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.

(KTAR Phoenix)   The war on pot is officially over now that Utah is allowing children there to use a marijuana extract for medicinal purposes   (ktar.com) divider line 40
    More: Cool, Utah, marijuana extract, Alabama Legislature, Charlotte's Web, University of Denver, Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Gary Herbert, marijuana  
•       •       •

1274 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Mar 2014 at 7:20 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



40 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-26 06:56:08 AM  
Good.
 
2014-03-26 07:22:31 AM  
Wait, doesn't transporting it across state lines invoke the wrath of both the FDA and the DEA/Feds?
 
2014-03-26 07:25:18 AM  
Wow even Utah passed is and Georgia failed on the same type of bill.

/when I see conservatives all passing similar bills in the same year I think of ALEC.
 
2014-03-26 07:29:12 AM  
That's what, 24 states now?
 
2014-03-26 07:30:35 AM  

rev. dave: I see conservatives all passing similar bills in the same year I think of ALEC.


I would think ALEC would be a model on how to make terrible laws that are held to be vastly wasteful and even unconstitutional. You would think they would be a watermark on what NOT do do.
 
2014-03-26 07:38:46 AM  

hardinparamedic: Wait, doesn't transporting it across state lines invoke the wrath of both the FDA and the DEA/Feds?


It's illegal period under federal law.
 
2014-03-26 07:42:07 AM  

hardinparamedic: rev. dave: I see conservatives all passing similar bills in the same year I think of ALEC.

I would think ALEC would be a model on how to make terrible laws that are held to be vastly wasteful and even unconstitutional. You would think they would be a watermark on what NOT do do.


I see it as a way to head off non-medical usage.  And since it is so narrow, it prevents everyone but seizure disorders.
 
2014-03-26 07:47:26 AM  

rev. dave: hardinparamedic: rev. dave: I see conservatives all passing similar bills in the same year I think of ALEC.

I would think ALEC would be a model on how to make terrible laws that are held to be vastly wasteful and even unconstitutional. You would think they would be a watermark on what NOT do do.

I see it as a way to head off non-medical usage.  And since it is so narrow, it prevents everyone but seizure disorders.


It still, by definition, should get it rescheduled to something other than 1 since it clearly has medicinal purposes.
 
2014-03-26 07:50:02 AM  
This is a bullshiat story. Pot is a SCHEDULE 1 drug that has NO MEDICINAL VALUE.

Next you're going to tell me vaccinations don't cause autism.
 
2014-03-26 07:56:35 AM  

rev. dave: hardinparamedic: rev. dave: I see conservatives all passing similar bills in the same year I think of ALEC.

I would think ALEC would be a model on how to make terrible laws that are held to be vastly wasteful and even unconstitutional. You would think they would be a watermark on what NOT do do.

I see it as a way to head off non-medical usage.  And since it is so narrow, it prevents everyone but seizure disorders.


I think California shows that medical pot basically legalizes it. And it still breaks federal law, so that is progress.

I think that when you see evil laws getting filed away at and you think "OH NO KOCH BROS!!!" just because it happens in Utah, you might have a problem.

Besides which, the Koch Brothers are apparently supporters of a full end to the drug war, given their support of the Reason foundation.
 
2014-03-26 07:57:09 AM  
"they say might help seizures"
"Is thought to fight seizures "


That's some fine science.
 
2014-03-26 08:14:40 AM  
I always assume incompetence over conspiracy when something seems odd.  Like a bunch of  conservative states with MJ oil on the agenda.   Frankly conservatives are way too stupid to come up with this on their own.  So they have an organization who makes their policy and writes the laws for them to keep them from having to think too hard.  That group is ALEC.   I know I'm making a big assumption here, but it makes sense so far.

Reasons:
1. MJ will eventually be rescheduled.  By having conservative states passing symbolic laws like this, it will speed it up.
2. By passing extremely restrictive laws only allowing children with seizure disorders to take it, they put off having to deal with it for 5-10 years.
3. They are waiting for Washington, Colorado and California to screw up big time so they can say I told you so.
4. Obviously someone who writes these laws knows how to play a long game.
 
2014-03-26 08:17:36 AM  

rev. dave: I see it as a way to head off non-medical usage.  And since it is so narrow, it prevents everyone but seizure disorders.


You're correct. In Georgia, at least, the proposed bill would have let universities grow marijuana for research.

The lawmakers' hope was that the researchers would be able to isolate CBD, and then figure out a way to synthesize it and have pharmaceutical companies sell it. They don't want legal medical marijuana, they want the CBD version of Marinol.
 
2014-03-26 08:23:17 AM  
If it actually does help the kids, then blaze up like Tommy Chong. If not, totally worth a shot.
 
2014-03-26 08:40:08 AM  

lindalouwho: hardinparamedic: Wait, doesn't transporting it across state lines invoke the wrath of both the FDA and the DEA/Feds?

It's illegal period under federal law.


Which Mr Obama could fix in 2 minutes, by taking Marijuana off the schedule 1 drug list. He has this authority. There's no debate or doubt that he has this authority. Then the feds (US's answer to the Stasi) will stop going after pot - when it's not a felony.

Conservative Utah is infinitely more progressive on marijuana than Mr Obama. Suck it. Suck all of it.
 
2014-03-26 08:45:00 AM  
Law sucks and is not, IMHO, a step in the right direction. It's a step down a dead end alley.

1. Only in effect for 1.5 years
2. Only allows for one specific type of oil for one specific medical problem
3. Only allows for importation (not growing or production) of something that CAN'T BE EXPORTED FROM WHERE IT IS MADE
4. Ignores all other medical problems that can be helped by MMJ
5. In effect, it's symbolic and does nothing to help actual patients

This is pandering to say that 'something was done' in a run-up to a mid-term election, nothing more. This is a TRY, and, as we all know, you DO or DO NOT, there is no TRY.
 
2014-03-26 08:50:41 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: big pig peaches: "they say might help seizures"
"Is thought to fight seizures "


That's some fine science.

yeah... it doesn't help at all with seizures...


One case it what you call anecdotal evidence. Now if it said "has shown to improve symptoms in clinical studies carried out by reputable institutions and published in the peer reviewed medical journals which are sighted here" I might be inclined to believe. Until then it's just ear candling.

I am not opposed to medical of even recreational use, but lets not pretend pot is a panacea without vetting out the claims a bit.
 
2014-03-26 08:56:07 AM  
Big marijuana ready to exploit.
 
2014-03-26 09:24:49 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: big pig peaches: HindiDiscoMonster: big pig peaches: "they say might help seizures"
"Is thought to fight seizures "


That's some fine science.

yeah... it doesn't help at all with seizures...

One case it what you call anecdotal evidence. Now if it said "has shown to improve symptoms in clinical studies carried out by reputable institutions and published in the peer reviewed medical journals which are sighted here" I might be inclined to believe. Until then it's just ear candling.

I am not opposed to medical of even recreational use, but lets not pretend pot is a panacea without vetting out the claims a bit.

you mean the clinical studies that are not allowed by federal law? those studies?
2nd of all it's not ONE case... try doing a little research before derping so hard.


The federal laws aren't stopping it's use why are they stopping studies. Maybe that issue should be taken up by Congress, or executive order.

2nd of all I can find thousands of testimonials on the curative power of ear candles. That doesn't mean it works.

Maybe you should stop derping like a stoned idiot.
 
2014-03-26 09:26:29 AM  

Skail: rev. dave: hardinparamedic: rev. dave: I see conservatives all passing similar bills in the same year I think of ALEC.

I would think ALEC would be a model on how to make terrible laws that are held to be vastly wasteful and even unconstitutional. You would think they would be a watermark on what NOT do do.

I see it as a way to head off non-medical usage.  And since it is so narrow, it prevents everyone but seizure disorders.

It still, by definition, should get it rescheduled to something other than 1 since it clearly has medicinal purposes.


Drug scheduling is a political process that doesn't take science into account, despite all the pretenses about "no medicinal use, high potential for abuse".  it doesn't actually mean anything other than Congress has deemed it so.  Sometimes at the recommendation of doctors.  Other times at the recommendation of people who really farking hate the people who typically use drug x.  Cannabis isn't the only one.  MDMA was placed in schedule I at a time when doctors were already using it to treat patients, because fark ravers.
 
2014-03-26 09:31:07 AM  

TheSwissNavy: lindalouwho: hardinparamedic: Wait, doesn't transporting it across state lines invoke the wrath of both the FDA and the DEA/Feds?

It's illegal period under federal law.

Which Mr Obama could fix in 2 minutes, by taking Marijuana off the schedule 1 drug list. He has this authority. There's no debate or doubt that he has this authority. Then the feds (US's answer to the Stasi) will stop going after pot - when it's not a felony.

Conservative Utah is infinitely more progressive on marijuana than Mr Obama. Suck it. Suck all of it.


Ha! I'm not a person who needs convincin'.

/legalize it
 
2014-03-26 09:34:15 AM  

CourtroomWolf: it doesn't actually mean anything other than Congress has deemed it so.


Not Congress. The executive branch (i.e. Obama) can change it anytime they like.
 
2014-03-26 09:35:30 AM  

big pig peaches: "they say might help seizures"
"Is thought to fight seizures "


That's some fine science.


Not science.
It is crappy journalism.

The science is just fine, thank you.
With or, obviously, in this case, without your knowledge of it.

See how that works? Even your level of stupid does not change the science.
 
2014-03-26 09:39:05 AM  

YixilTesiphon: CourtroomWolf: it doesn't actually mean anything other than Congress has deemed it so.

Not Congress. The executive branch (i.e. Obama) can change it anytime they like.


Drug czar, he who shall remain nameless, under Nixon, initiated the Class I Fraud.
Congress has nuttin' to do with this.
My guess is that even Bo could take it off.
 
2014-03-26 09:41:18 AM  

hardinparamedic: Wait, doesn't transporting it across state lines invoke the wrath of both the FDA and the DEA/Feds?


Faux wrath, it invokes faux wrath.
 
2014-03-26 09:52:22 AM  
Goal posts here! Getchur goal posts here!

Fact: Marijuana has been used by humans, safely, for recorded history. You don't know this because the knowledge and science is supressed.
Fact: Marijuana is not toxic to humans. It's effects are limited by chemistry (science) of the brain. You don't know this because the knowledge and science is supressed.
Fact: There is no science indicating that marijuana will damage young humans in any way. You don't know this because the knowledge and science is currently ongoing and studies are not complete. They would be done if Anslinger/Hearst had not been perfect sociopaths.
Fact: YOU HAVE BEEN LIED TO FOR YOUR ENTIRE LIFE!

GET THE FARK OVER IT!
 
2014-03-26 10:10:41 AM  

snocone: big pig peaches: "they say might help seizures"
"Is thought to fight seizures "


That's some fine science.

Not science.
It is crappy journalism.

The science is just fine, thank you.
With or, obviously, in this case, without your knowledge of it.

See how that works? Even your level of stupid does not change the science.


Can you please site the human clinical trial showing efficacy for seizures?
 
2014-03-26 10:16:23 AM  

big pig peaches: snocone: big pig peaches: "they say might help seizures"
"Is thought to fight seizures "


That's some fine science.

Not science.
It is crappy journalism.

The science is just fine, thank you.
With or, obviously, in this case, without your knowledge of it.

See how that works? Even your level of stupid does not change the science.

Can you please site the human clinical trial showing efficacy for seizures?


Get your own farking research assistant, Pud.
 
2014-03-26 10:33:37 AM  

snocone: big pig peaches: snocone: big pig peaches: "they say might help seizures"
"Is thought to fight seizures "


That's some fine science.

Not science.
It is crappy journalism.

The science is just fine, thank you.
With or, obviously, in this case, without your knowledge of it.

See how that works? Even your level of stupid does not change the science.

Can you please site the human clinical trial showing efficacy for seizures?

Get your own farking research assistant, Pud.


So no then.

Jeez, it's like arguing with a creationist.

/"no, your stupid."
 
2014-03-26 10:41:57 AM  

big pig peaches: snocone: big pig peaches: snocone: big pig peaches: "they say might help seizures"
"Is thought to fight seizures "


That's some fine science.

Not science.
It is crappy journalism.

The science is just fine, thank you.
With or, obviously, in this case, without your knowledge of it.

See how that works? Even your level of stupid does not change the science.

Can you please site the human clinical trial showing efficacy for seizures?

Get your own farking research assistant, Pud.

So no then.

Jeez, it's like arguing with a creationist.

/"no, your stupid."


Pud, something I will give for free,,
Derp and mis/disinformation, agendas in progress, and plain bullzhit will all walk up and happily present you with "knowledge".
Truth and Knowledge, however rarely work that way.
You always need to locate and study it yourself.

Get busy.
 
2014-03-26 10:43:59 AM  

big pig peaches: snocone: big pig peaches: snocone: big pig peaches: "they say might help seizures"
"Is thought to fight seizures "

/"no, your stupid."


How about a free English lesson?
 
2014-03-26 11:00:16 AM  

big pig peaches: HindiDiscoMonster: big pig peaches: "they say might help seizures"
"Is thought to fight seizures "


That's some fine science.

yeah... it doesn't help at all with seizures...

One case it what you call anecdotal evidence. Now if it said "has shown to improve symptoms in clinical studies carried out by reputable institutions and published in the peer reviewed medical journals which are sighted here" I might be inclined to believe. Until then it's just ear candling.

I am not opposed to medical of even recreational use, but lets not pretend pot is a panacea without vetting out the claims a bit.


There are multiple active chemicals in pot. There is SOME scientific research that suggests that CBD cures seizures..... However, THC causes seizures.

The people who developed "Charlottes Web" bred their pot for this specific purpose.

It is currently not allowed to be tested by the FDA, and it really IS possible that it doesn't work. The type of seizures that it is being used currently to treat are VERY severe.... but, patients DO commonly outgrow them. BUT.......

The amount of anecdotal evidence to support this is growing by the day

..... But, it will still not have any credible scientific studies any time soon.
 
2014-03-26 11:05:52 AM  

Sammichless: big pig peaches: HindiDiscoMonster: big pig peaches: "they say might help seizures"
"Is thought to fight seizures "


That's some fine science.

yeah... it doesn't help at all with seizures...

One case it what you call anecdotal evidence. Now if it said "has shown to improve symptoms in clinical studies carried out by reputable institutions and published in the peer reviewed medical journals which are sighted here" I might be inclined to believe. Until then it's just ear candling.

I am not opposed to medical of even recreational use, but lets not pretend pot is a panacea without vetting out the claims a bit.

There are multiple active chemicals in pot. There is SOME scientific research that suggests that CBD cures seizures..... However, THC causes seizures.

The people who developed "Charlottes Web" bred their pot for this specific purpose.

It is currently not allowed to be tested by the FDA, and it really IS possible that it doesn't work. The type of seizures that it is being used currently to treat are VERY severe.... but, patients DO commonly outgrow them. BUT.......

The amount of anecdotal evidence to support this is growing by the day

..... But, it will still not have any credible scientific studies any time soon.


THC is not known "to cause seizures".
Chemistry does not work that way.

There is a lot of zhit out there called "THC" that has nothing to do with marijuana.
If you are going to practice emergency medicine, this is zhit you need to know, and we, the practitioners, have known for decades.
 
2014-03-26 11:13:46 AM  
Want an education?
Should you choose to accept, start with "The Marijuana Papers", Solomon, 1968.
Old, but it gives an excellent starting point. Nice spread of references to expand on.
Apply 46 years of associated study in medicine, organic chemistry and psychology and you have it.
 
2014-03-26 11:27:49 AM  

snocone: Sammichless: big pig peaches: HindiDiscoMonster: big pig peaches: "they say might help seizures"
"Is thought to fight seizures "


That's some fine science.

yeah... it doesn't help at all with seizures...

One case it what you call anecdotal evidence. Now if it said "has shown to improve symptoms in clinical studies carried out by reputable institutions and published in the peer reviewed medical journals which are sighted here" I might be inclined to believe. Until then it's just ear candling.

I am not opposed to medical of even recreational use, but lets not pretend pot is a panacea without vetting out the claims a bit.

There are multiple active chemicals in pot. There is SOME scientific research that suggests that CBD cures seizures..... However, THC causes seizures.

The people who developed "Charlottes Web" bred their pot for this specific purpose.

It is currently not allowed to be tested by the FDA, and it really IS possible that it doesn't work. The type of seizures that it is being used currently to treat are VERY severe.... but, patients DO commonly outgrow them. BUT.......

The amount of anecdotal evidence to support this is growing by the day

..... But, it will still not have any credible scientific studies any time soon.

THC is not known "to cause seizures".
Chemistry does not work that way.

There is a lot of zhit out there called "THC" that has nothing to do with marijuana.
If you are going to practice emergency medicine, this is zhit you need to know, and we, the practitioners, have known for decades.


THC is well known to cause seizures in people who have problems with seizures. NOT everybody...... moron.

And, YES, that is VERY backed by science.
 
2014-03-26 01:17:13 PM  

rev. dave: Wow even Utah passed is and Georgia failed on the same type of bill.


This.

/war is far from over
//baby steps
 
2014-03-26 02:24:26 PM  

Sammichless: snocone: Sammichless: big pig peaches: HindiDiscoMonster: big pig peaches: "they say might help seizures"
"Is thought to fight seizures "


That's some fine science.

yeah... it doesn't help at all with seizures...

One case it what you call anecdotal evidence. Now if it said "has shown to improve symptoms in clinical studies carried out by reputable institutions and published in the peer reviewed medical journals which are sighted here" I might be inclined to believe. Until then it's just ear candling.

I am not opposed to medical of even recreational use, but lets not pretend pot is a panacea without vetting out the claims a bit.

There are multiple active chemicals in pot. There is SOME scientific research that suggests that CBD cures seizures..... However, THC causes seizures.

The people who developed "Charlottes Web" bred their pot for this specific purpose.

It is currently not allowed to be tested by the FDA, and it really IS possible that it doesn't work. The type of seizures that it is being used currently to treat are VERY severe.... but, patients DO commonly outgrow them. BUT.......

The amount of anecdotal evidence to support this is growing by the day

..... But, it will still not have any credible scientific studies any time soon.

THC is not known "to cause seizures".
Chemistry does not work that way.

There is a lot of zhit out there called "THC" that has nothing to do with marijuana.
If you are going to practice emergency medicine, this is zhit you need to know, and we, the practitioners, have known for decades.

THC is well known to cause seizures in people who have problems with seizures. NOT everybody...... moron.

And, YES, that is VERY backed by science.


'Scuze me, did you really say "X causes X in people with X"? Getouttahere!
Not sure where you find your science, but where I find mine,,,
 
2014-03-26 03:02:54 PM  

TheSwissNavy: Which Mr Obama could fix in 2 minutes, by taking Marijuana off the schedule 1 drug list. He has this authority. There's no debate or doubt that he has this authority.


I take it, then, that rescheduling a drug does not require a change in the law?  Could you provide more details about how that works?

Could a Republican president take the same approach to, say, the Endangered Species Act and declare various animals no longer "endangered"?
 
2014-03-26 03:20:40 PM  

Sammichless: It is currently not allowed to be tested by the FDA, and it really IS possible that it doesn't work


Absolutely incorrect.
 
2014-03-26 05:10:26 PM  

flondrix: TheSwissNavy: Which Mr Obama could fix in 2 minutes, by taking Marijuana off the schedule 1 drug list. He has this authority. There's no debate or doubt that he has this authority.

I take it, then, that rescheduling a drug does not require a change in the law?  Could you provide more details about how that works?

Could a Republican president take the same approach to, say, the Endangered Species Act and declare various animals no longer "endangered"?



IF there were an Endangered Species Czar that worked for the Executive branch, then yes. Since there isn't at present, no. However, there IS a Drug Czar (the first one being Anslinger, go figure huh, that got this whole shiatball rolling in the first place).

/remember when the President could do anything with his pen because he was 'The Decider'?
//and the GOP loved when he did
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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