Justice for Cali MJ grower

[glenn1]

By the way, what ever happend to "States Rights"? I suppose they ended at the Supreme Court in 2000.

Funny thing with those states' rights though, it's kind of an all-or-nothing proposition. Either the Tenth Amendment means something, or it doesn't. What would you think if California asserted its state right to legalize marijuana, and asserted the same right to severely curtail abortion, allow its citizens to opt out of social security, ignore the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or take some other stand on another issue the federal government has stuck its nose into over the years? Pick an issue, any issue (heck, every issue) and imagine a state lining up on the opposite end of the issue from what you believe is right. Would you be so keen to assert states' rights then, if the voters of that state disagree with you and what you feel is right?

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: Lucky
Hey man i work in journalism...I just resented the comment and implication.

Fair enough. I think it may have been as simple as you say, but I still maintain it isn't needed to get across the basic facts of what happened. I may be wrong, and I can admit if it I am.

Since you are in journalism, can you answer me this? If the people that were supporting him were not like the pople mentioned, and were for the sake of argument, in business suits and did not smell of pot, would that still have ben mentioned? I personally don't think it would..IMO.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: Lucky
Hey man i work in journalism...I just resented the comment and implication.

Fair enough. I think it may have been as simple as you say, but I still maintain it isn't needed to get across the basic facts of what happened. I may be wrong, and I can admit if it I am.

Since you are in journalism, can you answer me this? If the people that were supporting him were not like the pople mentioned, and were for the sake of argument, in business suits and did not smell of pot, would that still have ben mentioned? I personally don't think it would..IMO.

Well, a lot of information in articles are not needed to get the absolute story across. Details and colorful descriptions are what make a great story. At least that how journalists think. We have quite a different mindset and view news very different than a normal person, so much so that we are out of touch with what really matter with the public much of the time.

To answer your question...I think if the people supporting him were in business suits then article would have played it even bigger. But perhaps not. It certainly would be much more newsworthy if a bunch of conservative old farts in brooks brothers threads were holding up those signs instead of hippy potheads, simply because that's not the norm.

 

[LunarRay]

Severe and chronic pain will cause even law abiding people reach for an illegal relief. I never smoked or whatever you do with MJ but, think Vicodin 7.5 / acte... 750 will make you a doper after awhile. IF you don't think pain can control a life. You are wrong!
I support anything that would relieve pain or ease the discomfort of using other med through use of MJ. I've never used it and probably won't but you should have the right to end pain.

 

[Insane3D]

Thanks for the journalist's point of view. I can understand a little better where you are coming from, and admittedly, I may very well be wrong on this one. That part of the article just seemed to stick out to me as not really needed.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I wonder how medical supply companies do on wheelchair rentals when the medical marijuana folks are in town for a photo op?

Despite it's relatively meager population, SF has a significant number of AIDS patients. UCSF is in the top 5 for AIDS research. We've used anabolic steroids, antidepressants, Marinol (synthetic THC analogue), estrogen, and a myriad of other agents as supportive care for AIDS patients. For these medication regimens; outcomes range from somewhat positive to abject failure . . . but the majority with access to MJ . . . stay on the MJ and improve.

I will save the chronic pain, glaucoma, and cancer patients for another day . . . time for bed.

 

[tcsenter]

Whenever you generalize about a certain group of people, and decide because of how you see them, that they don't deserve to be listened to, you lose out IMO.

How I see them is irrelevant, how they are is.

I know this subculture intimately, I was part of it for several years. A friend of mine, with whom I no longer associate, is very active in the legalization movement. I decided that pot didn't really do anything positive for me. I had to be sober for a while before I realized that.

In fact, it didn't really do anything positive for 95% of the pot smokers I've ever encountered, either. They only think it does...like I did when I was high.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: glenn1

By the way, what ever happend to "States Rights"? I suppose they ended at the Supreme Court in 2000.

Funny thing with those states' rights though, it's kind of an all-or-nothing proposition. Either the Tenth Amendment means something, or it doesn't. What would you think if California asserted its state right to legalize marijuana, and asserted the same right to severely curtail abortion, allow its citizens to opt out of social security, ignore the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or take some other stand on another issue the federal government has stuck its nose into over the years? Pick an issue, any issue (heck, every issue) and imagine a state lining up on the opposite end of the issue from what you believe is right. Would you be so keen to assert states' rights then, if the voters of that state disagree with you and what you feel is right?

What would I think? I'd move out of California. That's my right.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

I wonder how medical supply companies do on wheelchair rentals when the medical marijuana folks are in town for a photo op?

Despite it's relatively meager population, SF has a significant number of AIDS patients. UCSF is in the top 5 for AIDS research. We've used anabolic steroids, antidepressants, Marinol (synthetic THC analogue), estrogen, and a myriad of other agents as supportive care for AIDS patients. For these medication regimens; outcomes range from somewhat positive to abject failure . . . but the majority with access to MJ . . . stay on the MJ and improve.

I will save the chronic pain, glaucoma, and cancer patients for another day . . . time for bed.

These cynics who would change their minds very quickly if they were suffering from chronic pain. What you face with these patients daily would change their minds as well.

 

[tcsenter]

Despite it's relatively meager population, SF has a significant number of AIDS patients. UCSF is in the top 5 for AIDS research. We've used anabolic steroids, antidepressants, Marinol (synthetic THC analogue), estrogen, and a myriad of other agents as supportive care for AIDS patients. For these medication regimens; outcomes range from somewhat positive to abject failure . . . but the majority with access to MJ . . . stay on the MJ and improve.

And there is already a federal exemption for these folks, as I feel there should be.

The tie-dyed beatniks aren't at medical marijuana rallies pulling for cancer and AIDs patients, they're hoping to slip the elephant in under the circus tent.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

There were people in CA state clinics being treated for pain sitting in wheelchairs arrested for using what is a legal drug for that purpose in that state. Would they be better off on Percocet or some other addictive narcotic?

Sure, pain, stress, allergies, headaches, stubbed toes, slivers, cuz my parents suck, it helps me think better.

I wonder how medical supply companies do on wheelchair rentals when the medical marijuana folks are in town for a photo op?

Even the temptation of seeing you eat those words will not make me wish chronic pain on you.

Have a good laugh while you can. When you're in pain 24/7 there isn't much to laugh about. Hope you never have to find out for yourself.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Despite it's relatively meager population, SF has a significant number of AIDS patients. UCSF is in the top 5 for AIDS research. We've used anabolic steroids, antidepressants, Marinol (synthetic THC analogue), estrogen, and a myriad of other agents as supportive care for AIDS patients. For these medication regimens; outcomes range from somewhat positive to abject failure . . . but the majority with access to MJ . . . stay on the MJ and improve.

And there is already a federal exemption for these folks, as I feel there should be.

The tie-dyed beatniks aren't at medical marijuana rallies pulling for cancer and AIDs patients, they're hoping to slip the elephant in under the circus tent.

On second thought maybe you could convince me to wish chronic pain on you.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Despite it's relatively meager population, SF has a significant number of AIDS patients. UCSF is in the top 5 for AIDS research. We've used anabolic steroids, antidepressants, Marinol (synthetic THC analogue), estrogen, and a myriad of other agents as supportive care for AIDS patients. For these medication regimens; outcomes range from somewhat positive to abject failure . . . but the majority with access to MJ . . . stay on the MJ and improve.

And there is already a federal exemption for these folks, as I feel there should be.

The tie-dyed beatniks aren't at medical marijuana rallies pulling for cancer and AIDs patients, they're hoping to slip the elephant in under the circus tent.

People exploit others to their own benefit, it's nothing new or rare. If it's not potheads trying to use the sick to get marijuana legalized for themselves, it's pharmaceutical companies exploiting the sick by trying to keep them on thier drugs only. Pick your evil, but try to go with the lesser.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: glenn1

By the way, what ever happend to "States Rights"? I suppose they ended at the Supreme Court in 2000.

Funny thing with those states' rights though, it's kind of an all-or-nothing proposition. Either the Tenth Amendment means something, or it doesn't. What would you think if California asserted its state right to legalize marijuana, and asserted the same right to severely curtail abortion, allow its citizens to opt out of social security, ignore the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or take some other stand on another issue the federal government has stuck its nose into over the years? Pick an issue, any issue (heck, every issue) and imagine a state lining up on the opposite end of the issue from what you believe is right. Would you be so keen to assert states' rights then, if the voters of that state disagree with you and what you feel is right?

What would I think? I'd move out of California. That's my right.

Or better yet, maybe try and actively lobby for changes in that state. It's much easier (not to imply that it's easy) to do so on the state level than the federal. That's why the consititution was initially set up to give states such autonomy. The further down the government ladder you go, the closer you get to the actual will of the people it is supposed to be representing.

 

[tcsenter]

On second thought maybe you could convince me to wish chronic pain on you.

And you are informed of my current medical status just how, precisely?

 

[tcsenter]

People exploit others to their own benefit, it's nothing new or rare. If it's not potheads trying to use the sick to get marijuana legalized for themselves, it's pharmaceutical companies exploiting the sick by trying to keep them on thier drugs only. Pick your evil, but try to go with the lesser.

Ah yes, the old 'two wrongs make a right' rationale. You know, the 'this isn't so wrong because someone, somewhere, unrelated, is doing something wrong, too'.

Original.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

People exploit others to their own benefit, it's nothing new or rare. If it's not potheads trying to use the sick to get marijuana legalized for themselves, it's pharmaceutical companies exploiting the sick by trying to keep them on thier drugs only. Pick your evil, but try to go with the lesser.

Ah yes, the old 'two wrongs make a right' rationale. You know, the 'this isn't so wrong because someone, somewhere, unrelated, is doing something wrong, too'.

Original.

Are you sure you quit smoking up? I would accuse you of twisting my words around, but you pulled that tripe out of thin air.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: tcsenter

People exploit others to their own benefit, it's nothing new or rare. If it's not potheads trying to use the sick to get marijuana legalized for themselves, it's pharmaceutical companies exploiting the sick by trying to keep them on thier drugs only. Pick your evil, but try to go with the lesser.

Ah yes, the old 'two wrongs make a right' rationale. You know, the 'this isn't so wrong because someone, somewhere, unrelated, is doing something wrong, too'.

Original.

Are you sure you quit smoking up? I would accuse you of twisting my words around, but you pulled that tripe out of thin air.

It the essence of what you were stating.

"Its no big deal for this wrong thing to happen because some other wrong things happen somewhere else."

As in, "yeah so what if a Democrat was caught taking bribes, Republicans do it, too, so it makes everything a wash."

Regardless of whether that's what you meant, that is the essence of what you said.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: tcsenter

People exploit others to their own benefit, it's nothing new or rare. If it's not potheads trying to use the sick to get marijuana legalized for themselves, it's pharmaceutical companies exploiting the sick by trying to keep them on thier drugs only. Pick your evil, but try to go with the lesser.

Ah yes, the old 'two wrongs make a right' rationale. You know, the 'this isn't so wrong because someone, somewhere, unrelated, is doing something wrong, too'.

Original.

Are you sure you quit smoking up? I would accuse you of twisting my words around, but you pulled that tripe out of thin air.

It the essence of what you were stating.

"Its no big deal for this wrong thing to happen because some other wrong things happen somewhere else."

As in, "yeah so what if a Democrat was caught taking bribes, Republicans do it, too, so it makes everything a wash."

Regardless of whether that's what you meant, its what you said.

No, I didn't say that. Nor did I even imply it. And I doubt anyone with at least an 8th grade reading comprehension level would interpret it as such.

Just to clarify, in essence, I said both are bad, one is relatively less so, so if your are going to pick a side to deride, try and pick the one that is more so.

How anyone can misconstrue that into two wrongs making a right is beyond me.

Edit: Allright, all digs aside, I went back and reread what I wrote, and I can see how it could possibly be taken that way, if you neglected to put the emphasis on the last sentence that I meant for it to have, or just didn't read it at all.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

And there is already a federal exemption for these folks, as I feel there should be.

Ashcroft and his minions have NEVER respected medical MJ and never will. Ashcroft FULLY supports gag orders on doctors when it comes to medical MJ. When that did not work (or was struck down by the courts) he ramped up raids on these "clubs" b/c very few physicians (if any) are willing to operate their own MJ facility. Ashcroft is trying to end medical MJ by closing the very facilities most physicians would recommend. Granted, everybody and their uncle is growing pot these days but it is certainly convenient when the assisted living transport can pull up to a single location where people can get their smoke on. We certainly do not want people walking the Tenderloin or Mission District looking for a curbside dealer.

 

[tcsenter]

Ashcroft and his minions have NEVER respected medical MJ and never will. Ashcroft FULLY supports gag orders on doctors when it comes to medical MJ.

Aschroft never respected the states medical MJ laws, there is no indication he doesn't respect the federal MJ medical exemption. Granted, its a high burden to meet, too high, but its there.

Ashcroft only tried to prohibit doctors from promoting marijuana under these wildly liberalized state regulations which allowed MJ for any reason so long as a physician had 'deemed' it palliative, from ingrown toenails to terminal cancer.

 

[Moonbeam]

There is no terrorist like the one who thinks he's conqured a vice. I used to be an asshole and smoked marajuana, but one day in a fit of self loathing I gave it up. All you scumbags can do the same. Users are just a bunch of assholes like I (used to be), riiiiiiiight, used to be. But not any more. Now I'm cool. I keep myself dead every day. Now I know. I climed out of the sewer into a straight jacket, You listen to me.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Ashcroft and his minions have NEVER respected medical MJ and never will. Ashcroft FULLY supports gag orders on doctors when it comes to medical MJ.

Aschroft never respected the states medical MJ laws, there is no indication he doesn't respect the federal MJ medical exemption. Granted, its a high burden to meet, too high, but its there.

Ashcroft only tried to prohibit doctors from promoting marijuana under these wildly liberalized state regulations which allowed MJ for any reason so long as a physician had 'deemed' it palliative, from ingrown toenails to terminal cancer.

Doctors may have indeed been promoting it too liberally, but I don't think it's the Attorney General's place to be dictating medical treatments.

 

[tcsenter]

There is no terrorist like the one who thinks he's conqured a vice. I used to be an asshole and smoked marajuana, but one day in a fit of self loathing I gave it up. All you scumbags can do the same. Users are just a bunch of assholes like I (used to be), riiiiiiiight, used to be. But not any more. Now I'm cool. I keep myself dead every day. Now I know. I climed out of the sewer into a straight jacket, You listen to me.

Its okay if you address me directly, Moonbeam, by including some attribution to my post. I won't bite.

Its not as though I'm a recovering substance abuser who is on a crusade, I smoked pot recreationally more than habitually. Although like a recovering substance abuser, I can spot from a mile away the deceptive rationalizations employed by current substance abusers, such as your little speil above.

I'm no less of an asshole now than I was when I smoked pot, thank you.

As far as being 'dead' because I am sober, well that's the sorta thing I'm sure I would have said when I was too high to understand just how dead are those who resort to drugs as a crutch.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
And besides, CkG. That's the whole point. Ashcroft and the Bush administration's policy on medical marijuana is the reason federal charges were brought against Ed Rosenthal. He was working for the city of Oakland in a legal State of California drug program. Don't kid yourself. No federal charges if they don't insist on them.

Thank God at least one judge in this country has his head screwed on straight.

Yeah, states rights.

What ever happened to that other bed rock principle of the conservative Republicans? Less government interference in our daily lives? With these people I check under my bed every night. Clinton should have.

If they ever cleaned up under Bush's bed the EPA would show up. Well, maybe not now. They don't have the budget any longer to support a clean up of that size (or even a director at the moment).

Sure blame the Feds for enforcing the law

If you don't like it - get it changed. My point is that Asscroft is just doing his job - too well if you ask me, but he isn't to blame- you need to look further than the easy target. Like I said - the judge did what was right in my opinion, but to blame Asscroft for enforcing Federal law is assinine.

CkG