = DUI and on the spot tests don;t exist yet.

so i guess the only way is to arrest under suspicion of DUI and then test?

sounds like a great "non-issue" to me!


On the spot tests existed before the breathalyzer, dumbo.
 
2012-05-18 10:20:13 AM

keylock71: Why just for medical reasons?

Marijuana should be treated like alcohol under the law.


I agree. And I would also like to say that alcohol is not exactly "legal". There are many laws controlling the creation, distribution, and consumption of alcohol that will put someone in jail just fine.
 
2012-05-18 10:24:39 AM
And, if you aren't too impaired to pass a motor skills test, then you aren't too impaired to drive.

this is a lot more simple than you guys asking for a pot breathalyzer make it out to be.
 
2012-05-18 10:28:20 AM

for good or for awesome: keylock71: Why just for medical reasons?

Marijuana should be treated like alcohol under the law.

I agree. And I would also like to say that alcohol is not exactly "legal". There are many laws controlling the creation, distribution, and consumption of alcohol that will put someone in jail just fine.


Walking isn't legal either then.

There are many laws restricting where I can walk, what I can walk with etc.

until I can walk my pet bear with a brandished firearm across streets where I want, down freeways, into closed businesses, etc then I'd hardly call walking "legal".
 
2012-05-18 10:35:45 AM

Smackledorfer: dumbobruni: WhyteRaven74: dumbobruni: is there any sort of framework for stopping DUIs for pot?

I'm not aware of any state that doesn't already have on its books a law for driving while impaired by any number of drugs. So it's a non-issue.

for pot its currently "anything" = DUI and on the spot tests don;t exist yet.

so i guess the only way is to arrest under suspicion of DUI and then test?

sounds like a great "non-issue" to me!

On the spot tests existed before the breathalyzer, dumbo.


Problem with marijuana tests is that they are designed to test if you've partaken at all, not whether you're currently under the influence. This is likely because it is illegal and there's been no push to identify people under the influence of THC as opposed to identifying an individual who's simply had some in the last several weeks.
 
2012-05-18 10:48:46 AM

dr_blasto: Smackledorfer: dumbobruni: WhyteRaven74: dumbobruni: is there any sort of framework for stopping DUIs for pot?

I'm not aware of any state that doesn't already have on its books a law for driving while impaired by any number of drugs. So it's a non-issue.

for pot its currently "anything" = DUI and on the spot tests don;t exist yet.

so i guess the only way is to arrest under suspicion of DUI and then test?

sounds like a great "non-issue" to me!

On the spot tests existed before the breathalyzer, dumbo.

Problem with marijuana tests is that they are designed to test if you've partaken at all, not whether you're currently under the influence. This is likely because it is illegal and there's been no push to identify people under the influence of THC as opposed to identifying an individual who's simply had some in the last several weeks.


I believe that saliva tests are the best at identifying recent use, but even they still go back two or three days. The fact that THC is a fat-soluble molecule makes it exceedingly difficult to detect current intoxication levels.
 
2012-05-18 11:11:10 AM

GAT_00:

And that's also why you can't get it passed. Pro-legalization protests are filled with people who show up stoned and look like the type of people who contribute nothing. If you really want legalization to get somewhere, you have to look like you're worth something. A crowd of people who don't look like stoners calling for legalization is worth far more than the usual protests.

If you want the establishment to listen, you have to play at least some of their game. If you look like you should be ignored, you'll get ignored. Its why I went to one OWS protest and left when I realized at least half of the people were currently stoned. Its so farking stupid and easy to not shoot yourself in the foot like that.


While I disagree that marijuana leads to abuse of medicine - I do agree that my fellow liberals need to learn how to hold a goddamn protest. I don't want to see everything from FARK ISRAEL to JAIL REFORM to US OUT OF (country x) at a legalization protest. Pick a message, stay on it, don't get wasted on anything, and be organized. How hard is that?
 
2012-05-18 11:11:25 AM

Serious Black: dr_blasto: Smackledorfer: dumbobruni: WhyteRaven74: dumbobruni: is there any sort of framework for stopping DUIs for pot?

I'm not aware of any state that doesn't already have on its books a law for driving while impaired by any number of drugs. So it's a non-issue.

for pot its currently "anything" = DUI and on the spot tests don;t exist yet.

so i guess the only way is to arrest under suspicion of DUI and then test?

sounds like a great "non-issue" to me!

On the spot tests existed before the breathalyzer, dumbo.

Problem with marijuana tests is that they are designed to test if you've partaken at all, not whether you're currently under the influence. This is likely because it is illegal and there's been no push to identify people under the influence of THC as opposed to identifying an individual who's simply had some in the last several weeks.

I believe that saliva tests are the best at identifying recent use, but even they still go back two or three days. The fact that THC is a fat-soluble molecule makes it exceedingly difficult to detect current intoxication levels.


I'm certain that if it became important to determine if someone was currently under the influence, a test could be made. We don't currently test for THC, we test for metabolites. I don't know how long actual THC lingers in body, clearly the byproducts could last a long time and this time can vary greatly from person to person based on body fat, diet, exercise and metabolism.
 
2012-05-18 11:13:49 AM

GAT_00: The abuse I'm taking about here is people getting bogus claims of pain and injury and getting access to legal pot, nothing more wide ranging than that


So we should outlaw opiates because a> it's heroin, and b>some people will dr. shop to get a perscription they don't need, to abuse said opiate.

Therefore, no opiates for anyone, ever.
 
2012-05-18 11:30:17 AM

Sabyen91: SunsetLament: There are plenty of things that alleviate the pain of pancreatic cancer, and I'm certain there are plenty of doctors willing to prescribe that medication. The most obvious one (for purposes of this discussion) is synthetic THC tablets.

So the tablets are NOT actually pot? So,,,it is better?


No. Just authorized. Its fine for PharmaCo to get pot for medical use - that is, to change it into something expensive and impossible for anyone to replicate outside of a lab. But marijyana has over 400 active and separate chemical compounds, with THC simply being the most notorious. THC doesnt get you high on its own, though, so the pill form is justifiable as "medically acceptable." I can only surmise from that fact that feeling good for half an hour is contrary to modern medicine. In any event, it all just comes down to who gets the money, not who gets to benefit from the drug.
 
2012-05-18 11:33:42 AM

Aracnix: In any event, it all just comes down to who gets the money, not who gets to benefit from the drug.


As it was, ever it shall be.
 
2012-05-18 11:33:46 AM

PonceAlyosha: BeesNuts: PonceAlyosha: BeesNuts: Why's it gotta be a medicine? Why can't it be what it is: a plant?

Our farking consumerism, greed and corporate culture apparently prevent us from looking at something that can help people, and not wanting to monetize it.

Let's turn it into pills. Let's require a prescription! Let's set up entire agencies dedicated to preventing abuse. New law enforcement tools will be required! We can get those contracts rolling today. New laws to 'prevent abuse', distribution centers! We can introduce the same three-tier system that we have for beer in this country. We can all happily enjoy one of the 3 varieties of pot provided to us by InBev and Miller/Coors! There will be "regular", "bold" and "light" varieties and they will all taste like hammered shiat, and they won't even get people high!

Problem solved!

/We're overcomplicating the issue. Because we farking lost our way.
//Well before any of us were born, mind you.

In Alaska it is illegal to own up to five plants and something like two pounds at a time. I'm totally fine with that. Seriously, it's a plant.

You know if you push really hard on your eyes for a couple minutes you can get a little dizzy and it makes it hard to see for a while. Maybe we need to develop a way to tax and regulate that. Maybe devise a test so we can bust people for driving under the influence of eye-pushin'.

/The "debate" depresses me.
//Pretending to solve "problems" that we invented in the first place.

Currently in Alaska it is legal to have up to four ounces of cannabis or up to 25 plants.


And if Alaska weren't 5,000 miles away from the federal government, the DEA would shut that down as well. How many states have to legalize it to eliminate an entire federal agency? How few states need to keep it illegal to justify a federal enforcement arm?

California, Colorado... shining beacons of progressive attitudes about cannabis. And smokers and distributors and growers in those states still live like de facto felons, waiting for their turn to get shut down.

/feelin a touch cynical today, I guess.
 
2012-05-18 11:36:32 AM

BeesNuts:

California, Colorado... shining beacons of progressive attitudes about cannabis. And smokers and distributors and growers in those states still live ...


The medical growers in California were largely against the legalization efforts; they have a good thing and are making money hand over fist.

Colorado is drawing back; some cities have banned use or sale of MMJ.
 
2012-05-18 11:37:09 AM

Mearen: Weed isn't the only substance that helps. So no means no you bunch of potheads.


You know, they keep telling me no means no when it comes to online piracy. Doesn't seem to slow me down much. Same with the cannabis.
 
2012-05-18 11:38:59 AM

dr_blasto: Serious Black: dr_blasto: Smackledorfer: dumbobruni: WhyteRaven74: dumbobruni: is there any sort of framework for stopping DUIs for pot?

I'm not aware of any state that doesn't already have on its books a law for driving while impaired by any number of drugs. So it's a non-issue.

for pot its currently "anything" = DUI and on the spot tests don;t exist yet.

so i guess the only way is to arrest under suspicion of DUI and then test?

sounds like a great "non-issue" to me!

On the spot tests existed before the breathalyzer, dumbo.

Problem with marijuana tests is that they are designed to test if you've partaken at all, not whether you're currently under the influence. This is likely because it is illegal and there's been no push to identify people under the influence of THC as opposed to identifying an individual who's simply had some in the last several weeks.

I believe that saliva tests are the best at identifying recent use, but even they still go back two or three days. The fact that THC is a fat-soluble molecule makes it exceedingly difficult to detect current intoxication levels.

I'm certain that if it became important to determine if someone was currently under the influence, a test could be made. We don't currently test for THC, we test for metabolites. I don't know how long actual THC lingers in body, clearly the byproducts could last a long time and this time can vary greatly from person to person based on body fat, diet, exercise and metabolism.


How about a field sobriety test? Can be conducted with a flashlight, mouth and a pair of eyeballs in about 2-5 minutes.
 
2012-05-18 11:40:26 AM

dr_blasto: BeesNuts:

California, Colorado... shining beacons of progressive attitudes about cannabis. And smokers and distributors and growers in those states still live ...

The medical growers in California were largely against the legalization efforts; they have a good thing and are making money hand over fist.

Colorado is drawing back; some cities have banned use or sale of MMJ.


It's almost like this madness of regulating shiat that comes out the ground is a losing proposition, eh?
 
2012-05-18 12:08:08 PM

GAT_00: Ryan2065: GAT_00: I don't have a problem with it in principle, and I see no legitimate reason to deny it to people like this. But the guidelines for getting it have to be toughen up to stop stones.

I see no legitimate reason to deny it to anyone 18+

My refusal to fully back it is because I view the majority of supporters are nothing more than stoners looking to circumvent the laws. They care nothing of medical ethics, they just want to snicker and pretend they are sick and ask for weed. Look at how many dispensaries have nothing to do with medicine. I refuse to support such activity.


Why not legalize it and tax it?
 
2012-05-18 12:08:16 PM

dr_blasto: BeesNuts:

California, Colorado... shining beacons of progressive attitudes about cannabis. And smokers and distributors and growers in those states still live ...

The medical growers in California were largely against the legalization efforts; they have a good thing and are making money hand over fist.

Colorado is drawing back; some cities have banned use or sale of MMJ.



Not exactly. Some cities have banned dispensaries or commercial grows. The use of MMJ, individual grows and private sales between card holders is a state constitutional right not subject to regulation by cities.
 
2012-05-18 12:20:04 PM
Hey, judge. Remember when you were locking people up for possession of weed, and you didn't care if it was for medicinal purposes or not? Because it was illegal and the law is the law?
Remember when I said I hope you get pancreatic cancer and suffer and don't get any farking weed to keep the pain away?
I lied.
I actually put a farking vudu curse on your sad ass and now, you know how it feels.
Love, Vudukungfu
 
2012-05-18 12:23:39 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: dr_blasto: BeesNuts:

California, Colorado... shining beacons of progressive attitudes about cannabis. And smokers and distributors and growers in those states still live ...

The medical growers in California were largely against the legalization efforts; they have a good thing and are making money hand over fist.

Colorado is drawing back; some cities have banned use or sale of MMJ.


Not exactly. Some cities have banned dispensaries or commercial grows. The use of MMJ, individual grows and private sales between card holders is a state constitutional right not subject to regulation by cities.


Didn't Fort Collins just pass some ban? The fliers I saw were banning dispensaries, sales and possession--prop 301 or something.
 
2012-05-18 12:27:44 PM

dr_blasto: Ow! That was my feelings!: dr_blasto: BeesNuts:

California, Colorado... shining beacons of progressive attitudes about cannabis. And smokers and distributors and growers in those states still live ...

The medical growers in California were largely against the legalization efforts; they have a good thing and are making money hand over fist.

Colorado is drawing back; some cities have banned use or sale of MMJ.


Not exactly. Some cities have banned dispensaries or commercial grows. The use of MMJ, individual grows and private sales between card holders is a state constitutional right not subject to regulation by cities.

Didn't Fort Collins just pass some ban? The fliers I saw were banning dispensaries, sales and possession--prop 301 or something.


They banned dispensaries. Not sure if they touched on COMMERCIAL grows and sales. Individual possession, use and sales are beyond their authority to regulate. It is in the Colorado state constitution.
 
2012-05-18 12:27:54 PM

dr_blasto: Ow! That was my feelings!: dr_blasto: BeesNuts:

California, Colorado... shining beacons of progressive attitudes about cannabis. And smokers and distributors and growers in those states still live ...

The medical growers in California were largely against the legalization efforts; they have a good thing and are making money hand over fist.

Colorado is drawing back; some cities have banned use or sale of MMJ.


Not exactly. Some cities have banned dispensaries or commercial grows. The use of MMJ, individual grows and private sales between card holders is a state constitutional right not subject to regulation by cities.

Didn't Fort Collins just pass some ban? The fliers I saw were banning dispensaries, sales and possession--prop 301 or something.


er, prop 300.
 
2012-05-18 12:32:46 PM
Boody-F***ing-Hoo.
During your career I bet you told all your potential panels about jury nullification.
Reap it.
 
2012-05-18 12:37:52 PM

Ow! That was my feelings!: dr_blasto: Ow! That was my feelings!: dr_blasto: BeesNuts:

California, Colorado... shining beacons of progressive attitudes about cannabis. And smokers and distributors and growers in those states still live ...

The medical growers in California were largely against the legalization efforts; they have a good thing and are making money hand over fist.

Colorado is drawing back; some cities have banned use or sale of MMJ.


Not exactly. Some cities have banned dispensaries or commercial grows. The use of MMJ, individual grows and private sales between card holders is a state constitutional right not subject to regulation by cities.

Didn't Fort Collins just pass some ban? The fliers I saw were banning dispensaries, sales and possession--prop 301 or something.

They banned dispensaries. Not sure if they touched on COMMERCIAL grows and sales. Individual possession, use and sales are beyond their authority to regulate. It is in the Colorado state constitution.


Similar bans, if I remember, failed in Steamboat. The fliers for prop 300 were all about saving society from the evils of drug dens and drug users.
 
2012-05-18 12:52:53 PM
There is absolutely nothing wrong with consuming cannabis to get high. Nothing.

It's enjoyable, and negative side effects are minimal.
 
2012-05-18 01:00:48 PM

GAT_00: Ryan2065: GAT_00: I don't have a problem with it in principle, and I see no legitimate reason to deny it to people like this. But the guidelines for getting it have to be toughen up to stop stones.

I see no legitimate reason to deny it to anyone 18+

My refusal to fully back it is because I view the majority of supporters are nothing more than stoners looking to circumvent the laws. They care nothing of medical ethics, they just want to snicker and pretend they are sick and ask for weed. Look at how many dispensaries have nothing to do with medicine. I refuse to support such activity.


My issue with criminalizing marajuana is a mixture of fiscal responsibility and social responsibility.

There's absolutely no reason why anyone should be given a life sentence for a possession charge (I'm looking at you - 3 Strikes laws).

The amount of money we spend policing and punishing offenders could be better spent paying down deficits, restructuring education, and providing adequate social programs.

Further, those most likely to be placed in prison for drug offenses are minority women. Our system was designed to bestow grace upon those able to serve up bigger fish so that we could capture kingpins. Unfortunately, the role most women serve in criminal organiations offer them insufficient leverage to utilize the system.

So, minority women are tossed in jail. Any children are placed elsewhere. Do you know that something like 70+% of users have reported to being molested or raped? A similar percent report being abused by a significant other.

Another interesting fact: a woman may be moved to a maximum security prison if she's pregnant upon incarceration regardless of how benign her crime is. The reason is, by federal law, prisons are not required to be equipped with a maternity ward so long as there is another secure facility with a maternity ward.

So, pregnant women are often relocated to a prison even further from any familial or personal support system.

And the reason we do this? Marajuana is bad. I mean, there are totally legitimate reasons for using and it is less addictive and destructive than other legal drugs. . . But marajuana is bad. End of story.
 
Displayed 50 of 320 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report