# Medical Marijuana



## Roll_Bones (Feb 21, 2014)

This week there was some news in SC. regarding medical marijuana.
The story was about people moving away from here to more progressive states where medical marijuana was available and/or tolerated.

The decisions to move were because on some children's seizures that have been proven to be drastically reduced with the use of medical marijuana.
It seems the active chemical in marijuana, THC is not used, but another chemical BPH that the plant produces.  This chemical does not provide a "high" but only a therapeutic effect.

What is your opinion on medical marijuana?  Legal marijuana? In the US.


----------



## Andy M. (Feb 21, 2014)

While I don't use it, it's OK with me.  It's going to give the sale of Girl Scout Cookies a big boost.

Girl scout sells 117 boxes of cookies outside medical marijuana clinic | Mail Online


----------



## Aunt Bea (Feb 21, 2014)

I think marijuana should be decriminalized, not legalized.

I also think the mods might as well delete this thread now cause it can't end well!


----------



## Roll_Bones (Feb 21, 2014)

Aunt Bea said:


> I think marijuana should be decriminalized, not legalized.
> 
> I also think the mods might as well delete this thread now cause it can't end well!



I think I agree and I was not certain as to how this thread would be accepted or not accepted.
This is "Off Topic" and the story was in the local news here for the last few days.


----------



## Kayelle (Feb 21, 2014)

Personally, I'd love to discuss it at length but since political talk isn't allowed at DC our lips are sealed.


----------



## vitauta (Feb 21, 2014)

i see we are all still here....gay marriage was deemed a social rather than political topic for discussion at dc.  another thread, about deaths resulting from drug overdose is also alive and well here.  legalized medical marijuana?  piece of cake....


----------



## pacanis (Feb 21, 2014)

I agree with Vit.
Talking about this runs parallel with talking about gay marriage. Kind of.

That said, I think they should legalize marijuana across the board. Look what prohibition did. I still can't believe there are dry counties. But I can't believe a program about making moonshine is right either.
Legalize it, let the gov't set up their restrictions and get their cut and call it a day.

And I also read it helped control seizures. And treated the effects of concussions. That can only be a good thing.


----------



## Sir_Loin_of_Beef (Feb 21, 2014)

I always wondered why prospective employers kept testing me for marijuana use at my age. The I remembered Willie Nelson. 

I see no problem with legalizing it. It's not addictive, which makes it better than alcohol, and if it were legal it would free up every local, state, and federal law enforcement agency to address more important crimes.


----------



## vitauta (Feb 21, 2014)

is marijuana currently being used to help control seizures in our pet dogs, cats, etc.?


----------



## taxlady (Feb 21, 2014)

Sir_Loin_of_Beef said:


> I always wondered why prospective employers kept testing me for marijuana use at my age. The I remembered Willie Nelson.
> 
> I see no problem with legalizing it. It's not addictive, which makes it better than alcohol, and if it were legal it would free up every local, state, and federal law enforcement agency to address more important crimes.


Now you're just being logical.


----------



## pacanis (Feb 21, 2014)

The only downside, or hindrance, I can see to them legalizing pot (hey, it's easier to type) across the board is they are practically trying to outlaw cigarettes. To legalize something else we can breathe into our lungs seems counterproductive to their efforts with "regular" smoking.


----------



## Cooking Goddess (Feb 21, 2014)

pacanis said:


> That said, I think they should legalize marijuana across the board. Look what prohibition did. I still can't believe there are dry counties. But I can't believe a program about making moonshine is right either.
> *Legalize it, let the gov't set up their restrictions and get their cut and call it a day.*
> 
> And I also read it helped control seizures. And treated the effects of concussions. That can only be a good thing.


Seems to be going in that direction for a lot of things. Without even getting into philosophical discussions about universal health care, my payment goes from my wallet and to the Health Connector...who then notifies my provider that the monthly premium has been paid. I see a "cut" in there somewhere! 

OT but...speaking of seizures, how has Pierce been doing? Hmm, maybe your doggy would be helped by the canine version of "Special Brownies".


----------



## pacanis (Feb 21, 2014)

Cooking Goddess said:


> ...OT but...speaking of seizures, how has Pierce been doing? Hmm, maybe your doggy would be helped by the canine version of "Special Brownies".


 
OT, but if he could be helped I might even consider second hand smoke 


Seizures, it's complicated.
The meds really screwed him up, so I took him off, he was fine for a couple weeks, then had two in a 24 hr period (not good), so I put him back on at a lower dose than the vet said. So far so good, but he's not the same dog. Better than he was at the higher dose though. At least he can walk now and isn't peeing inside anymore.


----------



## Dawgluver (Feb 21, 2014)

It looks like some are trying the pot capsules for their pets who are going through cancer treatment, with promising results.  No formal studies yet though.

A friend's young adult son had been depressed and suicidal for several years.  Antidepressants had no effect.   He moved to Colorado, obtained a MM license, and is a new kid, functioning, going to college.  My friend can't believe the change.


----------



## Kayelle (Feb 21, 2014)

It's ok with me if this subject seems to be fair game, so here's my two cents. 



pacanis said:


> The only downside, or hindrance, I can see to them legalizing pot (hey, it's easier to type) across the board is they are practically trying to outlaw cigarettes. To legalize something else we can breathe into our lungs seems counterproductive to their efforts with "regular" smoking.



As much as the non smoking public would like it, tobacco will never be outlawed because of the $$ it brings in from taxes. Now that revenue is dwindling, legal taxable pot is here to stay and replace the loss, pure and simple.
Colorado State budget writers project $1 billion in pot sales next year, and from that the state will make an estimated 134 million dollars in taxes.
I see no reason not to make it legal in every state. Medical marijuana should have *always* been legal !


----------



## MrsLMB (Feb 21, 2014)

Pac I read somewhere that pot was being used to help canines with seizure activity ... can't recall where I read that but will try to find something to pass on to you.


----------



## pacanis (Feb 21, 2014)

MrsLMB said:


> Pac I read somewhere that pot was being used to help canines with seizure activity ... can't recall where I read that but will try to find something to pass on to you.


 
Thanks. I'll check a couple sources I have, too.
I hadn't heard of it in my area, but that's nothing new.


----------



## Zereh (Feb 22, 2014)

From my stint in the bar industry I can 100% say that serving a pothead is much more pleasant experience than a drunk.  It applies equally to life outside of the bar as well.

Decriminalize, regulate and let everyone make their own decisions on whether they choose to partake or not on a recreational level.

There should be no barriers (state or federal) if it is being used for medicinal purposes. And if ripping on a bong before bed helps you fall asleep better at night, I'd categorize that as medicine.

I've seen first-hand what a difference the "butter" can make in a cancer patient's life. Ingesting the marijuana helped alleviate some of the horrific side effects of chemo such as nausea and could help whet the appetite. 

All in all, I like where this is heading. I personally don't partake - but I most certainly would like the option to do so legally if I ever needed to (per a doctor's suggestion) or wanted to.

Interesting times, aren't they?


----------



## taxlady (Feb 22, 2014)

Medical marijuana is legal in Canada.

But there are limitations, e.g., this Mounty wasn't allowed to smoke pot in uniform: Pot-smoking Mountie can't smoke publicly in uniform: RCMP - Ottawa - CBC News


----------



## Sir_Loin_of_Beef (Feb 22, 2014)

One enterprising girl scout, Danielle Lei, set up her cookie stand outside a Medical Marijuana dispensary in San Francisco. She sold 117 boxes in less than two hours. Smart people, these Chinese.


----------



## Sir_Loin_of_Beef (Feb 22, 2014)

taxlady said:


> Now you're just being logical.


 
 Yeah, every once in a while I screw up and get logical.


----------



## Kayelle (Feb 22, 2014)

Sir_Loin_of_Beef said:


> One enterprising girl scout, Danielle Lei, set up her cookie stand outside a Medical Marijuana dispensary in San Francisco. She sold 117 boxes in less than two hours. *Smart people, these Chinese.*



Wouldn't it have made a better comment to just have said.."*Smart little girl*"?


----------



## Roll_Bones (Feb 22, 2014)

Good job moderators and members for allowing the subject and the civility expressed.

I also am in agreement that cannabis is ones personal decision and should be left up to each individual.
As far as the smoke goes, that is correct. Smoke is bad for you.  But people consume cannabis in other ways,  thus making the smoking point less the obstacle.
However, those who do use regularly will tell you smoking is by far the very best method of delivery.

I am astonished to hear we in SC have at least two representatives looking at medical marijuana.
I also learned medical marijuana is already legal here in SC.  Its only that the powers that be will not fund the program. It was made law in 1983, but it has never been addressed.


----------



## Sir_Loin_of_Beef (Feb 22, 2014)

Kayelle said:


> Wouldn't it have made a better comment to just have said.."*Smart little girl*"?


 
 No, it wouldn't because_ smart people, these Chinese_ is a line from an old TV commercial, I think for Calgon.


----------



## Dawgluver (Feb 22, 2014)

My mom suffered from chronic pain, exhaustion, Crohn's, and a number of other ailments for years.  She also had no appetite, and due to the meds she was on, lost her sense of taste.  If I could, I would have loved to see her try some form of MM.  Unfortunately, she would have refused to take it if she knew what it was as to her, it was/is illegal.  Considering the number of meds she was on, some of which were't very effective and caused a number of quality of life issues.


----------



## Kayelle (Feb 22, 2014)

Dawgluver said:


> My mom suffered from chronic pain, exhaustion, Crohn's, and a number of other ailments for years.  She also had no appetite, and due to the meds she was on, lost her sense of taste.  If I could, I would have loved to see her try some form of MM.  Unfortunately, she would have refused to take it if she knew what it was as to her, it was/is illegal.  Considering the number of meds she was on, some of which were't very effective and caused a number of quality of life issues.



Amen to that Dawg! My darling mother suffered and died in the 80's of ovarian cancer, after every possible treatment at the time. I begged her to let me get her some pot by any means necessary and she'd have none of it. When I think of how it could have relieved some of her suffering it still hurts me.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Feb 22, 2014)

I understand its on the ballot in Florida, this fall.
Good luck Florida!


----------



## Aunt Bea (Feb 22, 2014)

The one thing I can't come to terms with is personal use of marijuana in a home with children, we live in a complicated world.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Feb 22, 2014)

Aunt Bea said:


> The one thing I can't come to terms with is personal use of marijuana in a home with children, we live in a complicated world.



I agree Bea.  I never hid alcohol from any of my children, yet I would have an issue with marijuana.
I guess its kinda like differing cultures.
In some European countries nudity is widely accepted , whereas in the US it is frowned upon.
I guess if our culture was different, maybe the subject would be easier to handle in regards to children.
I was never sheltered from alcohol growing up.  So yes. Very good point.  It would be every difficult.

Preconceived wrong information is a major reason we feel like we do. IMO.
"Just Say No" and the US "War on Drugs" have not set a good template for acceptance and it may require several generations to overcome these falsehoods we have been taught.


----------



## GB (Feb 22, 2014)

I am all for MM. Yes smoking it is bad for your health to a degree as smoking anything is bad for you, but there are other ways to get the benefit from pot. You can vaporize it, you can eat it, you can turn it into a salve or a tincture. There are millions of people whose lives and the lives of those around them have become drastically better because of this plant. To keep it out of the hands of patients who need something that can help them the way pot does is what should be the criminal act IMO.


----------



## Addie (Feb 22, 2014)

If they know what the element in pot us that controls seizures, why can't science extract it and put it in medical form? Sounds like one medicine the public needs. Imagine what it could do for epilepsy.


----------



## GB (Feb 22, 2014)

It is more than just one element in the plant that helps the seizures. It is a case of the whole being more than the sum of its parts. They have tried for a long long time to synthesize different things from marijuana to use medicinally, but nothing they have ever tried even comes remotely close to the real deal. Why bother going through all that work and cost anyway when the plant itself is relatively safe, non-addictive, and simple and cheap to produce? We have medications like oxycontin, morphine, dilaudid (sp?), and many others that are used and prescribed by doctors that are habit forming, bad for your body, damaging in many ways. What is so bad about pot that it should be treated like it is worse than these substances?


----------



## Dawgluver (Feb 22, 2014)

GB said:


> It is more than just one element in the plant that helps the seizures. It is a case of the whole being more than the sum of its parts. They have tried for a long long time to synthesize different things from marijuana to use medicinally, but nothing they have ever tried even comes remotely close to the real deal. Why bother going through all that work and cost anyway when the plant itself is relatively safe, non-addictive, and simple and cheap to produce? We have medications like oxycontin, morphine, dilaudid (sp?), and many others that are used and prescribed by doctors that are habit forming, bad for your body, damaging in many ways. What is so bad about pot that it should be treated like it is worse than these substances?



I totally agree, GB.  It just seems so cruel to withhold it from people (and animals) who could truly benefit.   Supposedly its medicinal effects haven't been researched well enough.  It's been around since the cave men....


----------



## taxlady (Feb 22, 2014)

But, if it's legal, then organized crime won't profit from it. They lobby against making it legal. They learned their lesson from the ending of alcohol prohibition. Gotta keep people thinking it's dangerous.


----------



## Cooking Goddess (Feb 23, 2014)

Aunt Bea said:


> The one thing I can't come to terms with is personal use of marijuana in a home with children, we live in a complicated world.


The same could be said about tobacco cigarettes. Although I never smoked in my life I grew up in a house with three smokers. Lived there until I was 23 1/2. I've been prone to colds and bronchitis all my life. Any doctor I've had says all those years of 2nd hand smoke weren't good for my lungs. I'm not talking the random smoke you might smell as you pass by a group of smokers on the street. After all, how long are you there - unless you are in a group of friends who smoke, then that is different. Just make sure you stand upwind! But 23+ years in a small house with all that smoking could not have been good.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Feb 23, 2014)

Medical Marijuana, there should be no such thing.  That said, it should be legalized and the money that has been used on "The War on Drugs" should be put towards our educational system, our military and feeding the hungry kids in _this_ country.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Feb 23, 2014)

Addie said:


> If they know what the element in pot us that controls seizures, why can't science extract it and put it in medical form? Sounds like one medicine the public needs. Imagine what it could do for epilepsy.



They do. I watched a show dedicated just to this subject.  Seizures in children.  The show only showcased one child for example that went from multiple (100's) seizures per day, to almost none.
They extracted BPH from the plants flowers (buds) and made an elixir that could be given by mouth.
This was done by a self made chemist and MM grower.  Imagine if true chemist's and the country actually allowed it to be studied and clinical trials were underway!



GB said:


> It is more than just one element in the plant that helps the seizures. It is a case of the whole being more than the sum of its parts. They have tried for a long long time to synthesize different things from marijuana to use medicinally, but nothing they have ever tried even comes remotely close to the real deal. Why bother going through all that work and cost anyway when the plant itself is relatively safe, non-addictive, and simple and cheap to produce? We have medications like oxycontin, morphine, dilaudid (sp?), and many others that are used and prescribed by doctors that are habit forming, bad for your body, damaging in many ways. What is so bad about pot that it should be treated like it is worse than these substances?



While I do agree with everything you said, they do have the ability to extract certain chemicals. BPH has shown it does prevent seizures.
Now, these unscientific studies were not performed in the most ideal conditions as the researchers could face arrest.
But the proof was in the pudding as they say.  I saw proof.
We have not scratched the surface of this medicine because its against the federal law.  This must change.



PrincessFiona60 said:


> Medical Marijuana, there should be no such thing.  That said, it should be legalized and the money that has been used on "The War on Drugs" should be put towards our educational system, our military and feeding the hungry kids in _this_ country.



I would prefer that marijuana be decriminalized (no penalty for possession) and treated like alcohol and other medicines.
In the US, all drugs are classified. DEA / Drug Scheduling 
Class one(1) includes heroin and cocaine and marijuana with several others like LSD. Class 1 narcotics are not supposed have any beneficial medical use and are highly addictive according to the justice dept. We all know this is bunk in regards to marijuana and some other drugs listed.

Remove marijuana from this class and drop it into class 2 or 3, and watch this medicine become mainstream.
I have issue with the government being too involved.  They messed it up already, why allow them more opportunity to mess it up more.


----------



## GB (Feb 23, 2014)

Are you sure it is BPH you are talking about and not CBD? CBD has been shown to have positive effects on seizures and has no role in intoxication. I have never heard of BPH in relation to marijuana and a quick Google search did not turn up anything.

My point, however, was that removing the CBD, while it might be technically possible, also removes other benefits and the only reason it is done is because there is a stigma associated with marijuana perpetrated by people who did so not because the plant is harmful, but because it put $ in their pockets to do so.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Feb 23, 2014)

I've seen Megace do amazing work in increasing the appetites of our elders.  I've seen those who are going through chemo, be able to tolerate it and actually thrive while smoking pot while in treatment for their cancer.  I do not believe it should be treated as a prescription drug, I do agree that it should be considered the same as Alcohol and Cigarettes.

I would love to be able to go the the nearest shop and pick up a few joints for my patients.


----------



## GB (Feb 23, 2014)

PrincessFiona60 said:


> I've seen Megace do amazing work in increasing the appetites of our elders.


I just took a quick look at the possible side effects of that drug. With the exception of some of the more mild ones (dizziness, extreme hunger) marijuana does not have any of those. Can you imagine many people smoking a joint if the side effects included unexpected vaginal bleeding or sharp, crushing chest pain?


----------



## Roll_Bones (Feb 23, 2014)

GB said:


> Are you sure it is BPH you are talking about and not CBD? CBD has been shown to have positive effects on seizures and has no role in intoxication. I have never heard of BPH in relation to marijuana and a quick Google search did not turn up anything.
> 
> My point, however, was that removing the CBD, while it might be technically possible, also removes other benefits and the only reason it is done is because there is a stigma associated with marijuana perpetrated by people who did so not because the plant is harmful, but because it put $ in their pockets to do so.



Sorry GB.  You are correct. CDB is the chemical.  Not sure where bph came from and thanks for pointing that out.
I cannot edit my first post, but I think I have time left to edit my last post!

Nope to late. Could not edit out bph. Sorry forum for the bad info.


----------



## GB (Feb 23, 2014)

It's all alphabet soup


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Feb 23, 2014)

I think I dropped a sentence...I would rather they smoked pot than have to depend on Megace to get their appetites back.  Thanks, GB!


----------



## GB (Feb 23, 2014)

Im with you PF!


----------



## taxlady (Feb 23, 2014)

PrincessFiona60 said:


> I've seen Megace do amazing work in increasing the appetites of our elders.  I've seen those who are going through chemo, be able to tolerate it and actually thrive while smoking pot while in treatment for their cancer.  I do not believe it should be treated as a prescription drug, I do agree that it should be considered the same as Alcohol and Cigarettes.
> 
> I would love to be able to go the the nearest shop and pick up a few joints for my patients.


Are there drugs in the US that can be prescription or not? Like Nicorette here in Canada. You can get it OTC or on 'scrip. If it's on 'scrip, drug insurance covers it, there is no sales tax, and it is a medical expense for income tax purposes. I think that would be the way to go with MM.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Feb 23, 2014)

Here your doctor can prescribe supplements, etc and insurance will pay.  So I imagine a prescription for MJ would be covered the same as any other 'script.  Of course, pharmacies do not have to have it in their stock and Insurance companies can not have it in their listing as a formulary medication and you would pay for it at a higher price.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Feb 23, 2014)

taxlady said:


> Are there drugs in the US that can be prescription or not? Like Nicorette here in Canada. You can get it OTC or on 'scrip. If it's on 'scrip, drug insurance covers it, there is no sales tax, and it is a medical expense for income tax purposes. I think that would be the way to go with MM.



I just checked my receipt and no taxes were taken out on my monthly RX.
And yes, my doctor can write me a prescription for an OTC product and I only pay the co-pay.  Whichever is lower.

I agree it should be treated just like any other prescription if thats the way the law will be.
Personally decriminalization is what I would prefer.


----------



## Andy M. (Feb 23, 2014)

I use one Rx drug that's available OTC.  The insurance company fills it and charges me a minimal copay.  Sooner or later, they'll wise up and tell me to bug off.


----------



## GotGarlic (Feb 23, 2014)

Just FYI, OTC and Rx drugs/supplements are not the same. The manufacturing standards of Rx drugs are regulated by the FDA while OTC ones are not. This means that OTC items may or not contain what the container claims.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Feb 23, 2014)

My doc says take Vit D3 5000mg...it's cheaper OTC than my co-pay would be, I buy the same ones the pharmacy would fill the order with, same with my CoQ-10 300 mg, exactly the same as the pharmacy fills with, 81 mg aspirin, same thing.  I'm not worried about the quality of my supplements and OTC meds.


----------



## GotGarlic (Feb 23, 2014)

PrincessFiona60 said:


> My doc says take Vit D3 5000mg...it's cheaper OTC than my co-pay would be, *I buy the same ones the pharmacy would fill the order with*, same with my CoQ-10 300 mg, exactly the same as the pharmacy fills with, 81 mg aspirin, same thing.  I'm not worried about the quality of my supplements and OTC meds.



This is the important thing: You're buying the Rx version. 

Someone asked me privately about this. Here's some info: 

http://www.health.gov/dietsupp/execsum.htm



> SAFETY OF DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS
> 
> The Commission considers it axiomatic that all marketed dietary supplements should be safe. Congress, in reflecting on the issues associated with safety, concludes in DSHEA that dietary supplements "are safe within a broad range of intake, and safety problems with the supplements are relatively rare." Congress emphasizes in the Act that the government should take swift action when safety problems arise but should not impose unreasonable barriers or limit access to safe products.



http://www.quackwatch.org/02ConsumerProtection/dshea.html


> Many people think that dietary supplements and herbs are closely regulated to ensure that they are safe, effective, and truthfully advertised. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although some aspects of marketing are regulated, the United States Congress has concluded that "informed" consumers need little government protection. This conclusion was embodied in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994—commonly referred to as "DSHEA"—which severely limits the FDA's ability to regulate these products.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Feb 24, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> Just FYI, OTC and Rx drugs/supplements are not the same. The manufacturing standards of Rx drugs are regulated by the FDA while OTC ones are not. This means that OTC items may or not contain what the container claims.



When my insurance covered OTC prilosec, the druggist walked over to the shelf and picked up the same box as anyone else could.
He put an RX sticker on it with date just as if he filled it himself.

Later when the insurance company decided they were no longer to cover the OTC, the doctor wrote me a prescription for it and then the druggist actually filled it behind the counter.

The first RX was written as OTC on the prescription.  The later was written with just the drug name. OTC was not written on the script.


----------



## Andy M. (Feb 24, 2014)

Does all this mean the marijuana I get OTC is not the same as the Rx stuff???


----------



## taxlady (Feb 24, 2014)

Andy M. said:


> Does all this mean the marijuana I get OTC is not the same as the Rx stuff???




As I just said to Tinlizzie,

You're silly. I love it.


----------



## Rocklobster (Feb 24, 2014)

Yes.


----------



## GotGarlic (Feb 24, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> When my insurance covered OTC prilosec, the druggist walked over to the shelf and picked up the same box as anyone else could.
> He put an RX sticker on it with date just as if he filled it himself.
> 
> Later when the insurance company decided they were no longer to cover the OTC, the doctor wrote me a prescription for it and then the druggist actually filled it behind the counter.
> ...



Oops, my mistake. I said drugs/supplements and the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) only applies to dietary supplements.


----------



## pacanis (Feb 24, 2014)

Andy M. said:


> Does all this mean the marijuana I get OTC is not the same as the Rx stuff???


 
You get your OTC?
I have to get mine BTB. Behind the bar


----------



## Andy M. (Feb 24, 2014)

pacanis said:


> You get your OTC?
> I have to get mine BTB. Behind the bar



I was speaking hypothetically, of course.


----------



## Dawgluver (Feb 24, 2014)

Andy M. said:


> I was speaking hypothetically, of course.



Of course.


----------



## pacanis (Feb 24, 2014)

Andy M. said:


> I was speaking hypothetically, of course.


 
Understood.
nudge, nudge, wink, wink


----------



## CharlieD (Feb 25, 2014)

I am against drugs. M. is a gate drug. I understand and do know how it helps people. Let medical companies make a derivatives from it in a form of a pill so people can take it.


----------



## GB (Feb 25, 2014)

I love you Charlie and respect your opinion in ways people here will never know. On this topic I completely disagree with you (respectfully of course).

I think that "gateway" drug is not really a real thing in many cases. Yes pot is the first illegal drug many try before trying other drugs. If it were legal in the first place would it still be a gateway to other drugs? Many people try pot, realize that they have been told lies about it for years (reefer madness anyone?) and start to put two and two together and think hey if everything I have been told about pot I have now seen first hand to be a lie what about other things? Maybe coke is not as bad as they say. Maybe xyz does not do what they say. 

As for medical companies making a derivative, they have tried and tried and tried. If they could have done it they would have. They, at this point, have not come up with anything even remotely close to what the actual plant does. It is a great idea for them to do that. Hopefully one day they are able to do it, but then of course you will see drug companies charging $1,000 a pill for something that someone could grow for free in thier home just to make a profit of sick and dying patients.


----------



## CharlieD (Feb 25, 2014)

Well, I'm not going to argue with anybody. My views are very conservative, though they were not always that conservative. I've done many things in life I am not proud about and see today that I could have been better of without. That includes MM. Because, really, smoking pot in Soviet Army should be considered medicinal purpose. Years that it took to quit afterwards don't count.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Discuss Cooking mobile app


----------



## taxlady (Feb 25, 2014)

GB said:


> I love you Charlie and respect your opinion in ways people here will never know. On this topic I completely disagree with you (respectfully of course).
> 
> I think that "gateway" drug is not really a real thing in many cases. Yes pot is the first illegal drug many try before trying other drugs. If it were legal in the first place would it still be a gateway to other drugs? Many people try pot, realize that they have been told lies about it for years (reefer madness anyone?) and start to put two and two together and think hey if everything I have been told about pot I have now seen first hand to be a lie what about other things? Maybe coke is not as bad as they say. Maybe xyz does not do what they say.
> 
> As for medical companies making a derivative, they have tried and tried and tried. If they could have done it they would have. They, at this point, have not come up with anything even remotely close to what the actual plant does. It is a great idea for them to do that. Hopefully one day they are able to do it, but then of course you will see drug companies charging $1,000 a pill for something that someone could grow for free in thier home just to make a profit of sick and dying patients.


Well said GB.

They lied about heroin too. I'm not saying anyone should use heroin or that it isn't addictive, but the studies that showed it to be extremely addictive were flawed. A study referred to as "Rat Park" showed that rats that could interact with other rats, would do that rather than continue consuming morphine, even the ones who had withdrawal symptoms.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Feb 25, 2014)

I also must respectfully disagree with the "gateway" comments.

Many people have used marijuana in their youth and never used other drugs. I was not one of them.  I used whatever drugs my friends were using with zero regard to what it was.
Had it been heroin, would that have been considered a gateway drug to marijuana?  Cocaine to heroin?  Which one is the "gateway" in this scenario?

Its all a play on words that have been fostered by those that have little clue as to what the truth is.

We have been taught these words like "gateway" and many others like it by the ones that stand to make the most money by disseminating lies and scaring people.

Imagine what would happen to all the jobs in the US and the world if all drugs were legal?  Law enforcement and the "recovery" folks would all be hunting new jobs with zero job skills.
This in my opinion is the reason drugs are not legal.  We have built a society especially in the US that makes illegal drug users a money tree.
Bust them, imprison them, fine them and make them go to rehab where a 30 day stay could easily top $50,000.


----------



## CharlieD (Feb 26, 2014)

I'm sorry,  but i know way too many people who died using heroin, so allow me to strongly disagree about that.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Feb 26, 2014)

CharlieD said:


> I'm sorry,  but i know way too many people who died using heroin, so allow me to strongly disagree about that.



That was not my point.

If I started using heroin in my youth, before marijuana, would heroin be the gateway drug?

In no way did I compare heroin's killing capability to marijuanas lack of killing capability.  What I did was put heroin first to see if it could be also called a gateway drug?

Play on words Charlie. Words made up by anti drug forces in the late 60's.

For the record.  I know several people that have died from drug overdose.
I can count at least 4 people from my immediate neighborhood that are now dead.
Very young people with whole lives in front of them.
None died from smoking marijuana.  Heroin and barbiturates sadly being the killers.


----------



## Janet H (Feb 26, 2014)

I have a hard time viewing med pot as a gateway drug.  By the time folks are considering this option, they've generally been down more traditional treatment options including prescription (and often very addictive) pain meds.  The majority of MedPot users I've known are simply trying to improve their lives by managing disease or pain and have exhausted other avenues.


----------



## bakechef (Feb 26, 2014)

I have two friends that benefited greatly from pot, not legal pot...

One had major back pain, she couldn't sleep, and there was no comfortable position.  Her pain meds weren't really doing anything but make her loopy.  She was visiting some friends and one mentioned, pot.  She had never tried it in her life, and didn't really want to, but was desperate.  The pot made her more comfortable than she had been in months.  She has since had back surgery and no longer needs the pot.  She didn't get addicted and doubts that she'll smoke it again unless she really needs it.

Another had gastric bypass surgery a couple years ago.  Even today she'll have bouts of uncontrollable nausea and dry heaving.  Pot is the only thing that will curb the nausea and stop the dry heaves.  She doesn't even need to get high, only a couple puffs and she's good to go.  Again she's not addicted, has no desire to smoke it unless she gets sick.

When my dad was dying of cancer and in a lot of pain, the neighbors would bring him some and enjoy it with him, it was the one thing that curbed the pain. 

I know that it isn't for everyone and since it has been illegal for so long, it is a very taboo thing.  Times they are a changing, and in my opinion, it's about time.


----------



## Dawgluver (Feb 26, 2014)

So glad your dad's pain was eased, Bakechef, and that your friends found solace as well.  I would have given my mom "second hand smoke" if I could.  MM should be accessible and available to everyone who needs it.  As far as recreational weed, anyone can get it, so I guess I'm not so concerned about that.  

If anyone has a child, parent, friend, or animal whose pain is lessened, appetite is increased, seizures reduced, even though research claims it's a sham, I think MM needs to be available and legalized.

On the other hand, when used recreationally in excess, it can lead to apathy.  I had a Canadian boyfriend who had to quit smoking weed in HS, his grades dropped and he had to quit smoking.  And he did.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Feb 27, 2014)

bakechef said:


> I know that it isn't for everyone and since it has been illegal for so long, it is a very taboo thing.  Times they are a changing, and in my opinion, it's about time.



Marijuana in America: Colorado Pot Rush

A new show about Colorado's legal marijuana.
I watched it last night and enjoyed it.  But this is about legal M, not medical M.


----------



## pacanis (Feb 27, 2014)

Legal M has been wreaking havoc to Colorado's veterinarians... or I should say their patients. Lots of dogs getting into their owners' stash, especially the edible variety. Maybe things were better for all involved when they had to keep it hidden


----------



## taxlady (Feb 27, 2014)

pacanis said:


> Legal M has been wreaking havoc to Colorado's veterinarians... or I should say their patients. Lots of dogs getting into their owners' stash, especially the edible variety. Maybe things were better for all involved when they had to keep it hidden


What happens to the dogs?

My first cat would steal pot from my visitors if it was where he could get at it. He just ate a bit of it and mellowed out.


----------



## Dawgluver (Feb 27, 2014)

Sounds like careless owners.  If you can keep your chocolate and raisins out of your dog's reach, why not your stash?


----------



## GB (Feb 27, 2014)

It sounds to me like it is the media sensationalizing it at its best. I would be very surprised if the fact that it is now legal there has anything to do with this happening. People have been smoking and eating it forever. Now that it is legal they are not just leaving it laying around out in the open any more than before. Dogs have been getting into stashes before it was legal. The media is just reporting on it more now because pot is the big news story in CO now.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Feb 27, 2014)

I did not know it could hurt animals?  If thats the case, keep it away from them.

There is much debate about legal, medical and decriminalization, and all have their talking points.
I watched the show and was nauseated at the tax they were charging! Almost 40%!!!  It was either 32% or 37%.
This alone makes me feel like legalization is not the answer.

They interviewed an illegal dealer incognito and he made mention of the disparity in his price vs the government taxed stuff at the store.

One M grower and legal supplier made the best point.  He said the federal government in their infinite wisdom has M listed as illegal, yet the IRS has guidelines on how to tax the product and how to collect these taxes.
They have a system in place to collect revenue from the growing and selling of a substance they say is illegal.
Now that in a nutshell is how we operate in this country.
I don't trust them to do this right.  Maybe illegal M is the best way?

One more note from the show.
Legal M distributors are having to deal with a cash only business.  Banks will not allow electronic transactions.  So they are spending much of their time turning cash into checks and electronic means to pay business bills.
Locally the banks were told not to be concerned, but they are smart enough to know if they accept these funds, they are breaking the law as far as the feds go.
Seems very confusing and very dangerous it seems.


----------



## pacanis (Feb 27, 2014)

I'll see if I have the link to the article I read. It might be on my other computer.
The jist of it was higher concentrations of THC in baked goods and the dog's smaller body size causing (besides the "normal" effects) slowed heart rate and incontinence lasting for days, as it takes them longer to expel it from their bodies. It had that Almeda vet in the article, so I imagine there was a little headline grabbing, but they said it has turned into a real problem. Enough of a problem that folks are taking their dogs to the clinics and they are treating it as toxicity poisoning.


----------



## Addie (Feb 27, 2014)

pacanis said:


> I'll see if I have the link to the article I read. It might be on my other computer.
> The jist of it was higher concentrations of THC in baked goods and the dog's smaller body size causing (besides the "normal" effects) slowed heart rate and incontinence lasting for days, as it takes them longer to expel it from their bodies. It had that Almeda vet in the article, so I imagine there was a little headline grabbing, but they said it has turned into a real problem. Enough of a problem that folks are taking their dogs to the clinics and they are treating it as *toxicity poisoning*.



If the animal is being poisoned, would the vet be within his rights to report the owner for animal abuse? Just a thought.


----------



## GB (Feb 27, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> I watched the show and was nauseated at the tax they were charging! Almost 40%!!!  It was either 32% or 37%.
> This alone makes me feel like legalization is not the answer.
> 
> One M grower and legal supplier made the best point.  He said the federal government in their infinite wisdom has M listed as illegal, yet the IRS has guidelines on how to tax the product and how to collect these taxes.
> ...


About the amount of tax charged, that was one of the things that got it legalized in the first place. The proponents all said the amount of tax charged would go a long way in helping the financial crisis become less dire.

As far as the govt listing it as illegal yet having a tax system in place, do not forget that it is legal in the state  but still illegal federally. Two different systems. Also, do not forget that it is still in the itsy bitsy beginning stages of its infancy. It has only been legal in the state for less than 2 month.


----------



## GB (Feb 27, 2014)

Addie said:


> If the animal is being poisoned, would the vet be within his rights to report the owner for animal abuse? Just a thought.


Only if the animal is intentionally being poisoned. Would you have the same question if instead of pot we were talking about chocolate, which is even more dangerous to a dog?


----------



## Roll_Bones (Feb 27, 2014)

Addie said:


> If the animal is being poisoned, would the vet be within his rights to report the owner for animal abuse? Just a thought.



If a dog accidentally consumed to much alcohol, would the owner be charged with a crime?



GB said:


> About the amount of tax charged, that was one of the things that got it legalized in the first place. The proponents all said the amount of tax charged would go a long way in helping the financial crisis become less dire.
> 
> As far as the govt listing it as illegal yet having a tax system in place, do not forget that it is legal in the state  but still illegal federally. Two different systems. Also, do not forget that it is still in the itsy bitsy beginning stages of its infancy. It has only been legal in the state for less than 2 month.



I get it GB.  Money does the talking.

As far as taxes go.  The local sale tax has zero to do with the federal taxes owed on an illegal product. I should have been more clear in my post.
I can see how local taxes allowed this to become a reality.  No tax income, no legal pot.

But how can the federal government say this is illegal, yet require federal  income taxes be paid on the illegal product?
The government is collecting money from these folks, but then turn around and say its illegal.
But yet the feds require and accept the money.
This is the point.  If its illegal, then why do they require and collect tax from this product?

Anyway, watch the show if you get a chance. You then can see what I am trying to write.


----------



## pacanis (Feb 27, 2014)

Addie said:


> If the animal is being poisoned, would the vet be within his rights to report the owner for animal abuse? Just a thought.


 
I don't believe so as it is (supposedly) unintentional.
If it could be proven that it was done on purpose... maybe... Tough call as dogs (fortunately) are still considered property, so it's not like if your three year old kid got into your stash or you gave your kid too many laced brownies.


----------



## GB (Feb 27, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> If a dog accidentally consumed to much alcohol, would the owner be charged with a crime?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just playing devils advocate here, but why shouldn't the government be able to tax something just because the person taxing it is breaking the law?


----------



## Dawgluver (Feb 27, 2014)

Here there's what's called a Drug Tax Stamp.  Anyone busted for illegal drugs is also charged with not purchasing a stamp for their illegal drugs.  Which makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## GB (Feb 27, 2014)

Dawgluver said:


> Here there's what's called a Drug Tax Stamp.  Anyone busted for illegal drugs is also charged with not purchasing a stamp for their illegal drugs.  Which makes absolutely no sense.


I do not agree with the practice as I think it should be legal, but why does it not make sense. The person breaking the law has the ability to purchase the stamp and pay the taxes on the drugs. If the stamps were not available for purchase then I would agree it makes no sense.


----------



## Dawgluver (Feb 27, 2014)

GB said:


> I do not agree with the practice as I think it should be legal, but why does it not make sense. The person breaking the law has the ability to purchase the stamp and pay the taxes on the drugs. If the stamps were not available for purchase then I would agree it makes no sense.



It amuses me that someone would be expected to go to the courthouse and request to purchase a drug tax stamp for their illegal coke and such.  Like that wouldn't be a red flag


----------



## GB (Feb 27, 2014)

They are expected the person to not be breaking the law in the first place.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Feb 28, 2014)

GB said:


> Just playing devils advocate here, but why shouldn't the government be able to tax something just because the person taxing it is breaking the law?



Because by accepting proceeds from an illegal transaction is party to the transaction. If that makes any sense. 

Similar to the banks position regarding accepting funds from M businesses.
The local government has told the banks not to worry and to allow electronic transfers. But the bank, knowing the federal law, refuses to put themselves into a position they can avoid, by not accepting or allowing electronic transactions.



Dawgluver said:


> Here there's what's called a Drug Tax Stamp.  Anyone busted for illegal drugs is also charged with not purchasing a stamp for their illegal drugs.  Which makes absolutely no sense.



In the US there was something like this many years ago. The stamp was required, but anyone with half a brain knew if they tried to access the stamp, they would be arrested.
I remember reading about this stamp, but my knowledge is not good enough to really make any comments regarding it. I just don't know the history well enough.


----------



## GB (Feb 28, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> Because by accepting proceeds from an illegal transaction is party to the transaction. If that makes any sense.


They are not accepting proceeds from an illegal transaction. They are taxing the illegal transaction and accepting the taxes. There is a difference. Granted it is almost just a case of semantics, but just almost.


----------



## Addie (Feb 28, 2014)

Dawgluver said:


> Here there's what's called a Drug Tax Stamp.  Anyone busted for illegal drugs is also charged with not purchasing a stamp for their illegal drugs.  Which makes absolutely no sense.



That Federal Stamp is the same one for any smoking product.


----------



## Addie (Feb 28, 2014)

A number of years ago our brilliant State listed what income was taxable including the sale of "illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia. Brilliant folks that run this state.


----------



## GB (Feb 28, 2014)

Addie said:


> A number of years ago our brilliant State listed what income was taxable including the sale of "illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia. Brilliant folks that run this state.


What do you mean by this statement?

Income tax is set up to make money off of money people earn. Why shouldn't they get tax on something that is illegally sold? The only difference is that the person selling the drugs is doing it illegally. Why should they get a free pass on paying taxes for the sole reason that they are breaking the law?


----------



## taxlady (Feb 28, 2014)

GB said:


> What do you mean by this statement?
> 
> Income tax is set up to make money off of money people earn. Why shouldn't they get tax on something that is illegally sold? The only difference is that the person selling the drugs is doing it illegally. Why should they get a free pass on paying taxes for the sole reason that they are breaking the law?


When I worked for H&R Block I had a client who admitted that he sold marijuana. He listed the income as "other income". He didn't want to get caught cheating on his taxes or trying to explain how he could live well with no income.


----------



## GB (Feb 28, 2014)

Smart man taxlady!


----------



## roadfix (Feb 28, 2014)

taxlady said:


> When I worked for H&R Block I had a client who admitted that he sold marijuana. He listed the income as "other income". He didn't want to get caught cheating on his taxes or trying to explain how he could live well with no income.


Well.....  I'm sure he still "cheated" by not reporting 100% of what he actually made...  wouldn't anyone?   LOL..


----------



## GB (Feb 28, 2014)

Are you being sarcastic roadfix or are you being serious. If you are being serious then why do you think he would go through the trouble of reporting it if he was just then going to turn around and cheat? If you were being sarcastic then as Rosanne Rosanadana said....Nevermind.


----------



## pacanis (Feb 28, 2014)

Yeah, why report any of it? Either way if you get caught your are having all your assets seized. Might as well not pay taxes on any of it.


----------



## Addie (Feb 28, 2014)

There are certain folks who do nothing but go through folks garbage to find tossed bottle and containers that have a deposit on them. They make a good income from them. Yesterday was Thursday, our trash day and sure enough, there they were in the freezing cold looking for empties. These folks know what day is trash day in which neighborhood. In the summer they really make a killing. Folks can't be bothered bring the empties back to the store, so they just toss them. 

There is a recycle place about three blocks from where I live. Since there is no trash pickup on the weekends, come Monday morning, you see a lineup of the shopping carts outside wanting to collect their money.


----------



## GB (Feb 28, 2014)

pacanis said:


> Yeah, why report any of it? Either way if you get caught your are having all your assets seized. Might as well not pay taxes on any of it.


Because some people believe that even though pot is illegal that it should not be and in every other area of their life they follow the law and consider themselves law abiding citizens. They believe in their bones that pot should be legal, but it is not (except for CO and WA). They want to continue to be good law abiding citizens so they pay taxes on what the govt says they should. Just because they break one law does not mean that they want to break others.


----------



## GB (Feb 28, 2014)

Addie said:


> There are certain folks who do nothing but go through folks garbage to find tossed bottle and containers that have a deposit on them. They make a good income from them. Yesterday was Thursday, our trash day and sure enough, there they were in the freezing cold looking for empties. These folks know what day is trash day in which neighborhood. In the summer they really make a killing. Folks can't be bothered bring the empties back to the store, so they just toss them.
> 
> There is a recycle place about three blocks from where I live. Since there is no trash pickup on the weekends, come Monday morning, you see a lineup of the shopping carts outside wanting to collect their money.


I am very confused. I am not trying to give you a hard time Addie. I promise. I just don't understand what this has to do with anything being discussed here. Could you enlighten me? The first time I read this I wondered if this was a post that was supposed to be in a completely different thread about a completely different subject.


----------



## pacanis (Feb 28, 2014)

GB said:


> Are you being sarcastic roadfix or are you being serious. If you are being serious then *why do you think he would go through the trouble of reporting it if he was just then going to turn around and cheat?* If you were being sarcastic then as Rosanne Rosanadana said....Nevermind.


 


GB said:


> Because some people believe that even though pot is illegal that it should not be and in every other area of their life they follow the law and consider themselves law abiding citizens. They believe in their bones that pot should be legal, but it is not (except for CO and WA). They want to continue to be good law abiding citizens so they pay taxes on what the govt says they should. Just because they break one law does not mean that they want to break others.


 
I was replying to your reply to Roadfix.
I agree as to why bother reporting it.



GB said:


> I am very confused. I am not trying to give you a hard time Addie. I promise. I just don't understand what this has to do with anything being discussed here. Could you enlighten me? The first time I read this I wondered if this was a post that was supposed to be in a completely different thread about a completely different subject.


 
Get used to it


----------



## GB (Feb 28, 2014)

Oh trust me I am used to being confused. It is my normal state of being


----------



## taxlady (Feb 28, 2014)

pacanis said:


> Yeah, why report any of it? Either way if you get caught your are having all your assets seized. Might as well not pay taxes on any of it.


The laws about forfeiture are different in Canada.

Some people actually believe it's good to pay taxes, so the government can be funded.

If he doesn't file income tax returns for several years, chances are that the Canada Revenue Agency will ask him to file. If he files "$0" income, he sets off bells. If he files some taxable amount, he will have to pay the tax + interest + penalties.

Though law enforcement can't look at your tax returns without a warrant, I wouldn't be surprised if the revenue agencies pass on some information to them. All they need to do is say, "Here's a list of people who didn't file income tax or filed extremely low or no income." Then the cops know who to watch.


----------



## roadfix (Feb 28, 2014)

GB said:


> Are you being sarcastic roadfix or are you being serious. If you are being serious then why do you think he would go through the trouble of reporting it if he was just then going to turn around and cheat? If you were being sarcastic then as Rosanne Rosanadana said....Nevermind.



No, I was being dead serious.  He needs to report some or all of that money as 'other income' if he's making bank deposits, for instance, to pay his bills if that's his only source of income.  

I know several small business owners where they transact mostly in cash and none of them honestly report 100% of what comes in.


----------



## GB (Feb 28, 2014)

She never said it was his only source of income.


----------



## taxlady (Feb 28, 2014)

roadfix said:


> No, I was being dead serious.  He needs to report some or all of that money if he's making bank deposits, for instance, to pay his bills if that's his only source of income.


Exactly. I have no idea if he declared all of it. I had no reason to believe that he didn't. This is in Canada. It would be impolite to doubt the word of a client for no good reason.


----------



## taxlady (Feb 28, 2014)

GB said:


> She never said it was his only source of income.


You're right, I didn't. It was his only declared income.


----------



## GB (Feb 28, 2014)

roadfix said:


> I know several small business owners where they transact mostly in cash and none of them honestly report 100% of what comes in.


That does not mean that others do not though. I would think, and this is just an assumption on my part, that if someone was going to go through the effort and risk of reporting it that they would not cheat while doing it. That would kind of defeat the purpose. He is reporting it so that he is not going to get in trouble for the tax portion if he gets caught. If he cheats then he will get in trouble so why report it in the first place? Illegal pot is a cash business. Those who do it for a full time job know how to clean their cash.


----------



## Dawgluver (Feb 28, 2014)

Addie said:


> That Federal Stamp is the same one for any smoking product.



Actually, Addie, it has nothing to do with any smoking product.  It's a special Drug Tax Stamp, specific to the state, and perhaps to just the county here, and it's got nothing to do with federal stamps.


----------



## GB (Feb 28, 2014)

Here is some info on the US marijuana tax stamp. NORML.org - Working to Reform Marijuana Laws


----------



## roadfix (Feb 28, 2014)

GB said:


> Oh trust me I am used to being confused. It is my normal state of being


Now, put down that joint....

One reason I dropped out college....thanks to the evil weed, it really slowed me down academically ...


----------



## Dawgluver (Feb 28, 2014)

roadfix said:


> Now, put down that joint....
> 
> One reason I dropped out college....thanks to the evil weed, it really slowed me down academically ...



I remember that commercial, where 2 grown men were still living in their mother's basement....yeah, they'd look for a job.  Tomorrow.  

I had friends in HS and college whose lives were taken over by apathy from regular recreational partaking, and their grades and ambitions suffered.

On the other hand, it appears much MM is bred so the THC content is limited.  The salves and oils for kids having seizures, for example.  Now for people in significant pain and/or undergoing chemo, I'd think they'd get the real deal.


----------



## taxlady (Feb 28, 2014)

Dawgluver said:


> *I remember that commercial, where 2 grown men were still living in their mother's basement....yeah, they'd look for a job.  Tomorrow.  *
> 
> I had friends in HS and college whose lives were taken over by apathy from regular recreational partaking, and their grades and ambitions suffered.
> 
> On the other hand, it appears much MM is bred so the THC content is limited.  The salves and oils for kids having seizures, for example.  Now for people in significant pain and/or undergoing chemo, I'd think they'd get the real deal.


That's one of two anti-drug ads I have ever seen that I thought were any good.

The other one was Mr. Junior Executive, wearing an expensive suit. He went into a washroom stall and pulled out a tiny vial of white powder. He dropped it and it rolled behind the toilet. Then you see him crawling on his hands and knees, in the expensive suit, trying to retrieve his vial. Not one word in the ad.


----------



## GB (Feb 28, 2014)

Very little of the MM has limited THC. There are only certain strains that are bred that way. You can get pot that affects you in any way you can imagine these days. The days of people being comatose after getting high are long gone (unless that is specifically what they are looking for). There are plenty of strains that energize you and make you more active then you were before using it.


----------



## Dawgluver (Feb 28, 2014)

GB said:


> Here is some info on the US marijuana tax stamp. NORML.org - Working to Reform Marijuana Laws



Interesting site, thanks, GB!


----------



## GB (Feb 28, 2014)

Anytime Dawgluver!


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Feb 28, 2014)

I was married to a man who sold all the furniture to fund his MJ habit...furniture that was handmade for me as payment for full time babysitting three summers.  I have no tolerance for dopers, but if a patient, friend or family needed it for a medical reason, legal or not, I would help.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 1, 2014)

Dawgluver said:


> On the other hand, it appears much MM is bred so the THC content is limited.  The salves and oils for kids having seizures, for example.  Now for people in significant pain and/or undergoing chemo, I'd think they'd get the real deal.



It seems MM and legal LM are grown to maximize the content of THC.
Now if you want to extract other chemicals and THC is not important, I can see growing for the specific reason.




PrincessFiona60 said:


> I was married to a man who sold all the furniture to fund his MJ habit...furniture that was handmade for me as payment for full time babysitting three summers.  I have no tolerance for dopers, but if a patient, friend or family needed it for a medical reason, legal or not, I would help.



Habit? Dopers?  Really?
I have been exposed to M all my life and have known people who smoke the product regularly and those who only smoke occasionally.
I can assure you these people are not addicted to anything and are quite reliable folks.  Most as normal as one can be.

Now I have known a couple people that had cocaine addictions that stole from their parents.
I would never ever consider putting the M users in the same sentence as these people. Ever.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Mar 1, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> It seems MM and legal LM are grown to maximize the content of THC.
> Now if you want to extract other chemicals and THC is not important, I can see growing for the specific reason.
> 
> 
> ...



You SEEM to have missed the part where I said I was MARRIED to this man.  I know he is a DOPER and it is HIS HABIT.  This is my personal experience with it, stop telling me I am incorrect when I say something.


----------



## Zereh (Mar 1, 2014)

Sounds like the man had way more issues than smoking an occasional blunt, so it's not really fair to blame marijuana for someone's crazy.


----------



## pacanis (Mar 1, 2014)

PrincessFiona60 said:


> You SEEM to have missed the part where I said I was MARRIED to this man. I know he is a DOPER and it is HIS HABIT. This is my personal experience with it, stop telling me I am incorrect when I say something.


 
+1 Fi.

Fi didn't say he was addicted. She said it was a habit.
And calling someone who uses dope a doper... that might be a genertional thing. Doper, burnout... kind of an adjective to describe a certain type of user. Fi would know.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 1, 2014)

PrincessFiona60 said:


> You SEEM to have missed the part where I said I was MARRIED to this man.  I know he is a DOPER and it is HIS HABIT.  This is my personal experience with it, stop telling me I am incorrect when I say something.



Not trying to correct you at all. I just have an opinion like everyone else.  Sometimes a strong opinion.
I apologize for anything I may have said that bothered you.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Mar 1, 2014)

Zereh said:


> Sounds like the man had way more issues than smoking an occasional blunt, so it's not really fair to blame marijuana for someone's crazy.



I am not blaming MJ, I have indulged myself and I don't sell my furniture or pawn items to support ANY habit.  I used no words in the above post to suggest I thought anyone who use or used IS a doper or they have a habit.  I did suggest that ONE MAN had a habit and that he was a doper, others with the same behavior as his, I consider dopers.  The exes other problems probably did add to his habit, but those are not being discussed here.

And again, another point was missed, I support the use of Medical MJ and think it should be decriminalized if not legal, I am willing to obtain it for anyone who needs it for a medical reason.


----------



## GB (Mar 1, 2014)

People are all individuals and should not be lumped into one category because they use a substance. Like you roll bones I have been around plenty of people who have used pot quite frequently. Almost all of them would be considered fine upstanding citizens of the highest caliber. They contribute to society, help others around them, donate to charity with both their wallets and their actions, and do everything else you would want a person to do. They also happen to enjoy using pot. BUT that does not mean that there are not others who use it and it ruins them as a person. I have never met PF's husband, but I know that if PF says something then you can take it to the bank. Each person is their own person.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Mar 1, 2014)

GB said:


> People are all individuals and should not be lumped into one category because they use a substance. Like you roll bones I have been around plenty of people who have used pot quite frequently. Almost all of them would be considered fine upstanding citizens of the highest caliber. They contribute to society, help others around them, donate to charity with both their wallets and their actions, and do everything else you would want a person to do. They also happen to enjoy using pot. BUT that does not mean that there are not others who use it and it ruins them as a person. I have never met PF's husband, but I know that if PF says something then you can take it to the bank. Each person is their own person.



Thanks GB!!!   and that is ex-husband...got rid of him when I was 20, met Shrek when I was 21.  Went from the frying pan to the penthouse.  No, not THAT Penthouse...


----------



## GB (Mar 1, 2014)




----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 5, 2014)

I read today that Florida is voting on MM in November.
I am hoping that Georgia and even SC will follow suit.  But I have serious reservations about SC.
We have Nikki Haley for a governor.  Theres little doubt she would get in the way of any attempt in this state.
So the best we can hope for is MM within driving distance.  NC is another state also discussing a vote.  I am 4 miles from the NC border.


----------



## Mad Cook (Mar 5, 2014)

pacanis said:


> I agree with Vit.
> Talking about this runs parallel with talking about gay marriage. Kind of.
> 
> That said, I think they should legalize marijuana across the board. Look what prohibition did. I still can't believe there are dry counties. But I can't believe a program about making moonshine is right either.
> ...


There has been some suggestion that it can help MS sufferers.


----------



## Mad Cook (Mar 5, 2014)

roadfix said:


> Now, put down that joint....
> 
> One reason I dropped out college....thanks to the evil weed, it really slowed me down academically ...


There was a lot of it around when I was a student but I never tried it. Not because I was a prude but because the smell of it when it was being smoked by other people made me feel sick.


----------



## roadfix (Mar 6, 2014)

Mad Cook said:


> There was a lot of it around when I was a student but I never tried it. Not because I was a prude but because the smell of it when it was being smoked by other people made me feel sick.



Speaking of smell, most regular users reek of marijuana smell.


----------



## GB (Mar 6, 2014)

roadfix said:


> Speaking of smell, most regular users reek of marijuana smell.


How can you say that? You do not smell the ones who do not smell so how do you know they are not regular users?

There are many users who vaporize or eat their marijuana. You will not smell it on those users even seconds after they have used.


----------



## SomaW (Mar 6, 2014)

Our local Hershey chocolate plant has recently been turned into a medical marijuana facility, run by the government. It should be interesting to watch how this progresses, and what the news says about it.

Personally I have no opinion for or against. I dislike most drugs, legal too....can't take 'em,  not even blood pressure meds to save my life.

I don't think I'm going to live to 84, like my dear old Mom did. Dad is still alive at 88 and wondering why. I think it's because he's afraid to die. Believes in hell and a punishing God.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 6, 2014)

SomaW said:


> I dislike most drugs, legal too....can't take 'em,  not even blood pressure meds to save my life.



A segue here----- many people who can't tolerate legal drugs may just not be able to tolerate them at the ''normal" dose docs often prescribe. If you're female that's even more of a problem because a lot of legal drugs and their doses are derived from testing on males.

If you want to take a blood pressure medicine but the side effects are too much for you---- you can try a different class and/or a reduced amount.  Just if you're interested.

For instance, I can get the same result from a  common sleep med by taking a quarter of the tablet that some people get by taking the entire tablet.


----------



## roadfix (Mar 6, 2014)

GB said:


> There are many users who vaporize or eat their marijuana. You will not smell it on those users even seconds after they have used.



You're right.  But I can smell it on those who regularly smoke it, including cigarettes, mostly on their clothes.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 6, 2014)

roadfix said:


> Speaking of smell, most regular users reek of marijuana smell.



As do regular cigarette smokers and people who eat lots of garlic.



GB said:


> How can you say that? You do not smell the ones who do not smell so how do you know they are not regular users?
> There are many users who vaporize or eat their marijuana. You will not smell it on those users even seconds after they have used.



I am amazed at some comments but not surprised.  This country has been led down a road of lies for years.
The government has lied, the law enforcement folks have lied and the "sobriety" folks have helped to fuel these lies for many years.

To even believe that marijuana users can be identified just by their use alone is silly. There are people in everyones life at some point that were using M and leading exemplary lives without anyone knowing the truth.
Preachers, doctors, lawyers, cops, judges and many other respected people in our communities use M with no consequence or negative outcome. (unless they get busted and put in jail)

These folks have much to lose by coming out on the subject.  Some rely on these archaic laws to provide them with work.
Imagine how many people lose their jobs if M is legalized in all of the US.
IMO, this is the stumbling block.


----------



## GB (Mar 6, 2014)

roadfix said:


> You're right.  But I can smell it on those who regularly smoke it, including cigarettes, mostly on their clothes.


You can smell it on _some_ who regularly smoke. My point is that there are most likely many others that smoke on a reg basis and you have no idea. You only think they are not users because you don't smell it on them. It is very possible that they are reg users and you just do not smell it on them. Pot is not like cigs when it comes to smell. Someone can take one hit of pot and stand with the wind to their backs and expel the smoke so that it never touches them quite easily. You would never know unless you saw them doing it. You only smell it on the users who you smell it on. But I can promise you there are users who you do not smell it on.


----------



## CharlieD (Mar 6, 2014)

Regardless of my disapproval it got approved in MN yesterday. (if I heard news right)


----------



## roadfix (Mar 6, 2014)

GB said:


> You can smell it on _some_ who regularly smoke. My point is that there are most likely many others that smoke on a reg basis and you have no idea. You only think they are not users because you don't smell it on them. It is very possible that they are reg users and you just do not smell it on them. Pot is not like cigs when it comes to smell. Someone can take one hit of pot and stand with the wind to their backs and expel the smoke so that it never touches them quite easily. You would never know unless you saw them doing it. You only smell it on the users who you smell it on. But I can promise you there are users who you do not smell it on.


I agree.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 7, 2014)

CharlieD said:


> Regardless of my disapproval it got approved in MN yesterday. (if I heard news right)



I sure hope this is true. We keep this up and all of the US can join the rest of the civilized world.

I just checked and saw that MN is not medical legal just yet.  But looks like MN is on the path to normalcy.


----------



## Whiskadoodle (Mar 7, 2014)

It's a medical marijuana bill before the MN legislature.  I think it passed a committee vote so far.    Sparking equal controversy is a proposed change to law that allows  Sunday liquor sales.   A perennial favorite to kick around along with increased gambling facilities.   The medical marijuana bill might just sneak through, although the otherwise liberal governor is not quite on board.


----------



## Sir_Loin_of_Beef (Mar 7, 2014)

cave76 said:


> For instance, I can get the same result from a common sleep med by taking a quarter of the tablet that some people get by taking the entire tablet.


 
My doctor says I am a bad candidate for sleep meds like Ambien or Lunesta because I live alone, I sleep naked, and I own a convertible!


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Mar 7, 2014)

Sir_Loin_of_Beef said:


> My doctor says I am a bad candidate for sleep meds like Ambien or Lunesta because I live alone, I sleep naked, and I own a convertible!



Yup, not a good candidate...


----------



## Zereh (Mar 7, 2014)

Whiskadoodle said:


> ...  Sparking equal controversy is a proposed change to law that allows  Sunday liquor sales. ...



LOL Really? I remember having to have "3.2" beer bought for us on Sundays WAY back in the day.  Does that stuff still exist?


----------



## Dawgluver (Mar 7, 2014)

Zereh said:


> LOL Really? I remember having to have "3.2" beer bought for us on Sundays WAY back in the day.  Does that stuff still exist?



  Yes, I remember 3.2!  We had to cross the border into Minnesota to get it!  Otherwise, no booze on Sundays.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 8, 2014)

Strange laws (liquor, not MM)-----In Albuquerque NM you can't buy liquor until AFTER 12 noon on Sunday. Do they have that law so no one will buy liquor to take to church?? 

But it does lead to long lines of people, still dressed in their go -to-church clothes at liquor stores at noon on Sunday.


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 8, 2014)

cave76 said:


> Strange laws (liquor, not MM)-----In Albuquerque NM you can't buy liquor until AFTER 12 noon on Sunday. Do they have that law so no one will buy liquor to take to church??
> 
> But it does lead to long lines of people, still dressed in their go -to-church clothes at liquor stores at noon on Sunday.



Virginia didn't allow liquor sales on Sunday when we moved here in the 1980s, but that's changed and now you can from noon till 9 pm, I think. When my mom was growing up in the '50s, you could not buy liquor by the drink in restaurants - you had to buy an entire bottle from the state-run package store. It's a leftover from when more religious people were in charge of the legislatures.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 8, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> When my mom was growing up in the '50s, you could not buy liquor by the drink in restaurants - you had to buy an entire bottle from the state-run package store. It's a leftover from when more religious people were in charge of the legislatures.



But--but--but-----  That's one way to make more money for the liquor industry, right?


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 8, 2014)

cave76 said:


> But--but--but-----  That's one way to make more money for the liquor industry, right?



I would think it would be less. Restaurants selling cocktails would be buying a lot more liquor than individuals.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 8, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> I would think it would be less. Restaurants selling cocktails would be buying a lot more liquor than individuals.




I guess I'm not understanding. (Won't be the first time!)

I thought it was said:
"you could not buy liquor by the drink in restaurants - you had to buy an entire bottle from the state-run package store." 

Was that just how it *used* to be and not now?


----------



## Sir_Loin_of_Beef (Mar 8, 2014)

cave76 said:


> I guess I'm not understanding. (Won't be the first time!)
> 
> I thought it was said:
> "you could not buy liquor by the drink in restaurants - you had to buy an entire bottle from the state-run package store."
> ...


 
 I believe it is still that way in Utah.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 8, 2014)

Whiskadoodle said:


> It's a medical marijuana bill before the MN legislature.  I think it passed a committee vote so far.    Sparking equal controversy is a proposed change to law that allows  Sunday liquor sales.   A perennial favorite to kick around along with increased gambling facilities.   The medical marijuana bill might just sneak through, although the otherwise liberal governor is not quite on board.



MN still has "blue laws" in place?  And i thought it was only in the south where these laws were still in force?



cave76 said:


> Strange laws (liquor, not MM)-----In Albuquerque NM you can't buy liquor until AFTER 12 noon on Sunday. Do they have that law so no one will buy liquor to take to church??
> But it does lead to long lines of people, still dressed in their go -to-church clothes at liquor stores at noon on Sunday.



When I first moved here from Florida, I was surprised on a Sunday trying to buy beer for a cookout.  No alcohol sales of any kind on Sundays.
Now, there are several counties that allow alcohol sales in restaurants, but not in stores.
  When i lived in Fl. you had to wait until 12 pm to buy any alcohol.

You can buy cigarettes on Sundays, but until just recently you could not  buy a pair of socks.
Little by little, thanks to all the transplants, a normal existence can be had in these parts.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 8, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> You can buy cigarettes on Sundays, but until just recently you could not  buy a pair of socks.



What????  Where???? And-----*WHY??????*


----------



## Addie (Mar 8, 2014)

GB said:


> I am very confused. I am not trying to give you a hard time Addie. I promise. I just don't understand what this has to do with anything being discussed here. Could you enlighten me? The first time I read this I wondered if this was a post that was supposed to be in a completely different thread about a completely different subject.



Taxes on unreported income such as the sale of Marijuana.


----------



## GB (Mar 8, 2014)

I still don't understand what collecting bottles for the deposit they get back has to do with marijuana. I must be missing your point.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Mar 8, 2014)

Addie is likening the income made on returnables as unreported income, I believe.   Somehow I don't think that income is as high as the illegal sale of marijuana.


----------



## CarolPa (Mar 8, 2014)

pacanis said:


> Thanks. I'll check a couple sources I have, too.
> I hadn't heard of it in my area, but that's nothing new.




Yeah, but are you willing to share your supply with your dog?  

(just kidding, of course!)


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 8, 2014)

cave76 said:


> I guess I'm not understanding. (Won't be the first time!)
> 
> I thought it was said:
> "you could not buy liquor by the drink in restaurants - you had to buy an entire bottle from the state-run package store."
> ...



I said when my mom was growing up in the '50s, you could not buy liquor by the drink. That changed a long time ago - I don't know when. You can buy all kinds of fancy cocktails now


----------



## CarolPa (Mar 8, 2014)

cave76 said:


> What????  Where???? And-----*WHY??????*




Cave, I think Roll Bones was referring to when no stores were open on Sundays by law, so you couldn't buy anything, such as socks.  But he said "until recently" and that was way back.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 8, 2014)

CarolPa said:


> Cave, I think Roll Bones was referring to when no stores were open on Sundays by law, so you couldn't buy anything, such as socks.  But he said "until recently" and that was way back.



Oh. Well, that makes sense, of a sort. I can remember when most stores weren't open on Sunday in St. Louis but I don't think  it was the law. 
Just tradition. Maybe. 

Although I welcomed the idea of being able to shop on Sunday I'm not sure I like it because of what it means.  However, with the advent of more women working------ it certainly makes sense and I understand it.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 8, 2014)

The more I thought about that post saying you couldn't buy socks on Sunday the more I laughed. I see that the OP had said 'such as' but I ignored that. 

Instead my  mind went to those dumb laws (some of which are still on the books!) like "Men who wear moustaches are forbidden from kissing women."

Visions of being able to buy a shirt or blouse but no socks danced in my head.


----------



## CarolPa (Mar 8, 2014)

cave76 said:


> Oh. Well, that makes sense, of a sort. I can remember when most stores weren't open on Sunday in St. Louis but I don't think  it was the law.
> Just tradition. Maybe.
> 
> Although I welcomed the idea of being able to shop on Sunday I'm not sure I like it because of what it means.  However, with the advent of more women working------ it certainly makes sense and I understand it.




Over the years, I have become accustomed to stores being open on Sundays, but I don't know if I will ever get used to them being open on holidays.  I would not want to be one of those employees who did not get to spend the holiday with their families.  I know that medical workers have faced this for years and will for years to come.  But shopping is not a necessity.

To be on topic, I think medical marijuana should be available if there is nothing else that helps.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 10, 2014)

cave76 said:


> What????  Where???? And-----*WHY??????*



Stores like Walmart, could not sell anything but food on Sunday mornings. The side where the clothes are was roped off.  They even made the stores half and half for this particular reason.  They could keep the food side open before 1:00 pm on Sundays, but were required to not allow the sale of any other non-essential items.  Like socks.
Convenience stores were not under the same rule and could sell anything but alcohol on Sundays.  So this is where you could get cigs on Sunday morning.
Now if the convenience store had socks. I assume you could buy them. 



PrincessFiona60 said:


> Addie is likening the income made on returnables as unreported income, I believe.   Somehow I don't think that income is as high as the illegal sale of marijuana.



Deposits are paid for when purchasing the container and its contents.  The refund is just getting back (refunding) what was already paid.  There is no income unless you do this for a living.  
But even in this case, it would be double taxation as deposit is taken out of the initial purchase price of the item.



CarolPa said:


> Cave, I think Roll Bones was referring to when no stores were open on Sundays by law, so you couldn't buy anything, such as socks.  But he said "until recently" and that was way back.



Correct. But some stores could open and some couldn't.  Since convenience stores sell food, they were exempt and so were cigarettes. Booze was not allowed on Sunday anywhere until just recently.



cave76 said:


> Instead my  mind went to those dumb laws (some of which are still on the books!) like "Men who wear moustaches are forbidden from kissing women."
> Visions of being able to buy a shirt or blouse but no socks danced in my head.



You have successfully envisioned correctly how the state of SC is run. 
In 1983, the state of SC approved medical marijuana.  It is the law.
But the people that run/ruin this state have found a way to not fund the program.  Believe it or not, if SC funded the law, we might have been one of the first in the nation to actually have MM.
But of course the powers that be could not allow this evil. 



CarolPa said:


> Over the years, I have become accustomed to stores being open on Sundays, but I don't know if I will ever get used to them being open on holidays.  I would not want to be one of those employees who did not get to spend the holiday with their families.  I know that medical workers have faced this for years and will for years to come.  But shopping is not a necessity.
> 
> To be on topic, I think medical marijuana should be available if there is nothing else that helps.



I worked in a factory and talked to people that had been there 20 or more years and never once had Christmas off.  Never in their 20 years service.
This is common in a state like ours where industry is king.
"God, Guns & BMW" is the unofficial state motto.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 10, 2014)

Roll_Bones;1350251
Deposits are paid for when purchasing the container and its contents.  The refund is just getting back (refunding) what was already paid.  There is no income unless you do this for a living.  
But even in this case said:
			
		

> Didn't we (Americans) have a revolution over double taxation?


----------



## Addie (Mar 10, 2014)

A year ago the voters passed for the law on MM to be sold. The State is supposed to be setting up a system. They are dragging their heels. We also decriminalized personal possession of marijuana. It is now just a misdemeanor and not a felony. But only under a certain amount. 

And recently we finally allowed for liquor stores to open for PM sales. Bar rooms still can't open until one p.m. on a Sunday. And up until the 80's, we still had the law on the books that you had to carry your blunderbust  to services to ward off savages. We do move slowly in this state. There are still a couple of Blue Laws on the books though.


----------



## Addie (Mar 10, 2014)

cave76 said:


> Didn't we (Americans) have a revolution over *double taxation*?



It was for Taxation Without Representation.


----------



## GB (Mar 10, 2014)

Addie said:


> A year ago the voters passed for the law on MM to be sold. The State is supposed to be setting up a system. They are dragging their heels.


How are they dragging their heels? Things are moving along. They approved a number of licenses in most of the counties. They might need to redo the licensing because of some people complaining it was done unfairly, but things are moving along. 



Addie said:


> And recently we finally allowed for liquor stores to open for PM sales.


Wait what? I have lived here since the late 70's and never heard of this. There was a time when we could not buy alcohol on Sundays, but that changed years ago. I have never heard of not being able to buy alcohol in the evening. Am I reading that right or am I misunderstanding?


----------



## cave76 (Mar 10, 2014)

Addie said:


> It was for Taxation Without Representation.



That's right, but I also believe that somewhere in the background there was some kerfuffle about certain things being taxed twice.  At least that's what I remember reading.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Mar 10, 2014)

cave76 said:


> That's right, but I also believe that somewhere in the background there was some kerfuffle about certain things being taxed twice.  At least that's what I remember reading.



Double taxation is pretty common considering that we pay tax on our income and then pay taxes on purchases of all types, gas, automobiles, clothes, utilities, etc...

The money needs to come from somewhere, but I say tax everything that I don't use! 

This quote from Sen. Russell Long, of Louisiana sums up my feelings nicely "Don't tax me. Don't tax thee. Tax that man behind the tree!"

Now back to the original thread.  Puff, puff, pass!


----------



## cave76 (Mar 10, 2014)

Aunt Bea said:


> Double taxation is pretty common considering that we pay tax on our income and then pay taxes on purchases of all types, gas, automobiles, clothes, utilities, etc...



I know---- Sigh. Maybe we should revolt! But if we keep puffing we'd be too mellow to start a revolution.


----------



## Addie (Mar 10, 2014)

GB said:


> How are they dragging their heels? Things are moving along. They approved a number of licenses in most of the counties. They might need to redo the licensing because of some people complaining it was done unfairly, but things are moving along.
> 
> Wait what? I have lived here since the late 70's and never heard of this. There was a time when we could not buy alcohol on Sundays, but that changed years ago. I have never heard of not being able to buy alcohol in the evening. Am I reading that right or am I misunderstanding?



PM starts at noontime.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Mar 10, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> Deposits are paid for when purchasing the container and its contents.  The refund is just getting back (refunding) what was already paid.  There is no income unless you do this for a living.
> But even in this case, it would be double taxation as deposit is taken out of the initial purchase price of the item.



Once again, I am not stupid, you do not have to teach/correct me.  I was merely clarifying what Addie had said.


----------



## GB (Mar 11, 2014)

Addie said:


> PM starts at noontime.


Ahhh OK, my bad for not realizing you were talking about Sunday only. I read that as you meaning every day. Thanks for clearing it up for me.

So getting back on topic, what about your comment about the state dragging their heels on MM? Can you elaborate on that?


----------



## CarolPa (Mar 11, 2014)

I was going to post a question about medical marijuana but decided to google it first.  I am so glad I did!!  I was so far off base, you guys would have been laughing for days!!  And no, I'm NOT going to tell you what the question was.


----------



## Addie (Mar 11, 2014)

GB said:


> Ahhh OK, my bad for not realizing you were talking about Sunday only. I read that as you meaning every day. Thanks for clearing it up for me.
> 
> So getting back on topic, what about your comment about the state dragging their heels on MM? Can you elaborate on that?





It just seems to be taking way too long to do as the voters want. I am surprised that our Legislature hasn't found some way to over ride the want on the voters.


----------



## GB (Mar 11, 2014)

Can you be more specific? The law has been passed. The licenses have issued. What is taking too long? What do you feel they have not done that they should have already done?


----------



## Addie (Mar 11, 2014)

GB said:


> Can you be more specific? The law has been passed. The licenses have issued. What is taking too long? What do you feel they have not done that they should have already done?



Then why have none of the licensees opened for business?


----------



## GB (Mar 11, 2014)

Well for one thing, it has only been just over 2 months since the law went into effect. That is not a whole lot of time to have applicants go through the approval process. Even at that though they did get that part done. As I mentioned above though, there were some who felt the approval process was unfairly done so they have decided that it would be smart to not rush things and make sure things are done equitably. Would you agree it is better to make sure things are done right the first time instead of rushing to get it done super quickly? How soon after the law passed would you have felt it would have been reasonable to have the dispensaries open for business?


----------



## Addie (Mar 11, 2014)

GB said:


> Well for one thing, it has only been just over 2 months since the law went into effect. That is not a whole lot of time to have applicants go through the approval process. Even at that though they did get that part done. As I mentioned above though, there were some who felt the approval process was unfairly done so they have decided that it would be smart to not rush things and make sure things are done equitably. Would you agree it is better to make sure things are done right the first time instead of rushing to get it done super quickly? How soon after the law passed would you have felt it would have been reasonable to have the dispensaries open for business?



Six to nine months. And that includes background checks. Those only take minutes. That is one of the jobs my daughter does when a Statie calls in for Wants and Warrants on a suspect. Those could be handled in just one day. Even though the police can go back only five years, the person being looked at still has his whole life criminal history available to certain State employees. So there is very little chance of some coming in under the radar. 

If the Commission met more often, the dispensaries would be opened by now. 

Believe me GB, it is not that I want to buy any. I have never tried it or have any interest in doing so. It is just that when the voters speak, our members of the Legislature are slow to act. Specially those who disapprove of, or disagree with the popular vote.


----------



## GB (Mar 11, 2014)

Addie said:


> Six to nine months.


We are just in the beginning of the 3rd month so they still have three to six months to get the dispensaries open according to your timeline before you should feel they are not moving fast enough.


----------



## roadfix (Mar 11, 2014)

CarolPa said:


> I was going to post a question about medical marijuana but decided to google it first.  I am so glad I did!!  I was so far off base, you guys would have been laughing for days!!  And no, I'm NOT going to tell you what the question was.


"Can you get high on MM?"


----------



## roadfix (Mar 11, 2014)

They've been closing a bunch of dispensaries in LA for whatever reason.  A dispensary that's been in business for about 3 yrs just a couple of doors down from my shop closed for good last week.  I saw a bunch of law enforcement people there as well.  I hardly saw any "customers" going in there in the 3 yrs they've been there.


----------



## vitauta (Mar 11, 2014)

by all means, let's take extraordinary steps to ensure that no effective pain or nausea medication has the side effect of making the patient 'high'.  it is important, after all, that we draw a line between what are acceptable and unacceptable side effects.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 11, 2014)

PrincessFiona60 said:


> Once again, I am not stupid, you do not have to teach/correct me.  I was merely clarifying what Addie had said.



Lady. Whats your problem? 
I have never used the "ignore" feature until today. I suggest you do the same.


----------



## roadfix (Mar 11, 2014)

Pass the joint around and let's all be happy...


----------



## roadfix (Mar 11, 2014)

I'm tired of Fink Floyd now.  Someone go out and get us a couple of dozen doughnuts please...


----------



## taxlady (Mar 11, 2014)

roadfix said:


> I'm tired of Fink Floyd now.  Someone go out and get us a couple of dozen doughnuts please...


Well, since these are only virtual, how about some real Danish pastry from Denmark?


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Mar 11, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> Lady. Whats your problem?
> I have never used the "ignore" feature until today. I suggest you do the same.



Thank you, I was starting to get upset.


----------



## roadfix (Mar 11, 2014)

taxlady said:


> Well, since these are only virtual, how about some real Danish pastry from Denmark?


It doesn't matter.....we'll take a dozen of anything!   ...lol...


----------



## CarolPa (Mar 11, 2014)

roadfix said:


> "Can you get high on MM?"




No, that was clarified in the original post.  But since I think this thread needs some laughter, I will tell you.

When I saw this statement -

_It seems the active chemical in marijuana, THC is not used, but another  chemical* BPH* that the plant produces. _

I was going to say that I thought that BPH was something dangerous that is found in plastic containers.  After googling, I realized that is BPA, and BPH is something else altogether.


----------



## GB (Mar 11, 2014)

CarolPa said:


> No, that was clarified in the original post.


Of course you can get high from MM. The only distinction between medical marijuana and non medical marijuana is a doctors recommendation.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 12, 2014)

From reports regarding MM, the "high" part is what alleviates the pain. The BPH has been studied a little bit and shows promise for seizures.  

THC is the active ingredient that does produce what some call a "high". It is my opinion, this state of euphoria is what lends to pain relief.
All narcotic pain medications can produce a "high" effect if enough of the medicine is introduced.
It is the "high" in my opinion and those of many professionals that produce the pain relief effect.

  Some people also report negative effects from M, just as they do with other pain medications.  This is because it is a pain medicine and we are just starting to find other uses for the drug.


----------



## GB (Mar 12, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> From reports regarding MM, the "high" part is what alleviates the pain. The BPH has been studied a little bit and shows promise for seizures.
> 
> THC is the active ingredient that does produce what some call a "high". It is my opinion, this state of euphoria is what lends to pain relief.
> All narcotic pain medications can produce a "high" effect if enough of the medicine is introduced.
> ...


Can you site those reports that state the high is what alleviates pain? Also, you keep saying BPH, but as I mentioned before, you are using the wrong letters. It is CBD that I believe you are trying to talk about.

It is not just the high as high is just a very "fuzzy math" sort of term. No respected scientist would attribute pain relief to something as non-quantifiable as being high.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 12, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> From reports regarding MM, the "high" part is what alleviates the pain.




I'd like the URL/link to those reports also. please.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 13, 2014)

GB said:


> Can you site those reports that state the high is what alleviates pain? Also, you keep saying BPH, but as I mentioned before, you are using the wrong letters. It is CBD that I believe you are trying to talk about.
> 
> It is not just the high as high is just a very "fuzzy math" sort of term. No respected scientist would attribute pain relief to something as non-quantifiable as being high.



When I said reports, I meant the reports from TV shows about MM and M in general.
Sorry about the bph.  Someone used it again just a couple posts back and I followed suit. CBD is the correct abbreviation.

I am no expert and can only go by what i have read, watched or heard.
IMHO, without the "high" effect, there may be no medicinal effect at all.
It is my opinion that if the "high" is removed, so will be the analgesic effect.  This would not be true if CDB for seizure is the subject. It seems CDB's have no "high" effect.
I have nothing to back up this statement, but it seems common sense in this particular regard is warranted until scientific proof is made available to the public.

Narcotic pain medications have the ability to make one high.  I know this as I have had several back surgeries and the pain medicine given to me at the hospital and at home during rehab made me feel like I was on top of the world. 
 This is why I believe that the high that comes from M, is the reason for the analgesic effect.  Just as alcohol was used by our forefathers for pain management.



cave76 said:


> I'd like the URL/link to those reports also. please.



I got some info from this show. Marijuana in America: Colorado Pot Rush

And from this. Weed Country : Discovery Channel

And this. Discovery Health "Weed Wars"

I am a supporter, but by no means am I the expert.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 13, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> When I said reports, I meant the reports from TV shows about MM and M in general.
> Sorry about the bph.  Someone used it again just a couple posts back and I followed suit. CBD is the correct abbreviation.
> 
> I am no expert and can only go by what i have read, watched or heard.
> ...



Thanks for telling us where you got your information. Unfortunately TV and other media reports aren't always completely correct. (That's putting it kindly.) PBS may be a trifle better than the average TV channel but still.......

Wiki is also not great for information---- the big difference there is usually information at Wiki does have a list of citations (or a note "citation needed") A person then can follow the resource to see just how reliable it may be.

Needless to say MANY blogs or ads on the Internet have to be viewed with a jaundiced eye. LOL  Also information given on forums.


----------



## GB (Mar 13, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> IMHO, without the "high" effect, there may be no medicinal effect at all.
> It is my opinion that if the "high" is removed, so will be the analgesic effect.
> 
> I have nothing to back up this statement, but it seems common sense in this particular regard is warranted until scientific proof is made available to the public.
> .


Wouldn't common sense dictate that since the scientists that have been studying the plant have said over and over that they do not know exactly what makes it so effective as a medication that there would be no logical reason to just say it is the "high" (which is a completely un-quantifiable abstract thing anyway) is the only thing that is at work there? There are literally hundreds of compounds in marijuana that scientist have no idea how they work and what they do. Plus as you have already said, when talking about seizures, CBD, which does not get you high, is one of the compounds at work. Well all marijuana has CBD. How do you know the CBD is not doing other things other than controlling seizures?


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 13, 2014)

GB said:


> Wouldn't common sense dictate that since the scientists that have been studying the plant have said over and over that they do not know exactly what makes it so effective as a medication that there would be no logical reason to just say it is the "high" (which is a completely un-quantifiable abstract thing anyway) is the only thing that is at work there? There are literally hundreds of compounds in marijuana that scientist have no idea how they work and what they do. Plus as you have already said, when talking about seizures, CBD, which does not get you high, is one of the compounds at work. Well all marijuana has CBD. How do you know the CBD is not doing other things other than controlling seizures?



Once more. I am not an expert and have formed my opinions from many sources including, but not limited to TV.

But lets look at my perspective for a moment.  

Alcohol provides a high and has been used as a pain reliever for many years.
Opiates provide a high and are the "go to" medications for pain.
Marijuana provides a high and the pain relief and medical benefits are still being studied.  

Now, this may not be a scientific statement, but looking at the list above, it seems "high" and pain relief seem to follow one another.  To be the same thing.
Is it that hard to imagine the high from M is the reason for the therapeutic effect?
I am asking you, since you seem to well versed on the subject.
Enlighten me.


----------



## GB (Mar 13, 2014)

Who ever said it was high from any of those things you mentioned that does the work? As I said before, "high" is an un-quantifiable term. I know of people who use marijuana every day as medication. Their tolerance is quite high as they are daily users. if they smoke a hit of pot they do not get high, yet it still works for pain management. 

You made an assumption that because you get high from certain substances AND they provide pain relief that it must be the high that does it, but that is just not reality. If that were the case then you should be able to use anything that gets you high as pain medication yet you can't. You never hear of anyone taking LSD for a bad headache. Other things that get you high actually cause you pain.


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 13, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> ... I am no expert and can only go by what i have read, watched or heard.
> IMHO, without the "high" effect, there may be no medicinal effect at all.
> It is my opinion that if the "high" is removed, so will be the analgesic effect.  This would not be true if CDB for seizure is the subject. It seems CDB's have no "high" effect.
> I have nothing to back up this statement, but it seems common sense in this particular regard is warranted until scientific proof is made available to the public.
> ...



What you have is a hypothesis based on a sample size of one - yourself - and no facts or evidence to back it up. That's not common sense. As GB says, there are thousands of compounds in MM that can, and probably do, have analgesic effects.

I'm not sure that knocking yourself out with alcohol qualifies as pain management. More like pain perception management.


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 13, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> ...Now, this may not be a scientific statement, but looking at the list above, it seems "high" and pain relief seem to follow one another.  To be the same thing.



A basic principle of scientific investigation is that correlation does not equal causation. 

You see a correlation between two things, but now you need evidence to prove that one caused the other. 

Example: I woke up this morning. Did you? You did?! Wow! Did my waking cause yours, or did your waking cause mine? Or are they unrelated?


----------



## cave76 (Mar 13, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> What you have is a hypothesis based on a sample size of one - yourself -



That's called a 'testimonial' and is often used as proof. But it's not.

 A thousand testimonials by a thousand different people may be better but only slightly---- but only if the study-of-one can be replicated several times.


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 13, 2014)

cave76 said:


> That's called a 'testimonial' and is often used as proof. But it's not.



Yes, I know 



cave76 said:


> A thousand testimonials by a thousand different people may be better but only slightly---- but only if the study-of-one can be replicated several times.



Not sure what you mean by this. A thousand testimonials isn't a study.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 13, 2014)

Like I said friends, its an opinion garnered from personal learning experiences, and my personal use of M.  
Coincidentally all three drugs I mentioned above have the ability to get you high and all three have the ability to help with pain.
IMO, it would be a disservice to dismiss this hypothesis.

For the record, I support M in all forms and uses. My opinion is not intended to shed any negative light on M.

Oh, by the way. Has anyone watched any of the programs I posted links to?


----------



## GB (Mar 13, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> IMO, it would be a disservice to dismiss this hypothesis.
> .


Why? The hypothesis has already proven to be incorrect. As I stated, there are plenty of pot smokers who use every day for pain management and don't get high. That alone disproves the hypothesis. However there are tons of scientists whose job it has been to find the reason marijuana is so effective at pain management who are all in agreement that there are many many many things at play there and you will not find any of them saying it is from being "high".


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 13, 2014)

GB said:


> Why? The hypothesis has already proven to be incorrect. As I stated, there are plenty of pot smokers who use every day for pain management and don't get high. That alone disproves the hypothesis. However there are tons of scientists whose job it has been to find the reason marijuana is so effective at pain management who are all in agreement that there are many many many things at play there and you will not find any of them saying it is from being "high".



I also know people that smoke for various reasons with getting high as the number one reason.  I also know from personal experience that continued use of M does not make one less susceptible to getting high. 
To dismiss the possibility that the chemicals that cause the "high" is what is doing all these magical and wonderful things is just being silly.
Does it really matter, if it is working for the individual. Does it matter if the patient gets high?  Is there an issue with the term "high"?  

I am in agreement that many factors and chemicals play into MM ability to help with certain illness and pain.  But are we to dismiss THC? We both know what THC does.  The only thing we do not know is the extent of what it can do.  I must assume therein lies your point?

I know two MM users that still get high even though they have been smoking and ingesting edibles for years now. In fact, they would not waste their money, time and possibilty of going to jail, if MM did not provide them with something.  Getting high may not be the priority, but getting high is not optional.  People that smoke or ingest M get stoned.  It is as simple as that.

There is no proof that the THC is not responsible for pain relief.  So the hypothesis is still just that. A hypothesis.


----------



## GB (Mar 13, 2014)

You have completely misunderstood just about everything I have said.



Roll_Bones said:


> I also know people that smoke for various reasons with getting high as the number one reason.


No one ever said anything to the contrary. 


			
				Roll_Bones said:
			
		

> I also know from personal experience that continued use of M does not make one less susceptible to getting high.


So because you have not seen a change in your tolerance that means no one has? I know plenty of people who have personal experience that says they HAVE gained a tolerance. And I know plenty of people who use regularly and if they take one hit to cure a headache they are not necessarily getting high from it. Because you might get high from one hit are you saying everyone else must get high from one hit too?



			
				Roll_Bones said:
			
		

> To dismiss the possibility that the chemicals that cause the "high" is what is doing all these magical and wonderful things is just being silly.


i could not agree more. I never did that. To the contrary, I said that there are hundreds of compounds in pot and no one, even the hundreds of scientists who have studied it, know exactly why it help with pain. You have said that it is because it gets you high and that if it didn't get you high then it wouldn't help your pain. Who is dismissing what?



			
				Roll_Bones said:
			
		

> Does it really matter, if it is working for the individual. Does it matter if the patient gets high?


Who ever said there was an issue with getting high? I am all for people being able to get high if they want, but that is a completely different discussion. Again, you had said it was the high that was responsible for the pain relief and without being high you would not gain the pain relieving effects.


			
				Roll_Bones said:
			
		

> Is there an issue with the term "high"?


In the context of proving what does and does not cause the pain relieving properties, yes, I do have an issue with the term. How can you quantify or even define what "high" is. I have seen two people share a join and one say he was baked out of his mind and the other person say they were not even close to that. In a scientific setting you need to be able to measure and quantify. Did both people feel the same effect? Who knows? Maybe they did, but what high meant to one was not what high meant to the other.



			
				Roll_Bones said:
			
		

> I am in agreement that many factors and chemicals play into MM ability to help with certain illness and pain.  But are we to dismiss THC?


Who ever dismissed THC? Not me. You seem to think that THC has one sole function. That it gets you high. Yes THC is at least partially responsible for getting you high. The point I was making is that you have no idea what else that THC is doing not only by itself, but also in conjunction with the hundreds of other active compounds in pot.


			
				Roll_Bones said:
			
		

> We both know what THC does.  The only thing we do not know is the extent of what it can do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## cave76 (Mar 13, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> Not sure what you mean by this. A thousand testimonials isn't a study.



Yes, I know.

Using one testimonial or a thousand testimonials is still the same as that song "_Nothing Times Nothing is Nothing_"


----------



## taxlady (Mar 13, 2014)

I'm reminded of something I read once, "The plural of anecdote is not data."


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Mar 13, 2014)

But anecdotal stories can cause research....


----------



## taxlady (Mar 13, 2014)

PrincessFiona60 said:


> But anecdotal stories can cause research....


Yes, that's what it's good for.


----------



## cave76 (Mar 13, 2014)

PrincessFiona60 said:


> But anecdotal stories can cause research....



"But anecdotal stories can cause research...."

Yes, they do indeed. And the fertile mind of a scientist if s/he is free to practice *pure* science. 

Not many scientists can because of the money needed to 'research'. Money is a strange thing and colors a lot of research---- both for the good and the bad.

Wish I had some--- money that is.


----------



## CarolPa (Mar 14, 2014)

I don't know anything about marijuana, medical or otherwise, so this discussion is going way over my head.  But I have taken opiates for pain.  When I take them in the dose prescribed by my physician, my pain is relieved, but I do not get high, even though I know taken in higher doses it can make you high.  So is it possible that marijuana in lesser quantities could alleviate pain without the person getting high?


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 14, 2014)

GB said:


> You have completely misunderstood just about everything I have said.
> 
> No one ever said anything to the contrary.
> So because you have not seen a change in your tolerance that means no one has? I know plenty of people who have personal experience that says they HAVE gained a tolerance. And I know plenty of people who use regularly and if they take one hit to cure a headache they are not necessarily getting high from it. Because you might get high from one hit are you saying everyone else must get high from one hit too?
> ...



This almost feels like a competition.  And the last thing I want to do is compete with you.


----------



## GB (Mar 14, 2014)

I am not trying to compete with you, but you said something that was way off base and it is things like this that have kept marijuana illegal both for medicinal use as well as recreational use for so long. It is misinformation that other people read and take to heart and they use that to form their own opinion which is then an opinion based on something that is completely wrong. I am not saying you are not entitled to your own opinions. You absolutely are. Some things just not not open to opinion though. Saying it is the high that is the only reason pot works as medicine is a dangerous thing to proclaim. The medical community has already said many times that they do not have enough information yet to know what it is about the plant that does it and uninformed people will read your message and be scared of something that can help people because you have attached a stigmatizing word to it such a "high". Let me give you an example. My grandmother grew up in a different generation (obviously) and back in her time the only people who got high were musicians and lowlifes (not really but that was the perception anyway). To her getting high is about as evil as it gets. Now thankfully she is in very good health, but lets say she got cancer and could not keep food down. She is a stubborn woman and hearing people say it is the high that is what will help her from MM, she would absolutely NOT use it, even if recommended by a doctor. She would end up suffering needlessly because of misinformation. Just something to think about. Words carry weight.


----------



## Oldvine (Mar 14, 2014)

I'm OK with any product that is safe and relieves pain or misery.  I'm not OK with the recreational use of the same product which screws it up for those that might be helped using that product.    That being said, I don't care if the recreational users use whatever they think they need to live their delightful lives as long as they pay their own way, do it legally and their use do not impact me in any way.  In other words they need to stay off the highways while buzzed, don't steal my stuff to pay for their stuff,  don't run up a bunch of state funded medical bills and don't use food stamps paid for with my tax dollars.  It bothers me to the max to see programs for the disabled and/or children being abused by able bodied drug uses.  There are more people with fake back pain using pot that there a people with real back pain working while dealing with their back pain.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 14, 2014)

GB said:


> I am not trying to compete with you, but you said something that was way off base and it is things like this that have kept marijuana illegal both for medicinal use as well as recreational use for so long. It is misinformation that other people read and take to heart and they use that to form their own opinion which is then an opinion based on something that is completely wrong. I am not saying you are not entitled to your own opinions. You absolutely are. Some things just not not open to opinion though. Saying it is the high that is the only reason pot works as medicine is a dangerous thing to proclaim. The medical community has already said many times that they do not have enough information yet to know what it is about the plant that does it and uninformed people will read your message and be scared of something that can help people because you have attached a stigmatizing word to it such a "high". Let me give you an example. My grandmother grew up in a different generation (obviously) and back in her time the only people who got high were musicians and lowlifes (not really but that was the perception anyway). To her getting high is about as evil as it gets. Now thankfully she is in very good health, but lets say she got cancer and could not keep food down. She is a stubborn woman and hearing people say it is the high that is what will help her from MM, she would absolutely NOT use it, even if recommended by a doctor. She would end up suffering needlessly because of misinformation. Just something to think about. Words carry weight.




I said I believe the "high" is the pain reliever.  My opinion is that if the M could not produce an intoxicating effect, it may not have a therapeutic effect.  Regardless if some folks are immune to its intoxicating effects.  I personally know of no one that is immune.  And I have been exposed for more than 47 years.
I asked if the word "high" was the sticking point and you told me no.  Then you turn right around and say these words are fostering negative thinking about M.  

I would like to think my opinion and my comments were in support of MM and M as a whole.
I also stand by everything I said, regardless of right or wrong, because these statements are my opinions.
I am also open to any and all information to correct any wrong thinking.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 14, 2014)

Oldvine said:


> I'm OK with any product that is safe and relieves pain or misery.  I'm not OK with the recreational use of the same product which screws it up for those that might be helped using that product.    That being said, I don't care if the recreational users use whatever they think they need to live their delightful lives as long as they pay their own way, do it legally and their use do not impact me in any way.  In other words they need to stay off the highways while buzzed, don't steal my stuff to pay for their stuff,  don't run up a bunch of state funded medical bills and don't use food stamps paid for with my tax dollars.  It bothers me to the max to see programs for the disabled and/or children being abused by able bodied drug uses.  There are more people with fake back pain using pot that there a people with real back pain working while dealing with their back pain.




Okay


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 14, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> I am also open to any and all information to correct any wrong thinking.



You seem to have ignored the information I provided about correlation and causation.


----------



## GB (Mar 14, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> I said I believe the "high" is the pain reliever.  My opinion is that if the M could not produce an intoxicating effect, it may not have a therapeutic effect.  Regardless if some folks are immune to its intoxicating effects.  I personally know of no one that is immune.  And I have been exposed for more than 47 years.


You are the one using the word immune. I never said that word or ever talked about immunity. I said tolerance. Again, there is a very BIG difference. 

I know people who have a tolerance. I know they get medicinal benefits without getting high. How can you defend your point that it is the high that gives it medicinal qualities if that is the case? 

You said "My opinion is that if the M could not produce an intoxicating effect, it may not have a therapeutic effect.  Regardless if some folks are immune to its intoxicating effects.". Isn't that contradictory? If someone is immune to its affects how can they be affected by it???



			
				Roll_Bones said:
			
		

> I asked if the word "high" was the sticking point and you told me no.  Then you turn right around and say these words are fostering negative thinking about M.


I suggest you go back and read what I said because you are completely 100% wrong. I very clearly said, and I quote, *yes, I do have an issue with the term*




			
				Roll_Bones said:
			
		

> I also stand by everything I said, regardless of right or wrong


 Why would you said by something if it is wrong?



			
				Roll_Bones said:
			
		

> I am also open to any and all information to correct any wrong thinking.


Then look at all the scientific data and listen to the experts who have repeatedly said over and over and over that they have no definitive answer on what does or does not cause the medicinal properties of the plant.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 14, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> You seem to have ignored the information I provided about correlation and causation.



Yes, That would be correct.

But I did go back and read your post again.  I am not sure I "get it".  Maybe you can explain?


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 14, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> Yes, That would be correct.
> 
> But I did go back and read your post again.  I am not sure I "get it".  Maybe you can explain?



This is the post I'm referring to:



GotGarlic said:


> A basic principle of scientific investigation is that correlation does not equal causation.
> 
> You see a correlation between two things, but now you need evidence to prove that one caused the other.
> 
> Example: I woke up this morning. Did you? You did?! Wow! Did my waking cause yours, or did your waking cause mine? Or are they unrelated?



This explains it better than I can. See #2: http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html#false_cause_anchor


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 15, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> This is the post I'm referring to:
> This explains it better than I can. See #2: Logical Fallacies Handlist



Thanks for the link, but I still do not understand what it has to do with anything in this thread.
Maybe you could elaborate?


----------



## taxlady (Mar 15, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> Thanks for the link, but I still do not understand what it has to do with anything in this thread.
> Maybe you could elaborate?


Just because one thing happens and then something else happens, doesn't mean that there is any correlation between the two things.

Here's another example. There was an asbestos mining town. Many of the people who had really big TV antennas got cancer. People started to worry that the TV antennas were causing cancer. Someone looked at the statistics. Turns out that really big TV antennas are expensive. The majority of the people who had them were miners who had been putting in a lot of overtime hours. So, did the TV antennas cause cancer or was it all those extra hours inhaling asbestos particles, a known cancer cause? Or even something completely different?


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 15, 2014)

taxlady said:


> Just because one thing happens and then something else happens, doesn't mean that there is any correlation between the two things.
> 
> Here's another example. There was an asbestos mining town. Many of the people who had really big TV antennas got cancer. People started to worry that the TV antennas were causing cancer. Someone looked at the statistics. Turns out that really big TV antennas are expensive. The majority of the people who had them were miners who had been putting in a lot of overtime hours. So, did the TV antennas cause cancer or was it all those extra hours inhaling asbestos particles, a known cancer cause? Or even something completely different?



How about an example with subject matter from this discussion.  Then maybe I can see what you are trying to convey.


----------



## GB (Mar 15, 2014)

You were the one who already supplied that example Roll_Bones. You gave the correlation that pot, alcohol, opiate, get you high and they they are all used for pain relief therefore it must be the high that is causing the pain relief.


----------



## taxlady (Mar 15, 2014)

Well, I remember people used to say that smoking pot led to heroin use, since a majority of heroin users had smoked pot before using heroin. The standard reply to that was then drinking mother's milk or going to school must be what leads to heroin use.


----------



## CarolPa (Mar 15, 2014)

That one went way over my head, Taxlady.


----------



## GB (Mar 15, 2014)

CarolPa said:


> That one went way over my head, Taxlady.


The point being that correlation does not equal proof. Yes many people who used heroine also used pot, but that does not mean that it was the pot that caused them to use heroine. Heroine users also probably drank their mothers milk, or went to school, but no one would ever say that going to school causes heroine use.

Same with RB's statement that pot gets you high as do opiates and alcohol and since those things ease pain then it must be the the high that is doing it. Correlation does not equal causation.


----------



## taxlady (Mar 15, 2014)

CarolPa said:


> That one went way over my head, Taxlady.


Well, most of the people who use heroin, not only smoked pot before they used heroin, they drank mother's milk when they were babies and they went to school as children. So, it would make just as much sense to say that mother's milk or going to school leads to heroin as saying that pot leads to heroin use. Those things happened and then later, the person used heroin.


----------



## GotGarlic (Mar 15, 2014)

Thanks, TL and GB, for explaining this further. Does it make sense now, RB?


----------



## Roll_Bones (Mar 16, 2014)

GB said:


> You were the one who already supplied that example Roll_Bones. You gave the correlation that pot, alcohol, opiate, get you high and they they are all used for pain relief therefore it must be the high that is causing the pain relief.



I see the obvious now. 



taxlady said:


> Well, I remember people used to say that smoking pot led to heroin use, since a majority of heroin users had smoked pot before using heroin. The standard reply to that was then drinking mother's milk or going to school must be what leads to heroin use.



I will remember this for the next time I hear someone say M leads to hard drugs.



GotGarlic said:


> Thanks, TL and GB, for explaining this further. Does it make sense now, RB?



Thanks to you to GG and the rest.
It seems we have similar feelings, but I sometimes have a hard time putting my thinking  into text.


----------



## CarolPa (Mar 16, 2014)

Goodnight, thread.  Go to sleep.  ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


----------



## cave76 (Jul 10, 2014)

"Berkeley City Council members voted unanimously late on Tuesday to instruct local outlets to provide marijuana equal to 2 percent of their sales to patients on low incomes."

Berkeley, California orders free pot for poor patients | Reuters


----------



## Andy M. (Jul 10, 2014)

cave76 said:


> "Berkeley City Council members voted unanimously late on Tuesday to instruct local outlets to provide marijuana equal to 2 percent of their sales to patients on low incomes."
> 
> Berkeley, California orders free pot for poor patients | Reuters




This is absurd.  Since when does any government dictate an individual's charity?


----------



## TATTRAT (Jul 10, 2014)

Andy M. said:


> This is absurd.  Since when does any government dictate an individual's charity?



Ditto. This is just dumb.


----------



## Andy M. (Jul 10, 2014)

Not to mention, how does a store owner know an individual is low income.  Is it tatooed on their foreheads?  Do they provide tax returns?


----------



## Roll_Bones (Jul 10, 2014)

Andy M. said:


> Not to mention, how does a store owner know an individual is low income.  Is it tatooed on their foreheads?  Do they provide tax returns?



Good question.  From the article.

"The rule defines low income as medical marijuana  patients who make at most half the area's median annual income, or  $32,000 or less for an individual or $46,000 for a family of four".

$32,000 in SC a year for one person would disqualify them from any free service including Medicaid.
Must be a very high income society they got there.


----------



## Andy M. (Jul 10, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> Good question.  From the article.
> 
> "The rule defines low income as medical marijuana  patients who make at most half the area's median annual income, or  $32,000 or less for an individual or $46,000 for a family of four".
> 
> ...




Yes, I read that definition.  How does a potential low income person walk into a store and prove to the store clerk that he qualifies according to that definition?


----------



## TATTRAT (Jul 10, 2014)

I am all for MM, hell, even recreational cannabis, and I LOVE California, but man, do they come up with some crazy laws out there. 

I am with you, Andy. I mean, are they going to have to go in with w2's or something?


----------



## cave76 (Jul 10, 2014)

" "the free medical marijuana will be given to only those people "who have been prescribed it by competent medical authorities and hospitals and not to everyone who come asking for it."

Free weed in Berkeley, Calif., for low-income, homeless patients : LIFE : Tech Times

I neither approve nor disapprove of this.

Joe Friday
"Just the facts, ma'am"

Tim Allen
"I have no opinion"


----------



## LPBeier (Jul 10, 2014)

A few people, including the ER doctor last night, have suggested this may help me. I will have to talk to my family doctor, but I am not sure if it is a route I want to go. However, if my chronic pain is going to keep flaring like this, I may try anything!

Washington State just legalized recreational pot.  The funny thing is that 45% of the first customers were Canadian....and they can't take it back across the border, or be under the influence when they cross.  If they tell either border that this is the purpose of your trip you will not be allowed into the States EVER again.


----------



## GotGarlic (Jul 10, 2014)

Andy M. said:


> Not to mention, how does a store owner know an individual is low income.  Is it tatooed on their foreheads?  Do they provide tax returns?



It's not about individual charity; it's about making a medication available to low-income people. And many, if not most, low-income people are eligible for food stamps and/or Medicaid. I would think that an ID card associated with such a program would suffice as proof of low-income status.


----------



## Andy M. (Jul 10, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> It's not about individual charity; it's about *making a medication available* to low-income people. And many, if not most, low-income people are eligible for food stamps and/or Medicaid. I would think that an ID card associated with such a program would suffice as proof of low-income status.



Does "making a medication available" mean giving it away for free?  That's what the report stated.  Is CVS required to give away Rx meds?  Are supermarkets required to give away food?


----------



## GotGarlic (Jul 10, 2014)

Andy M. said:


> Does "making a medication available" mean giving it away for free?  That's what the report stated.  Is CVS required to give away Rx meds?  Are supermarkets required to give away food?



This is a news report. No telling what they might have left out.


----------



## cave76 (Jul 10, 2014)

Andy M. said:


> Does "making a medication available" mean giving it away for free?  That's what the report stated.  Is CVS required to give away Rx meds?  Are supermarkets required to give away food?



GG said, before I got around to it: It's a media report. Nuff said.

But also* read Post # 240*  in this thread.

I doubt any pharmacy will give away rx meds (although some have in the past but they probably shouldn't.)

There are ways to get free rx meds *IF you are low income. *
Needymeds.org

Supermarkets aren't REQUIRED to give away food but many of the larger ones do give about-to-expire shelf life foods to groups that then distribute them to worth agencies who will then pass the food on to LOW INCOME people.


----------



## Andy M. (Jul 10, 2014)

Proof of low income issues aside for the moment.

I have never heard of any government requiring taxpayers (local businesses) to give their product away for free.  I'd bet this would not stand up in court.  This is really outrageous.  

If the City Council wants to provide pot for the poor, maybe they should give out food stamps.


----------



## cave76 (Jul 10, 2014)

Andy M. said:


> Proof of low income issues aside for the moment.
> 
> I have never heard of any government requiring taxpayers (local businesses) to give their product away for free.  I'd bet this would not stand up in court.  This is really outrageous.
> 
> *If the City Council wants to provide pot for the poor, maybe they should give out food stamps*.



Would those cover brownies?


----------



## Mad Cook (Jul 10, 2014)

A police officer of my (social!) acquaintance  told me UNOFFICIALLY that in many cases if someone is caught with a very small amount and has certain documented health conditions (MS was one, IIRC) and clearly had no intention to supply, a blind eye would probably be turned.

As I said this is off the record and unofficial so don't go flashing your pot around the next time you're on the Kings Road in London! Marijuana is not legal in the UK. 

Don't quote me!


----------



## Andy M. (Jul 10, 2014)

Mad Cook said:


> A police officer of my (social!) acquaintance  *told me UNOFFICIALLY* that in many cases if someone is caught with a very small amount and has certain documented health conditions (MS was one, IIRC) and clearly had no intention to supply, *a blind eye would probably be turned.*
> 
> As I said this is *off the record* and *unofficial* so *don't go flashing your pot around *the next time you're on the Kings Road in London! _*Marijuana is not legal in the UK. *_
> 
> _*Don't quote me!*_



MC, I think we all understand your position.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Jul 11, 2014)

Andy M. said:


> Yes, I read that definition.  How does a potential low income person walk into a store and prove to the store clerk that he qualifies according to that definition?



I'm certain some type of ID will be provided to these people.



TATTRAT said:


> I am all for MM, hell, even recreational cannabis, and I LOVE California, but man, do they come up with some crazy laws out there.
> I am with you, Andy. I mean, are they going to have to go in with w2's or something?



How about a card like they use for food stamps.  They don't give out food stamps anymore.  Its like a debit card.
For the record I too am for medical and or legal marijuana.
It time this country joined the rest of civilization.



LPBeier said:


> A few people, including the ER doctor last night, have suggested this may help me. I will have to talk to my family doctor, but I am not sure if it is a route I want to go. However, if my chronic pain is going to keep flaring like this, I may try anything!
> 
> Washington State just legalized recreational pot.  The funny thing is that 45% of the first customers were Canadian....and they can't take it back across the border, or be under the influence when they cross.  If they tell either border that this is the purpose of your trip you will not be allowed into the States EVER again.



Your ER doctor seems like a compassionate, understanding, decent person and his suggestion would be welcomed in my case.

How would border agents know if you took your medicine in the US before driving back to Canada...lol



GotGarlic said:


> It's not about individual charity; it's about making a medication available to low-income people. And many, if not most, low-income people are eligible for food stamps and/or Medicaid. I would think that an ID card associated with such a program would suffice as proof of low-income status.



Exactly.  There will have to be a way to verify each customer/patient.
Just like the food program, an ID card would be all they need.
It would also keep folks from trying to get more than is allowed.



Andy M. said:


> Does "making a medication available" mean giving it away for free?  That's what the report stated.  Is CVS required to give away Rx meds?  Are supermarkets required to give away food?



No, but the government provides a vehicle to obtain these products free of charge. Ever been in line at a grocery store?



Andy M. said:


> Proof of low income issues aside for the moment.
> I have never heard of any government requiring taxpayers (local businesses) to give their product away for free.  I'd bet this would not stand up in court.  This is really outrageous.
> If the City Council wants to provide pot for the poor, maybe they should give out food stamps.



I am not sure about food stamps and free medicines and how the companies are compensated.
I think the pharmaceutical companies give it away for marketing purposes.  But I am not sure how a food stamp card enables the merchant to recover the funds?  I think the government, IE taxpayers actually pick up this bill.


----------



## Andy M. (Jul 11, 2014)

A debit card type of card is issued with funds to use for approved grocery items.  Yes, the govt. is paying.  It's not a "charitable" contribution from the store dictated by the govt.


----------



## cave76 (Jul 11, 2014)

To continue this off topic segue from medical marijuana (which I don't mind at all, the segue that is) : 

"Food Inventory Donations The food inventory enhanced tax credit allowed individuals, businesses, and corporations to donate wholesome food to nonprofits and deduct their cost basis plus one-half the difference between their cost and the market value of the donated goods. *The value of the credit could not exceed twice the cost basis of the product donated. 
*
As part of the fiscal cliff deal that passed earlier this year, Congress extended the food donation tax deduction for 2012 and 2013. The food inventory credit is expected to be taken up in tax reform."

Incentives for Giving | National Council of Nonprofits


----------



## Mad Cook (Jul 11, 2014)

Andy M. said:


> MC, I think we all understand your position.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Jul 13, 2014)

I heard Washington DC was voting this fall for legal marijuana or was it medical?

Florida will vote for medical marijuana in November.

Our state SC legalized cannabis oil prescribed by a doctor, but they have no idea how to implement it.  So, its still not available to those children suffering from debilitating seizures.

Good luck to both states in their quest.


----------



## Dawgluver (Jul 13, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> I heard Washington DC was voting this fall for legal marijuana or was it medical?
> 
> Florida will vote for medical marijuana in November.
> 
> ...




Our state recently legalized cannabis oil, but ONLY for children suffering from seizures.  One poor guy was growing his own and extracting the oil as it was the only thing that helped his cancer.  He and his family refused to plead guilty after being caught, went to court, and he was found guilty.  He gets to go to prison, and will probably die there.  The family assets will also be confiscated.


----------



## taxlady (Jul 13, 2014)

Dawgluver said:


> Our state recently legalized cannabis oil, but ONLY for children suffering from seizures.  One poor guy was growing his own and extracting the oil as it was the only thing that helped his cancer.  He and his family refused to plead guilty after being caught, went to court, and he was found guilty.  He gets to go to prison, and will probably die there.  The family assets will also be confiscated.


That's awful, about the guy prosecuted for growing his own medicine.


----------



## TATTRAT (Jul 13, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> I heard Washington DC was voting this fall for legal marijuana or was it medical?
> 
> Florida will vote for medical marijuana in November.
> 
> ...



We have medical, and one dispensary, but, only 4 licences have been issued.

They are wrapping up on making possession nothing more than a $25 dollar fine.


----------



## TATTRAT (Jul 13, 2014)

Here is a pretty good read:

Police Unions And Pharmaceutical Companies Fund Anti-Marijuana Fight - Business Insider

They are scared of a plant that anyone can potentially grow, and help alleviate many of the ailments they bank on with addictive, deadly, rx drugs.


----------



## cave76 (Jul 13, 2014)

Dawgluver said:


> Our state recently legalized cannabis oil, but ONLY for children suffering from seizures.  One poor guy was growing his own and extracting the oil as it was the only thing that helped his cancer.  He and his family refused to plead guilty after being caught, went to court, and he was found guilty.  He gets to go to prison, and will probably die there.  The family assets will also be confiscated.



Sigh.


----------



## taxlady (Jul 13, 2014)

TATTRAT said:


> Here is a pretty good read:
> 
> Police Unions And Pharmaceutical Companies Fund Anti-Marijuana Fight - Business Insider
> 
> They are scared of a plant that anyone can potentially grow, and help alleviate many of the ailments they bank on with addictive, deadly, rx drugs.


Why am I not surprised? There is far too much greed in today's world.


----------



## TATTRAT (Jul 14, 2014)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/14/u...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

more on the subject, as far as D.C .is concerned.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Jul 14, 2014)

Dawgluver said:


> Our state recently legalized cannabis oil, but ONLY for children suffering from seizures.  One poor guy was growing his own and extracting the oil as it was the only thing that helped his cancer.  He and his family refused to plead guilty after being caught, went to court, and he was found guilty.  He gets to go to prison, and will probably die there.  The family assets will also be confiscated.



And here lies the issue.  Why would a country such as the good ole USA do this to their citizens?
Shows where our priorities are. 
I hope that man is able to avoid prison.  He may have been breaking the law, but so are jay walkers.



TATTRAT said:


> We have medical, and one dispensary, but, only 4 licences have been issued.
> They are wrapping up on making possession nothing more than a $25 dollar fine.



I wish you guys the best outcome on this matter. A 25 dollar fine is a whole lot better than going to jail.



TATTRAT said:


> Here is a pretty good read:
> Police Unions And Pharmaceutical Companies Fund Anti-Marijuana Fight - Business Insider
> They are scared of a plant that anyone can potentially grow, and help alleviate many of the ailments they bank on with addictive, deadly, rx drugs.



Bingo!  Legalizing or even decriminalizing will put many police, prison workers, and treatment center employees out of work.
Personally I would be perfectly happy to see most of them on the unemployment line.




TATTRAT said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/14/u...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1
> 
> more on the subject, as far as D.C .is concerned.



Thanks.


----------



## TATTRAT (Jul 14, 2014)

Pretty interesting.

British Scientists Prove Cannabis Prevents Cancer Tumours » The High Community



> A research team from the University Of East Anglia (UEA) has undertaken ground-breaking research into the beneficial properties of THC and found incredible results. The area of research has otherwise been ‘poorly understood’ due to being a controlled substance in this country and many parts of the world.
> 
> Previous studies such as researchers at Complutense University in Spain in 2009 found that THC induced the death of brain cancer cells in a process known as "autophagy."
> Previous studies such as researchers at Complutense University in Spain in 2009 found that THC induced the death of brain cancer cells in a process known as “autophagy.”
> ...



I also find it very interesting that the human body is hardwired with cannabinoid receptors, and we generate our own natural canabanoids.


----------



## cave76 (Jul 14, 2014)

TATTRAT said:


> Pretty interesting.
> 
> British Scientists Prove Cannabis Prevents Cancer Tumours » The High Community
> 
> ...



One anonymous poster at the end of that article asked:
"Why do we need a safe synthetic alternative?"

The reasons might be:
First--- it will make some company rich.
Second---growing your own, then using it doesn't guarantee the same dose each time of the right chemical. Unless it's bought at a licensed medical cannabis outlet (if there even IS one in your city) where the 'right' chemical is supposed to be in that batch they  may not be that tightly controlled. (I don't know if that's true, though, just typing out loud.)

Buying it off the street would certainly be my last choice!


----------



## GotGarlic (Jul 14, 2014)

cave76 said:


> One anonymous poster at the end of that article asked:
> "Why do we need a safe synthetic alternative?"
> 
> The reasons might be:
> ...



I would add that 
1) a synthetic alternative is designed to provide a predictable dose of the needed chemical based on the specific characteristics of the patient, such as age and weight  and 
2) drugs bought from random sources may be adulterated with unknown chemicals that could cause serious health problems.


----------



## TATTRAT (Jul 14, 2014)

cave76 said:


> One anonymous poster at the end of that article asked:
> "Why do we need a safe synthetic alternative?"
> 
> The reasons might be:
> ...



First: I agree, and that is clearly reflected in one of my posts, a couple back

Second: It would be strain dependant. If the strain is right for you, then the consistency would be the same if you grew your own. Basil is Basil. oregano is Oregano, within those there are certain varietals, but the crop will still the same. That's the beauty of botany, selective breeding and cloning.

I also agree, buying off the street would be my last choice, I would MUCH prefer to go to where I know what I am getting, know what the effects are, and get rid of any guess work.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Jul 15, 2014)

cave76 said:


> One anonymous poster at the end of that article asked:
> "Why do we need a safe synthetic alternative?"
> 
> The reasons might be:
> ...





GotGarlic said:


> I would add that
> 1) a synthetic alternative is designed to provide a predictable dose of the needed chemical based on the specific characteristics of the patient, such as age and weight  and
> 2) drugs bought from random sources may be adulterated with unknown chemicals that could cause serious health problems.





TATTRAT said:


> First: I agree, and that is clearly reflected in one of my posts, a couple back
> 
> Second: It would be strain dependant. If the strain is right for you, then the consistency would be the same if you grew your own. Basil is Basil. oregano is Oregano, within those there are certain varietals, but the crop will still the same. That's the beauty of botany, selective breeding and cloning.
> 
> I also agree, buying off the street would be my last choice, I would MUCH prefer to go to where I know what I am getting, know what the effects are, and get rid of any guess work.



My biggest issue with medical or legal marijuana is the ability for the government getting involved.
Marijuana without government intervention has already proved to be very safe and other than the negative effects of smoke is a relatively harmless substance.
Personally I have not heard of, or known of anyone having a negative medical experience with weed.  Be it purchased from a dispensary or the guy on the corner with a beer in a paper bag.

I do look to see the criminal element removed, but sometimes we get what we ask for.
Should marijuana become a cash cow for government, we very well may see the product suffer.

I prefer decriminalization.  Allow the people to handle their own procuring, preparing and using of marijuana.

Just say no to big pharma!


----------



## TATTRAT (Jul 16, 2014)

A pretty good read here regarding the "whole plant" v pharma synthasized compounds.


----------



## taxlady (Jul 16, 2014)

TATTRAT said:


> A pretty good read here regarding the "whole plant" v pharma synthasized compounds.


Thanks for the link. I didn't realize one could tailor the reaction by choosing the cannabis strain.


----------



## TATTRAT (Jul 16, 2014)

taxlady said:


> Thanks for the link. I didn't realize one could tailor the reaction by choosing the cannabis strain.



Yeah, big time.


----------



## GotGarlic (Jul 16, 2014)

TATTRAT said:


> A pretty good read here regarding the "whole plant" v pharma synthasized compounds.



This isn't exactly an unbiased source of information. They're running a contest to win a year's worth of medical marijuana


----------



## Roll_Bones (Jul 17, 2014)

taxlady said:


> Thanks for the link. I didn't realize one could tailor the reaction by choosing the cannabis strain.



Medical marijuana dispensaries are able to provide specific strains for specific illness/need.  This is well documented and patients know exactly the type of strain required for their needs.

I wonder if the doctor that prescribes medical marijuana has the expertise or even does recommend a certain strain for the individual patient?


----------



## TATTRAT (Jul 17, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> I wonder if the doctor that prescribes medical marijuana has the expertise or even does recommend a certain strain for the individual patient?



Not so much the doctors, but surprisingly the budtenders at dispensaries are VERY knowledgeable. Also, sites like Leafly allow people to explore the strains based on user submitted criteria.


----------



## Addie (Jul 17, 2014)

My kids have been on my case to smoke marijuana for the pain in my hips and spine. So far I have resisted. Mostly because I don't like the smell. But after seeing how it has helped my daughter with her chemo treatments, I am seeing the direct benefits. Even though she had been given anti-nausea medication, she reached a point where she was on the strongest dose that was safe. So she turned to the marijuana. That worked for her. She was on chemo for more than two years. 

Our state has limited legalization of the marijuana for personal use. You only get a citation with a fine attached if you have so many grams on you. (I think!) But it is still illegal to sell it to others. They have also legalized it for medical reasons. Only so many licenses are being given out. Where they are to be located is still up in the air. I think I will wait until then before I even consider it. 

First off I wouldn't have the slightest idea of where to get some on the street. And I know I wouldn't feel comfortable asking my kids to get some for me.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Jul 17, 2014)

A friend and I were trying to find a marijuana connection on campus, to buy for another friend who was going through chemo.  LOL!  No one would sell to two middle-aged, gray-haired grannies


----------



## taxlady (Jul 17, 2014)

PrincessFiona60 said:


> A friend and I were trying to find a marijuana connection on campus, to buy for another friend who was going through chemo.  LOL!  No one would sell to two middle-aged, gray-haired grannies


Well, that's just plain silly. I can't imagine they thought you were narcs.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Jul 17, 2014)

taxlady said:


> Well, that's just plain silly. I can't imagine they thought you were narcs.



I'm thinking we didn't know the right questions to ask.


----------



## taxlady (Jul 18, 2014)

Here's an article about an odd quirk of the law that allows medical marijuana in Canada:

Health Canada Rules Require Liam McKnight, Child With Epilepsy, To Smoke Marijuana

"Under Health Canada’s Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations, by-products of the drug – such as oils and baked goods – are prohibited."


----------



## Addie (Jul 18, 2014)

PrincessFiona60 said:


> I'm thinking we didn't know the right questions to ask.



The Pirate told me you just "know" and "what" to ask to ask to make a score. His words, not mine. You need to know a young person to get them for you. He is a recovering heroin addict. Been straight for five years now. But the fear never leaves you. I asked him once, if I do feel the need to take marijuana could he get it for me. He told me he has lost touch with all his 'friends' and it would take him a day or two to find it. Whereas five years ago, he could have found some in less than an hour. That was good news to hear. I guess I would have to turn to my daughter or her husband since they were buying it for her chemo. Hopefully, by that time, the dispensaries will be open.


----------



## PrincessFiona60 (Jul 18, 2014)

Addie said:


> The Pirate told me you just "know" and "what" to ask to ask to make a score. His words, not mine. You need to know a young person to get them for you. He is a recovering heroin addict. Been straight for five years now. But the fear never leaves you. I asked him once, if I do feel the need to take marijuana could he get it for me. He told me he has lost touch with all his 'friends' and it would take him a day or two to find it. Whereas five years ago, he could have found some in less than an hour. That was good news to hear. I guess I would have to turn to my daughter or her husband since they were buying it for her chemo. Hopefully, by that time, the dispensaries will be open.



This was over 15 years ago, a slightly different period in time.  I am sure now I would have no problems.


----------



## Addie (Jul 18, 2014)

PrincessFiona60 said:


> This was over 15 years ago, a slightly different period in time.  I am sure now I would have no problems.



I brought it up again to The Pirate. "You want some Mom? I will go get you some right now."

"No, no. I was  just curious. "

"You can get it anywhere today. It is all over the place. I don't know anyone who doesn't have some except you and me." 

"No thank you, I will pass. Just curious." 

I had to remind him that if it or any illegal drug was found in my apartment, it would mean immediate eviction.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Jul 19, 2014)

I would hope these efforts would help to remove this negative feeling that you are doing something wrong when you look for, buy and partake in marijuana use.
I hope minds and hearts are changing.
Lets let common sense rule the day in this regard.

One thing to keep in mind for those who know nothing about marijuana and have no idea as to where and from whom to buy it.  Use extreme caution.
Marijuana like all black market items can range from excellent quality to bad quality or completely fake.  And those who know nothing about marijuana are susceptible to being cheated.

Never look for marijuana in a public place.  Never discuss it with strangers and never allow it to be seen on your person or in your house or car.
The authorities need probable cause to search you or your residence.  Your car too.
Giving them this probable cause is easy enough, so be very careful.

Interested parties should follow Addies idea of talking about these things with someone you trust.  Even your doctor.
If you want or need marijuana, use a friend or close acquaintance to obtain the medication.
Look on the internet and see what quality high grade marijuana looks like.  Ask a trusted friend or relative to assist you if you are not sure.

Until we make this legal in every state and there are no longer laws regarding the use and possession of marijuana, we must all be very careful.
There are many people in jails and prisons today for simply possessing this drug.
Hopefully the day comes we will no longer need to be concerned.
Until then my friends, be very careful.

Our voices and our ability to vote are our weapons in this silly war on drugs.
Do something this fall if you can. Start at the polls.


----------



## Addie (Jul 19, 2014)

I can talk to my kids on just about any subject except with The Pirate and my death. Even sex! 

I grew up in an era of when talking about birth control (in this state) could send you to prison. Even after the pill became available to women. The doctor could only prescribe it for menses problems. Not birth control. 

I was determined that my kids would not grow up with this attitude. I could read my kids pretty good. And when something was bothering them, I would make the time to take them aside and just the two of us were all alone. Knowing that kids were hesitant to say certain words to their parents, I would be the one who would say the word or words first. As a result today I can bring up the subject of illegal drugs any time I need information. My kids probably know more than any professional. And I get a straight answer. Any of you know what a Chinese Popcorn Party is? Neither did I until I asked my kids. It is when kids take a handful of mixed pills they find in a medicine cabinet and take them all at once. Everybody raids their home medicine cabinet and dump the pills in a big bowl. Stir them all up and everyone reaches in for a handful. Six numbers on plastic? It is how high up you fill the syringe with the drug of your choice. And the term of "cooking" is not the same as we would use it. The world of illegal drugs has it own Rosetta Stone. 

If and when I ever decide to turn to marijuana, I will ask my kids first. Then I know I am armed with the needed knowledge.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Jul 24, 2014)

Addie said:


> I can talk to my kids on just about any subject except with The Pirate and my death. Even sex!
> 
> I grew up in an era of when talking about birth control (in this state) could send you to prison. Even after the pill became available to women. The doctor could only prescribe it for menses problems. Not birth control.
> 
> ...



More parents should take your advice and talk to their kids.  Really talk to them.
Since all my children are girls (women now) I left much of the discussion to my wife.  It was awkward to discuss those things best left to mom.
But I did my best without being a hypocrite.

I smoked cigarettes back then and it was hard to warn about those dangers when i was smoking myself.
I also drank beer in front of them so it was hard to say "no" when I was doing it myself.

My only ammunition was they were to young to decide if smoking or drinking was allowed.  It was not.
I also smoked pot.  Never in front of them or in the house, but they knew.

I was lucky and all 4 girls are doing well. All grown up with children of their own.  All swearing to not allow what my wife and I allowed, or turned our backs too.  Basically remembering the things they did.  Just like we learned from our past mistakes.

Well said Addie!


----------



## Addie (Jul 24, 2014)

The secret to talking to your kids is to learn their language. I very bluntly asked one of my girls, "Have you been laid yet?" Do you think your kid would come to you using that language? "Ma, I got laid last night and I didn't like it." Of course not. It shocked my daughter, but it started the talk on sex. After that she could come to me whenever she had a problem with a boy that wanted sex and she didn't know how to stand up to him. It is hard to use their words. But it makes it easier for them to come to you and talk when there is a problem. 

I also told my kids over and over, no matter how bad it is, I won't yell. And I will try to help you. First lets try to find a solution to your problem. We will worry about all the rest later on. And I didn't yell. When the Pirate got involved in drugs, I didn't yell. I got out the phone book and started looking for places to dry him out. He wasn't happy with my actions and decisions, but I told him he had already done his part and made his decision when he decided to pick up those drugs. Now it was my turn. I get to make the decisions. I can't tell you how many of his friends told me, "I wish my mother was like you."All she does is yell." If they said, "I wish you were my mother", I would correct them and tell them you wish your mother was like me. You don't want a different mother. You already love the one you have. It gave them something to think about. 

Learn their language, speak it bluntly, and DON'T YELL AT THEM when they make a mistake. It will open their door to listening.


----------



## TATTRAT (Aug 5, 2014)

A Weed Infused Dinner at Hunter S. Thompson's House | MUNCHIES

An awesome little video.


----------



## Kaneohegirlinaz (Aug 5, 2014)

...it's legal here in AZ, but MAN, don't do it it while you're driving!  I was coming home the other day and saw no less then THREE people smokin' their vapor pipes WHILE they were DRIVING in less than 15 miles, *GEEEZ!*


----------



## GB (Aug 5, 2014)

Kaneohegirlinaz said:


> ...it's legal here in AZ, but MAN, don't do it it while you're driving!  I was coming home the other day and saw no less then THREE people smokin' their vapor pipes WHILE they were DRIVING in less than 15 miles, *GEEEZ!*


You have no way of knowing what is in those "vapor pipes". E-cigs can contain either pot or legal e-cig juice and would look exactly the same from the outside.


----------



## taxlady (Aug 5, 2014)

GB said:


> You have no way of knowing what is in those "vapor pipes". E-cigs can contain either pot or legal e-cig juice and would look exactly the same from the outside.


Good point. I was at a party on Saturday where someone was using a vapour pipe with a mix of nicotine and some flavour.


----------



## TATTRAT (Aug 5, 2014)

Kaneohegirlinaz said:


> ...it's legal here in AZ, but MAN, don't do it it while you're driving!  I was coming home the other day and saw no less then THREE people smokin' their vapor pipes WHILE they were DRIVING in less than 15 miles, *GEEEZ!*



It's only available medicinally, and Arizona is one of the strictest states with only an estimated 20K people eligible for it to be prescribed to.


----------



## Kaneohegirlinaz (Aug 5, 2014)

*Yes, but ...*



GB said:


> You have no way of knowing what is in those "vapor pipes". E-cigs can contain either pot or legal e-cig juice and would look exactly the same from the outside.


 
Here in AZ, there is a HUGE difference in appearance between the two.
As TATTRAT mentioned, pakalolo (crazy weed literal translation in Hawaiian) is highly regulated.
Were we live, there are  loads of users, I mean poor souls who suffer from all sorts of ailments who need relief and I get that, I support that, but the thing is, why are you smoking while you're driving? That's called DUI and in some cases could cause a serious motor vehicle accident... can't you wait until you get home? and why would you smoke MJ on the road? If you're in pain you should let someone else drive at least, don't you think?
Funny, in Hawaii, social smoking is quite common and "Ain't no big ting braddah" as the late-great Don Ho would say... "Suck 'Em Up!" .. but I digress, sorry ...
okay, I'll get off my soap box now..


----------



## GB (Aug 5, 2014)

Kaneohegirlinaz said:


> Here in AZ, there is a HUGE difference in appearance between the two.


You might think so, but you would be wrong. These vapes are not state specific. You can buy any kind you like in any state you like. E-cigs are a HUGE market and there is absolutely no way of knowing, just by looking at the device, what is being vaped. It could be e-cig juice or it could be pot (in many different forms), but no one would be able to tell, but by looking at the device what was being vaped. That would be akin to looking at a a coffee cup with a lid on it and knowing whether it was coffee or water or coke or something else inside. The vaporizor is just the vessel. You can load it with a variety of substances.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Aug 6, 2014)

TATTRAT said:


> Not so much the doctors, but surprisingly the budtenders at dispensaries are VERY knowledgeable. Also, sites like Leafly allow people to explore the strains based on user submitted criteria.



Yes, I understand they do know their stuff, but they are not doctors either.
Since medical marijuana needs to be prescribed or permission granted by a physician, why would they not be the one to decide what kind or what potency?

I guess my point is a doctor must write out a prescription and it must be detailed in quantity, type and milligrams for a certain RX drug for example.

When a doctor prescribes or recommends marijuana, would it not be beneficial to the patient if the doctor recommended what the patient needs in writing just like they do with a regular RX.  Not what the guy at the dispensary advises?
I guess at this point, the dude down at the dispensary knows more than our doctors do.
I see this changing to.  Maybe soon enough our doctors will be taught/trained in prescribing and or recommending MM.


----------



## taxlady (Aug 6, 2014)

When I get a 'script from a doctor, I don't bother asking about what I can and can't eat or drink with it, etc. I ask the pharmacist.


----------



## GB (Aug 6, 2014)

Roll_Bones said:


> Yes, I understand they do know their stuff, but they are not doctors either.
> Since medical marijuana needs to be prescribed or permission granted by a physician, why would they not be the one to decide what kind or what potency?


Because they are not the experts in this case and they know to defer to the actual experts. Marijuana medicine is not the same as other pharmaceutical medicines and to paint them in the same light just because they have the term "medicine" attached is wrong. Thankfully doctors understand that. 

A doctor prescribes pot for many different reasons such as pain control, appetite help, depression, etc. There are thousands of varieties of pot. But for the most part they can all have a positive effect on the patient. Some will work better for others though, but it is just a matter of degree.
It is similar to a doctor prescribing Tylenol, but the pharmacist recommending a generic version.


----------



## Roll_Bones (Aug 6, 2014)

taxlady said:


> When I get a 'script from a doctor, I don't bother asking about what I can and can't eat or drink with it, etc. I ask the pharmacist.



But your doctor writes the script with all the information regarding the filling of the script.  What type of drug.  How to administer the drug. The dosage and the strength ect.....
This was my point.

I will ask again.  Should medical doctors that prescribe MM know enough about it to specify the strain or potency of the MM he prescribes or recommends? 

I do understand that when this drug becomes completely legal for consenting adults, this will eliminate the need for a doctor "in the know".

I am also under the assumption that doctors only recommend MM and that might be why they need no extra training as far as prescribing or recommending MM.


----------



## GB (Aug 6, 2014)

A doctor will prescribe physical therapy to a patient, but it is the physical therapist who will determine the exercises the patient should do. Same sort of thing RB.


----------



## Andy M. (Aug 6, 2014)

GB said:


> A doctor will prescribe physical therapy to a patient, but it is the physical therapist who will determine the exercises the patient should do. Same sort of thing RB.





Yes, but a pharmacist doesn't determine which medicines to prescribe.  He just dispenses those the Dr. indicates.


----------



## GotGarlic (Aug 6, 2014)

Doctors have to get continuing education credits every year in order to maintain their licenses. I imagine that any doctor who prescribes MM will have undergone training on its application in their specialty.


----------



## GB (Aug 6, 2014)

Andy M. said:


> Yes, but a pharmacist doesn't determine which medicines to prescribe.  He just dispenses those the Dr. indicates.


Yes, but with Med Marijuana things are very much a grey area. It is not the same as other medicines. Just the method of administration alone is so different. How many other medicines are smoked (not that that is the only way to take med m)?

If a patient needs pot to battle the effects of chemo on their appetite, for example, then it does not matter if they use OG Kush or Purple Haze or this or that. They will all have the same effect on the patient to varying degrees. I am speaking in generalities of course. There are exceptions. But that is what the budtender is for. As for dosage, it depends on method of administering the drug. If it is smoked or vaped then the patient uses as much as they need until they feel the desired effects. It is not like swallowing a pill that you can OD on. The doctor does not tell you how tight to wrap the ace bandage. You wrap it so that your affected area feels better. Same with pot. If you have no appetite you take a hit of pot. If you still have no appetite you take another hit. Continue until you feel hungry. You will not OD as it is impossible to OD on pot. 

CBD heavy pot is the exception, but any doctor worth his degree will absolutely tell their patient that they need pot with more CBD if that is why they are prescribing it. Those are very rare cases though and the doctor would absolutely know and talk about that specifically and not leave it to the budtender. However as long as they get CBD heavy pot then the strin does not matter. It is all personal preference at that point.


----------



## GB (Aug 6, 2014)

Andy M. said:


> Yes, but a pharmacist doesn't determine which medicines to prescribe.  He just dispenses those the Dr. indicates.


The 

The pharmacist will recommend a generic as opposed to a name brand though, which while very similar, still does have small differences. Same with pot. The doc prescribes marijuana. All the different types are still the same drug, just with minor differences.


----------



## GotGarlic (Aug 6, 2014)

GB said:


> The
> 
> The pharmacist will recommend a generic as opposed to a name brand though, which while very similar, still does have small differences. Same with pot. The doc prescribes marijuana. All the different types are still the same drug, just with minor differences.



The physician can specify a certain brand or "no generics" on the Rx and the pharmacist can't override that without consulting the doctor.


----------



## Andy M. (Aug 6, 2014)

GB said:


> The
> 
> The pharmacist will recommend a generic as opposed to a name brand though, which while very similar, still does have small differences...



In MA, at least, generic substitution is required by law unless the Dr. stipulates the brand name.


----------



## GB (Aug 6, 2014)

GotGarlic said:


> The physician can specify a certain brand or "no generics" on the Rx and the pharmacist can't override that without consulting the doctor.


There is no need to do that with marijuana though, with the possible exception of CBD in which case both the doctor and budtender would already know that that is what the patient needs. CBD is a whole different animal when it comes to pot as medicine, but that is the exception, not the rule.


----------

