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.

(Google)   How's that 'marijuana is schedule 1 with no medicinal values' working out for you, Uncle Sam? What's that, you patented it? WHY YOU... woob woob woob woob *repeatedly slaps own face*   (google.com) divider line 206
    More: Fail, Uncle Sam, applied research, oxidants, neurodegenerative diseases, oxidative stress, autoimmune diseases, University of Jerusalem, filing date  
•       •       •

21244 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Nov 2012 at 10:23 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-15 02:57:57 PM  
I'm all for decriminalizing it, but I have to say that I would prefer to have it at the same level of control as alcohol but better controlled than tobacco. I need to know that I'm getting a specific amount of the chemicals I need to control my pain. Sure, I could drink willowbark tea, but the strength varies depending on when it's harvested and under what conditions it's prepared. I like taking a little pill with exactly 81 mg of the medication I need and know that's what I'm getting every time.

And I want it better-controlled than tobacco because if I'm going to start smoking it I don't want it cut with all the crap the tobacco company puts into cigarettes.
 
2012-11-15 02:59:54 PM  

AeAe:
So you're saying you can grow your own weed if it's scheduled? honest question, I don't know.


In some states, if you have a prescription for it, you are permitted to grow a certain number of plants for your personal use. Those are the states that are choosing to not set up central dispensaries.
 
2012-11-15 03:01:21 PM  

evilempryss: In some states, if you have a prescription for it


Because it's Schedule 1, doctors cannot prescribe marijuana, they can only recommend it.
 
2012-11-15 03:03:46 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: evilempryss: In some states, if you have a prescription for it

Because it's Schedule 1, doctors cannot prescribe marijuana, they can only recommend it.


Whatever you want to call the note from the physician that gives you the legal right to be in possession in MM states, I have friends in both California and Colorado who have it. Both choose to buy rather than grow because they have children in their homes and prefer to have better control over how much they have.
 
2012-11-15 03:06:21 PM  

evilempryss: I'm all for decriminalizing it, but I have to say that I would prefer to have it at the same level of control as alcohol but better controlled than tobacco. I need to know that I'm getting a specific amount of the chemicals I need to control my pain. Sure, I could drink willowbark tea, but the strength varies depending on when it's harvested and under what conditions it's prepared. I like taking a little pill with exactly 81 mg of the medication I need and know that's what I'm getting every time.

And I want it better-controlled than tobacco because if I'm going to start smoking it I don't want it cut with all the crap the tobacco company puts into cigarettes.


I want to make a point that "decriminalized" is not the same as "legal". Alcohol and tobacco are legal substances. If cannabis were decriminalized, users would still get penalized possibly in the form of fines or citations.

I support full legalization along with proper and similar controls as alcohol.
 
2012-11-15 03:07:11 PM  

detritus: Aunt Crabby: detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: It's going to be another fun four years picking on the libtards who didn't elect a libtard.

Right. Because Romney totally would have had my libtard back.

Great to hear you can count to two. I saw many more names on the ballot.


Did you? I'm not sure that throwing away my vote on a third party presidential candate would help me. I'd rather keep an even worse potential president out of office. Obama may be more moderate than I'd like, and he may break his more liberal promises in the name of compromise and weasel out of admiting it like any politician, but at least he isn't a Republican.
 
2012-11-15 03:08:01 PM  
AeAe, ah, good point. Legalization is what I'd ultimately prefer, too, but I'd be happy to step into it with decriminalization, first.
 
2012-11-15 03:14:33 PM  

actualhuman: detritus: Under ANY schedule, this means it will be left in the hands of needless regulation, DEA enforcement and corporate entities who will rape the consumer whether used recreationally or medically.

And I farking hate you asshole drug dealers who act like this is worse than sending someone to jail for possessing it. Because unless you have a financial incentive for it to be illegal that position is farking retarded.


LOL, you think if I grew it I would want to sell it? You know nothing about me. I neither have the time or patience to tend to a garden of any significant quantity where I would want to sell it to others. I have a huge incentive for it to be LEGAL so I DON'T have to rely on anyone else.
fark you.
 
2012-11-15 03:16:53 PM  

evilempryss: AeAe, ah, good point. Legalization is what I'd ultimately prefer, too, but I'd be happy to step into it with decriminalization, first.


OK, what sounds good, a $1,000 fine for every gram? You're not going to jail, you don't get a record, therefore it's decriminalized. Any notion of decriminalization carries limitless, arbitrary fine amounts.
 
2012-11-15 03:19:34 PM  

detritus: Or Schedule III where Asprin is, and you certainly can't manufacture your own Asprin.


I don't know about Asprin, but Aspirin I've synthesized in college chemistry class. It's extremely easy.

The trick is that getting medical grade regents to make the stuff myself is going to cost more than the $5-10 bottle of 250 pills I can grab off the store shelf, which comes with some hefty guarantees for purity and standardization of dose.

From what I remember, the synthesis of Heroin is almost identical(only a couple ingredients are different), which would put legal Heroin in the same cost category per dose. England had a very effective program where they'd prescribe it to addicts - as a result the moment a user got addicted, they could go get a prescription and didn't need a dealer anymore. As a result,dealers couldn't make any money off from it, thus 'free samples' were not to be had, leading to fewer addicts. Heroin is nasty nasty stuff to get off of, in many cases it's better to treat it like the person is like a diabetic and just give them maintenance doses.
 
2012-11-15 03:23:07 PM  

detritus: evilempryss: AeAe, ah, good point. Legalization is what I'd ultimately prefer, too, but I'd be happy to step into it with decriminalization, first.

OK, what sounds good, a $1,000 fine for every gram? You're not going to jail, you don't get a record, therefore it's decriminalized. Any notion of decriminalization carries limitless, arbitrary fine amounts.


What are you talking about? If it's not a crime to have it, why would there be a fine?
 
2012-11-15 03:28:07 PM  

evilempryss: detritus: evilempryss: AeAe, ah, good point. Legalization is what I'd ultimately prefer, too, but I'd be happy to step into it with decriminalization, first.

OK, what sounds good, a $1,000 fine for every gram? You're not going to jail, you don't get a record, therefore it's decriminalized. Any notion of decriminalization carries limitless, arbitrary fine amounts.

What are you talking about? If it's not a crime to have it, why would there be a fine?


His point is that if it's decriminalized, a person caught with it would be subject to penalties.

The most desirable situation would be full on legalization.
 
2012-11-15 03:28:43 PM  

AeAe: I want to make a point that "decriminalized" is not the same as "legal". Alcohol and tobacco are legal substances. If cannabis were decriminalized, users would still get penalized possibly in the form of fines or citations.


Indeed. I figure the biggest problem with 'decriminalization' tends to be that only small amounts are no longer 'illegal', thus leaving the production and distribution system in the hands of criminals.

I'd prefer to fully legalize it so I can clean up(and tax) the back end too. That's where a lot of the violence comes from.
 
2012-11-15 03:31:37 PM  

detritus: evilempryss: AeAe, ah, good point. Legalization is what I'd ultimately prefer, too, but I'd be happy to step into it with decriminalization, first.

OK, what sounds good, a $1,000 fine for every gram? You're not going to jail, you don't get a record, therefore it's decriminalized. Any notion of decriminalization carries limitless, arbitrary fine amounts.


I see that you have no idea of what you are talking about.

In California, possession of less than 28.5 grams may be fined up to $100 and it's treated like a driving ticket (you don't even have to show up to court), and I know of at least one county that told their police that anything less than a couple of grams is worthless to fine, and just ignore it. $100 certainly isn't "limitless;" in fact, the limit is $100.
 
2012-11-15 03:33:22 PM  

nmrsnr: Ah yes, the terrible "method of swinging on a swing" which, by the way, was reexamined and rejected.


And would it have been reexamined and rejected if it hadn't generated all that negative publicity for the patent office? Not on your life. It'd still be a current patent.

The point is, there is next to no attempt to confirm the validity of the patent any more; it's left entirely to the courts, and doing so leaves it entirely to who has the most money.
 
2012-11-15 03:34:42 PM  

AeAe: evilempryss: detritus: evilempryss: AeAe, ah, good point. Legalization is what I'd ultimately prefer, too, but I'd be happy to step into it with decriminalization, first.

OK, what sounds good, a $1,000 fine for every gram? You're not going to jail, you don't get a record, therefore it's decriminalized. Any notion of decriminalization carries limitless, arbitrary fine amounts.

What are you talking about? If it's not a crime to have it, why would there be a fine?

His point is that if it's decriminalized, a person caught with it would be subject to penalties.

The most desirable situation would be full on legalization.


Okay, maybe it's a sign of how out of touch I've gotten, but that logic makes my brain hurt. How can someone be penalized for something if it's not against the law? O.o

No, I don't need a lesson on that one. I think I want to stay blissfully ignorant while I hoard my Marinol.

I just want the hypocrisy to end regarding it. The whole "no medical purpose but we cleared a pharmacy to produce it for medical use" thing also makes my brain hurt. I'll send my letters to my new congressman stating my support of legalization of MM and then make plans to move to a state that has the balls to actually implement it, because I don't see it happening here.
 
2012-11-15 03:36:49 PM  
evilempryss: AeAe: You may not know the answer, but what about Marinol? .. which I believe is synthetic THC and is Schedule III ..

You are correct. It requires a prescription, and pisses me off to no end that the government can claim that there's no legitimate medical use for marijuana while approving the sale of Marinol (generic drobadinol). Without insurance it'll cost you upwards of $300 for a month's prescription. With insurance, it's usually off-formulary and will still cost $50-$100 a month, depending on your policy and if you can get your insurance provider to approve it. If they'd approve medical marijuana in my state, I could get the same benefit from THC in its natural form for $20 a month (I'm a lightweight, I admit it).

This stuff is the ONLY thing that has been able to completely get rid of my fibromyalgia pain and not leave me a total zombie like opiates do.

There's no such thing as fibromyalgia. Just fess up to the fact that you enjoy getting high

Agree, It's a joke diagnosis. The respected medical community understands "fibromyalgia" as a typical drug seekers diagnosis. There isnt any medical proof of that quasi condition. I've seen first hand when my wife was dignosed with it... until later it was found she had 2 ruptured, herniated vertibrae.

It's a Dr's admission of "I dunno"
 
2012-11-15 03:38:12 PM  

evilempryss: Jon iz teh kewl:There's no such thing as fibromyalgia. Just fess up to the fact that you enjoy getting high

Ha! Marinol doesn't give the same high as the natural stuff. From what I've heard, most people who enjoy pot for the high are disappointed by the effects of the pill. If you're taking it for medicinal purposes, though, I think it affects you differently from the get-go. Might have to do a psych paper on that.

@AeAe: I'm not gonna watch that. I'm in a good mood right now, even without my meds. I don't need you harshing my buzz. :p


weed destroys. the real purpose of life is to be gay
even if you're in pain. just shut up and be GAY
 
2012-11-15 03:48:10 PM  

xanadian: FTFA: Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention.

Sorry, Mr. Stoner Parkinson's Guy, no getting high for you!

Also: Cannabidiol is unscheduled in the US. However tetrahydrocannabinols, both naturally and synthetically occurring, are currently classified under Schedule I of the US Controlled Substances Act.

/also also: the patent has "cannabidiol" mis-spelled.


Cannabidiol (CBD) is not believed to be psychoactive, so that's probably why. But it has been shown to be largely responsible for marijuana's anti-inflammatory and anti-anxiety effects, which is why synthetic THC pills are not very useful or tolerable due to their side effects.
 
2012-11-15 03:59:45 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Nightsweat: IF it happens. And I say IF. It'll be between the 2016 election and Jan 20, 2017. No way he hands the Repubs an issue for either the midterms or the next presidential election.

And on goes the cycle of it never happening. Much like marriage equality, public opinion on the issue has accelerated towards liberty, except in the case of cannabis, party affiliation has even less of a divide on the issue.


media.reason.com

Reason would like a word with you. 

/also, stoogestep is an awesome concept
//my prediction, legalized in 2013. Don't believe me? Think Obama is too chicken shiat? Look at DADT. Easy. This one will be even easier, and be a huge boon in 2014.
 
2012-11-15 04:01:58 PM  

gweilo8888: The patent examiners are overloaded and will approve pretty much anything no matter how obvious, unpatentable, and rife with prior art it is, just to get it off their desks.


Since over 90% of applications are initially rejected, I think you're talking out of your ass.
 
2012-11-15 04:03:37 PM  

gweilo8888: The point is, there is next to no attempt to confirm the validity of the patent any more; it's left entirely to the courts, and doing so leaves it entirely to who has the most money.


The point is, the above statement is almost entirely, factually, provably incorrect.
 
2012-11-15 04:09:56 PM  

AeAe: I support full legalization along with proper and similar controls as alcohol.


I'm down with this approach, so long as it includes the right to "grow your own", similar to the provisions permitting adults to vint their own wine and brew their own beer.
 
2012-11-15 04:16:50 PM  

Stone Meadow: AeAe: I support full legalization along with proper and similar controls as alcohol.

I'm down with this approach, so long as it includes the right to "grow your own", similar to the provisions permitting adults to vint their own wine and brew their own beer.


/ internet high five
 
2012-11-15 04:32:53 PM  

evilempryss: detritus: evilempryss: AeAe, ah, good point. Legalization is what I'd ultimately prefer, too, but I'd be happy to step into it with decriminalization, first.

OK, what sounds good, a $1,000 fine for every gram? You're not going to jail, you don't get a record, therefore it's decriminalized. Any notion of decriminalization carries limitless, arbitrary fine amounts.

What are you talking about? If it's not a crime to have it, why would there be a fine?


Decriminalization is not the same as legalization. Decriminalization means it's a civil infraction that carries no jail time, but still carries some sort of punishment, usually a fine, like a traffic ticket. The difference is only the police and a judge know about it, and that matters if you are ever in court for anything more serious and they look through your record.
 
2012-11-15 04:34:24 PM  

evilempryss: Okay, maybe it's a sign of how out of touch I've gotten, but that logic makes my brain hurt. How can someone be penalized for something if it's not against the law? O.o


There is a difference between "not criminal" and "legal". Speeding (less than x miles per hour over the given limit) is not criminal, but it is illegal.
 
2012-11-15 04:35:19 PM  

mgshamster: detritus: evilempryss: AeAe, ah, good point. Legalization is what I'd ultimately prefer, too, but I'd be happy to step into it with decriminalization, first.

OK, what sounds good, a $1,000 fine for every gram? You're not going to jail, you don't get a record, therefore it's decriminalized. Any notion of decriminalization carries limitless, arbitrary fine amounts.

I see that you have no idea of what you are talking about.

In California, possession of less than 28.5 grams may be fined up to $100 and it's treated like a driving ticket (you don't even have to show up to court), and I know of at least one county that told their police that anything less than a couple of grams is worthless to fine, and just ignore it. $100 certainly isn't "limitless;" in fact, the limit is $100.


It's as limitless as lawmakers want it to be. Not everyone is as fortunate (or unfortunate depending on your view) enough to live in Cali. You honestly don't think Texas or Florida wouldn't attach some serious fines to it? And what happens if you don't pay that ticket for whatever fine it imposes? Jail!
 
2012-11-15 04:36:45 PM  

Jon iz teh kewl:

weed destroys. the real purpose of life is to be gay
even if you're in pain. just shut up and be GAY


Go back to the kids table. Adults are talking.


If I were to ignore any Farkers you would be the first...but here I am replying to you.

facepalm.jpg for me.
 
2012-11-15 04:55:27 PM  
Simply uttering the words "I smell marijuana" is grounds for police to break down your door and shove your bill of rights right up your ass with an unlubricated rubber glove. For that reason alone, the stuff will always be illegal one way or the other. It has little to nothing to do with the pro/con of the "drug" itself. I really think that in the wake of the election outcomes we should pressure Obama heavily on this.
 
2012-11-15 05:05:54 PM  
It's hilarious that the federal government still wants people to take them seriously when they continue to place marijuana in the same category as heroin while simultaneously telling us that marijuana is more dangerous than cocaine.
 
2012-11-15 05:08:13 PM  

Theaetetus: gweilo8888: The patent examiners are overloaded and will approve pretty much anything no matter how obvious, unpatentable, and rife with prior art it is, just to get it off their desks.

Since over 90% of applications are initially rejected, I think you're talking out of your ass.


And 99% probably should have been rejected. But I can see there's little point discussing this, so I won't continue.
 
2012-11-15 05:28:54 PM  
We're getting to the point where you get more votes supporting MJ than opposing it. At that point, schedule 1 goes away.
 
2012-11-15 05:58:09 PM  

odinsposse: detritus: Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.

You must be joking. Obama promised to stop federal raids in medical marijuana states yet it continued the past four years. He has still affirmed his position that it should remain completely illegal. Where have you been all this time?

That isn't what he promised.


The president continued: "I can't nullify congressional law. I can't ask the Justice Department to say, 'Ignore completely a federal law that's on the books.' What I can say is, 'Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage.' As a consequence, there haven't been prosecutions of users of marijuana for medical purposes."

Yeah, man, those medical marijuana dispensaries are farking people up left and right. Look at the carnage. Better lock them up in prison where they'll be safe.
 
2012-11-15 05:58:45 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: I think cannabis will be removed from the Schedule I listing sometime in term two. Hopefully sooner than later.


Congress has to do that.
 
2012-11-15 06:06:38 PM  

jigger: Congress has to do that.


I'm not sure that they do. But I'm all ears.
 
2012-11-15 06:07:49 PM  
Dewey, Cheatem and Howe been in yet? Hesaidthechequewasinthemail. The Sound Effects Guy and his on set sounds; Boink
as well a the dubbed classic sounds, calliope, was the fourth stooge, wolf whistle, and deserved an innovative handclap or clap-board whichever is funnier.
 
2012-11-15 06:18:04 PM  

gweilo8888: Theaetetus: gweilo8888: The patent examiners are overloaded and will approve pretty much anything no matter how obvious, unpatentable, and rife with prior art it is, just to get it off their desks.

Since over 90% of applications are initially rejected, I think you're talking out of your ass.

And 99% probably should have been rejected. But I can see there's little point discussing this, so I won't continue.


"Curse you and your verifiable facts! I'll take my unsupported assertions that really should have been just opinions and go home!"
 
2012-11-15 06:22:36 PM  

evilempryss: Okay, maybe it's a sign of how out of touch I've gotten, but that logic makes my brain hurt. How can someone be penalized for something if it's not against the law? O.o


It's called a civil offense. It's the category that improperly parking your car is under, or in some states speeding less than 10mph over the limit, etc...
 
2012-11-15 06:40:31 PM  

Weaver95: so cannabis is Schedule I and thus pure evil distilled into physical form. it has no valid uses, it'll rot reality itself...and it's going to destroy the universe if not locked down tight.


4.bp.blogspot.com 

/obscure?
 
2012-11-15 06:44:51 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: jigger: Congress has to do that.

I'm not sure that they do. But I'm all ears.


Ok. Well, the Controlled Substances Act lays out the schedule. Marijuana is on the list under Schedule 1. Actually, marihuana is. To remove marihuana from Schedule 1 you have to change the Controlled Substances Act.
 
2012-11-15 07:52:15 PM  
Clever girl...
 
2012-11-15 08:47:03 PM  

sunlion: Simply uttering the words "I smell marijuana" is grounds for police to break down your door and shove your bill of rights right up your ass with an unlubricated rubber glove. For that reason alone, the stuff will always be illegal one way or the other. It has little to nothing to do with the pro/con of the "drug" itself. I really think that in the wake of the election outcomes we should pressure Obama heavily on this.


The tide is turning. Fewer people blindly fear the plant. Law enforcement is gonna need a new bogey man to usurp rights soon.
 
2012-11-15 11:28:26 PM  
www.allposters.com
 
2012-11-16 12:40:46 AM  

Theaetetus: gweilo8888: Theaetetus: gweilo8888: The patent examiners are overloaded and will approve pretty much anything no matter how obvious, unpatentable, and rife with prior art it is, just to get it off their desks.

Since over 90% of applications are initially rejected, I think you're talking out of your ass.

And 99% probably should have been rejected. But I can see there's little point discussing this, so I won't continue.

"Curse you and your verifiable facts! I'll take my unsupported assertions that really should have been just opinions and go home!"


Yeah, no. You've not posted anything I would consider "verifiable". I posted opinion, you posted opinion. If you want to pretend your opinion is somehow more accurate, try backing it up with... I dunno, PROOF?
 
2012-11-16 01:06:18 AM  

incendi: DeaH: You want good turnout for the mid-term elections? Put legalizing pot on the ballot. the 18-25 group will turn out in droves.

The one thing you can count on about the youth vote is that you can never count on the youth vote.


Not just that. You cant even trust them to even be 18-25. Remember the 18-25 year olds who voted for Obama in 2008? Well, they are all 22-29, every one of them.
 
2012-11-16 01:14:16 AM  
Huirr pot turns people into loosers
hurrrrrr
 
2012-11-16 01:24:53 AM  
Not that it matters, but I lived 55 years of my life not knowing that the three stooges were Jewish. They were just so Stoogish that how could I have percepted it.
 
2012-11-16 03:03:23 AM  

Frederick: sunlion: Simply uttering the words "I smell marijuana" is grounds for police to break down your door and shove your bill of rights right up your ass with an unlubricated rubber glove. For that reason alone, the stuff will always be illegal one way or the other. It has little to nothing to do with the pro/con of the "drug" itself. I really think that in the wake of the election outcomes we should pressure Obama heavily on this.

The tide is turning. Fewer people blindly fear the plant. Law enforcement is gonna need a new bogey man to usurp rights soon.


Bath salts.
 
2012-11-16 08:26:37 AM  

gweilo8888: Theaetetus: gweilo8888: Theaetetus: gweilo8888: The patent examiners are overloaded and will approve pretty much anything no matter how obvious, unpatentable, and rife with prior art it is, just to get it off their desks.

Since over 90% of applications are initially rejected, I think you're talking out of your ass.

And 99% probably should have been rejected. But I can see there's little point discussing this, so I won't continue.

"Curse you and your verifiable facts! I'll take my unsupported assertions that really should have been just opinions and go home!"

Yeah, no. You've not posted anything I would consider "verifiable". I posted opinion, you posted opinion. If you want to pretend your opinion is somehow more accurate, try backing it up with... I dunno, PROOF?


Proof.
 
2012-11-16 01:34:11 PM  

Theaetetus: Proof.


Yeah, no.

* Information is six years or more out of date

* Information pertains to 16 specific art units, which is a tiny and meaningless sample

* Even in that extremely limited sample, most art units listed come nowhere near your claimed 90% rejection rate

* First rejection is hardly indicative of whether or not fundamentally flawed patents go on to be issued. There are many, many reasons a patent application could be temporarily bumped that have nothing to do with whether the patent was properly checked for prior art or the obviousness test.

Other, more recent, data from the same source (albeit again extremely limited in scope and covering only 25,000 applications) shows that in some technology centers, there is as high as an almost 80% grant rate on patents. http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/05/uspto-grant-rate-by-technology -center.html

So no, bzzt, you fail. Go back and try again. Come back with real proof this time please, not a pathetically tiny, outdated, and meaningless sample that doesn't actually show what you claimed, or admit you made up the "90% of applications are initially rejected" statistic.
 
Displayed 50 of 206 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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