Rolling Cannabis Politics Thread

but pot counters the sort of nausea that is a common side effect of opiates (& chemotherapy, glaucoma, etc.) - I did not mean to suggest it was an alternative to the pain-relief provided by morphine etc.

I understand that there is a limited medical benefit for marijuana (like your chemo patient who relies on it just to be able to eat), so I'm pretty much with CA's Compassionate Use legislation.

Apart from that, I'm largely apathetic toward outright legalization. Right now in CA, all you need is a signed recommendation from a doctor (any doctor—doesn't have to be your primary care doc or even someone referred by them) and you can possess up to eight ounces, and even grow your own.

However, what's happening now is that anybody adult who has $50 and wants to smoke pot legally just goes to one of those "Dr. 420" places for an "evaluation" and picks one of the symptoms off the list.

I don't know what it is about that situation that bothers me, but I think it's the fact that people are exploiting laws designed to protect people with certain illnesses that I take issue with. Fraudulently claiming a medical condition because you want to party or make a buck is just terribly unethical.

I think if it were to be legal for medical use only, it should be treated like other medicines. Put into a pill form, maybe engineered to emphasize certain physiological effects while minimizing others. Take all the fun out of it, so to speak.

A cop I once worked a case with told me that marijuana is "only half-illegal", and he was right. I don't think it's even possible to buy a dime bag of schwag these days, as everybody (even some of the school kids I've worked with) can get access to dispensary weed.

Even though I have friends who still smoke and are decent people, I've also come across way too many "I think I actually drive better when I'm high" type assholes to think that if faced with "Legalize: Y/N" on my ballot, I wouldn't vote either way. I'd be way more inclined to vote in favor of it if there were a ton of restrictions alongside it, such as stronger DUI laws, laws against providing it to those under 21, and regulations on when and where it can be consumed.

pretty sure most of that stuff comes included, dude

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oDc--yrWQc

XP I know there would have to be rules, but I specifically meant strong legislation. I don't know if simply treating it like alcohol would go far enough.

is there any good reason we shouldn't treat it like alcohol?

SMOKE WEED EVERYDAY

Because alcohol is a CNS depressant, and the effects from one serving are metabolized by the body in about an hour. THC is a psychoactive chemical, the effects of which take about four times as long to leave one's system. BAC is relatively easy to measure; the same can't be said for marijuana. Due to the different natures of each, they should be treated differently.

re: What I said above about Conservatives embracing legalization, here's the National Review arguing that the Tea Party should support legalization
http://article.nationalreview.com/435622/the-tea-party-and-the-drug-war/jeffrey-a-miron

Obviously this isn't like a policy paper from the right wing, but there's clearly a group of people who believe in legalization from the right.

Yes, the libertarian-leaning right is usually anti-prohibition. But the religious conservatives are a much larger part of that base. The libertarians love to make noise, but they don't vote in very large numbers. They more often sit on the sideline and bitch about everyone who isn't libertarian.

However, what's happening now is that anybody adult who has $50 and wants to smoke pot legally just goes to one of those "Dr. 420" places for an "evaluation" and picks one of the symptoms off the list.

I don't know what it is about that situation that bothers me, but I think it's the fact that people are exploiting laws designed to protect people with certain illnesses that I take issue with. Fraudulently claiming a medical condition because you want to party or make a buck is just terribly unethical.

i am not a chemo patient. i do have a MM recommendation for anxiety and depression. i smoke weed (legally) every day when i get home because it makes me feel happier and less anxious, and helps me get work done at night. it also helps me be more positive on a day-to-day basis. finally, it gets rid of the migraine symptoms i feel on the way home every day. i am a high school teacher, so i tend to deal with a lot of stress and anxiety at work and staying extremely positive is a really big part of being successful at my job (i.e. reaching the kids is much easier when you're smiling and mellow every day - mind you, i don't smoke at or before work)

as far as i know, the extent of benefit for a chemo patient is not much further than this. marijuana doesn't cure cancer. it just provides pain relief and emotional support. and stimulates appetite.

in everyone's opinion, do i deserve to use medical marijuana or not?

if the average joe can *legally* get pain relief and emotional support from OTC pills and alcohol, why not weed?

BTW, if anybody know, please don't use my real name or even my first name in this thread.

as a state employee AFAIK i don't have anything to worry about w/r/t my MM use but i'd rather keep it on the DL just in case anyway.

Everyone who has a right to consume alcohol ought to have the right to smoke weed.
Are conservative more afraid of Gays or Weed?

^^ see i agree entirely

hi-five

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2IcIq_OTlfc/S5FNtbfMZMI/AAAAAAAABSo/cqMTLbhmFJ4/s320/gay+pot.gif

I REALLY like that.

I would wear that as a button or badge.

Piece about the possible consequences of a legislative victory v. defeat in California:
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2010/jun/08/marc_emery_calls_out_selfish_mar

Due to the different natures of each, they should be treated differently.

that's the only thing different about them?

I merely mentioned two differences, and each has its own set of ramifications.

As I already stated, I'm largely apathetic to whether it gets legalized or not, and my main issue is with recreational users taking advantage of laws designed to shield a those with valid medical conditions from prosecution.

All matter of substances, be they alcohol, illicit drugs, over-the-counter, or prescribed pills have the potential for misuse and abuse. If marijuana were to be legalized, it would be nice to think that everybody would use it responsibly, but that isn't even the case now. My concern rises when it becomes a public safety issue, and which criteria would then be used to determine legal vs. illegal use. DUI and public intoxication rules are obviously the biggest, and to say it should just be treated like alcohol is naïve, since with alcohol we can accurately quantify the amt. of one's intoxication. With weed, not so much. A daily drinker, if they haven't had any that day, would blow a clean breathalyzer. A daily smoker, even if they had gone without for a few days, would still test dirty. This would open a huge grey area wrt court cases involving DUI charges, etc. Why shouldn't I be skeptical that the existing legislation would neatly cover everything, and that there won't be any unforeseen issues with legalization?

I could almost, as a cursory matter, see the rationale of getting upset about recreational pot users "abusing" some law that exists for the benefit of medical marijuana users, but then I pause, squint real hard, and think to myself "no actually why would I give a shit about that, like at all?"

I mean if I don't care if it's legalized or not, and if I don't care if someone uses it or not, I'm supposed to get offended if they do so for sham reasons under the pretext of a law where the state clearly isn't interested in drawing the distinction? I'm sorry, but that's really fucking stupid.

by drawing the distinction, I meant enforcing the distinction.

Is it?

It didn't bother me until about last month, when it made my job quite impossible. I work in child welfare, primarily with relatives of children who are dependents of the court. I assess these relatives for their suitability to care for the children, and have to make sure they're compliant w/ state regulations and pretty much holding them to the same standards a licensed foster home would be held to. I recently got two cases where one of the applicants has a MM recommendation. I had to ask each about their use (when, where, how often, how much), potentially violating their HIPAA rights, just to be able to ascertain that the child's safety could be provided for. There's a HUGE grey area wrt current policy, and CA's Depts. of Social Services and Community Care Licensing are totally vague.

In one case, the child had already been in the home, and upon my inspection, I found that the relative caregiver was growing quite a substantial crop, way beyond the 12 immature or 6 mature per patient as codified in the law. That required so many case staffings, multi-agency investigations, and still isn't completely resolved.

On the plus side, I've pretty much gotten a crash course on much of the current legislation (namely H&S 11357-11362), and am quite aware of where it falls short.

(This thread is de-indexed, right?)

if weed was legal smoking it wouldnt be cool anymore

also mexican drug lords wld have less money, probably

naus OTM

and you (naus) sound like you are very good at a very important job.

if weed was legal smoking it wouldnt be cool anymore

never been to holland eh lamp

http://www.youtube.com/user/hashbean420

Hobbies: growing smoking makeing canna concentrates playing guitar ,bluesharp, mouth harp collecting glass and helping ppl out

Man, I remember how drinking lost all its cache when they ended prohibition.

And naus, I understand your concerns better now, but I don't think legalization should be held up by the fact that there are inadequate means of testing for intoxication.

I recently got two cases where one of the applicants has a MM recommendation. I had to ask each about their use (when, where, how often, how much), potentially violating their HIPAA rights, just to be able to ascertain that the child's safety could be provided for.

point being: if John is a responsible adult who enjoys getting stoned from time to time, is confident that it does not negatively affect him too much (i.e. in a way that would render him unsuitable to be say a child's guardian), lives in a state with highly-abusable medical marijuana laws, and wants to take care of his nephew... at some point, doesn't obtaining a medical marijuana card under false pretenses actually demonstrate responsibility, in some bizarre way, as it reduces the risk that he'll run afoul of the law and the kid will be back in a foster home?

don't u think that…you would be able to 'pick up on it' during the course of a standard evaluation process?

Not always, as my visits are usually always scheduled in advance. People can do quite a bit to clean things up before I actually arrive at the home. This includes hiding things (leaving things w/ friends and other relatives, coaching the kids, and doing anything else to minimize things that could reflect poorly on them.

With alcohol, it's pretty simple. Adults can drink, but they can't be drunk around the kids. "One with dinner" usually works as a reasonable guideline.

Of course, if I came across someone who obviously used and could not furnish any sort of recommendation, it's pretty easy. But w/ the Compassionate Use legislation pretty much does nothing more than provide certain exceptions to existing law. If it were to go fully legal, it would have to be codified to a greater extent than simply appending "and marijuana" to the existing alcohol laws.

Having to constantly rely on verbal reportage and and observations of one's affect opens me up to messy court issues, grievances, and possible civil actions.

I'm having trouble following your argument against the sham prescription medical marijuana users. Who's the victim supposed to be?

imo naus is mistaking the camel's nose for the whole camel

i mean, Prop 215 was always clearly a gateway initiative

naus, back in the day they couldn't measure BAC for drunk drivers. should etoh have been made illegal until science provided that means?

"yes, if it would make the bureaucratic part of my job easier"

i mean, i don't really intend to be unsympathetic but given that The Man has used the legal status of weed as a tool oppress and dominate and flip and profit from anyone without a country club membership for going on 100 years now, "but what about the children" just doesn't automatically get my head nodding

(btw I'm not even a doper, just angry)

"With alcohol, it's pretty simple. Adults can drink, but they can't be drunk around the kids. "One with dinner" usually works as a reasonable guideline."

wait, "one" is one bottle of wine, right?

Roger, it's not just to make my job easier. It's just that at the very limited intersection of my profession and current legislation, I've found that there's a lot left uncovered, and should be covered. In the interest of the public's health and welfare, I just feel that it would be reckless for voters to legalize it without a thorough set of guidelines accompanying it. Even places like Amsterdam have guidelines on when, where, and how much can be possessed, purchased, cultivated, etc. This just isn't a matter to let precedent and case law dictate.

I also disagree with you in that I don't see the legal status of a controlled substance as being a civil rights issue. Disparities amongst protected classes in sentencing and even law enforcement's conduct, sure, but there is no right to get high.

Jim, when your average burnout uses a medical argument to obtain weed because he wants to party, it does stigmatize those with valid medical needs. I might be the only one claiming that here, but I know of plenty who also feel that way. I know if I had a condition where MM was the only effective option, I'd probably feel a little put off if I were picking up some from a dispensary and saw another customer bragging about how they just scored some dank nugs and that tonight's session is going to be amazing.

I take a pretty liberal stance towards it, and feel that what a responsible adult does in the privacy of his/her own home is (and ought to be) of little concern to me, as long as it does not interfere with their ability to be an effective parent/caregiver, that they're not contributing to the delinquency of minors, and that nobody else is in any way being endangered. But for those instances that it does effect others, there should be new mechanisms in place to deal with it.

there is no right to get high

sure there is! i mean you pretty much said so yourself in your last paragraph.

you have like the straightedge dork's view of stereotypical potsmokers, i should just shut up now

off to smoke my dank nuggs bro!

Hope you have an epic session

lol'n at granny!

yeah i'm just going to chime in here to say that i don't really understand what naus is on about. if you can't really show someone is impaired by any other measure than a blood concentration test then can you really say they're impaired?

like, the people in authority can't demonstrate any sort of lack of attention or coordination or visual acuity here but they're going to claim that you're impaired? it strikes me as an approach that says that it's more important to have a rule that you can enforce than to have a rule that makes sense.

also bragging about scoring dank nugs and tonight's session would get me kicked out of both the cooperatives that i visit.

Even places like Amsterdam have guidelines on when, where, and how much can be possessed, purchased, cultivated, etc.

also, as a medical marijuana patient, i can assure you that there are pretty thorough guidelines on when, where and how much can be possessed, purchased, cultivated, etc.