In Colorado, where a constitutional amendment legalizing medical marijuana was passed in 2000, hundreds of dispensaries popped up and a startling number of residents turned out to be in “severe pain,” the most popular of eight conditions that can be treated legally with the once-demonized weed.Oh! The pain! The intractable pain! Who knew the excruciating suffering that tortured Coloradans for so long?
More than 80,000 people here now have medical marijuana certificates, which are essentially prescriptions, and for months new enrollees have signed up at a rate of roughly 1,000 a day.
The linked article also details the pesky government regulation that comes with legalization. What did you expect? One longs for the day when the stuff was illegal, there was no regulation to protect anybody from their suppliers, and if you wanted it, your only option was to break the law. Back then there was one kind of dishonesty, the manly dishonesty of breaking the law...
... and not this other weasely form of dishonesty, lying about headaches.
पोस्ट्स
६० टिप्पण्या:
I have a feeevah
and the only thing that will cure it is more medical marijuana perscriptions!
This drives me crazy about the medical marajuana laws. I sympathize with those who really have problems, but I think states would be better to either legalize it or not. This fake sick people system is so silly and just encourages dishonesty and disrespect for the law.
(Full disclosure- I'm a fence sitter on legalization, but I think that's mainly because I *hate* the stuff, and I'm not too fond of people who use it routinely. But I'm at least sympathetic to, if not swayed by, the arguements for legalization.)
- Lyssa
So despite the constant high altitude headache The Chipster is a master chef and animation wiz. Heroic.
The local alt-weeklies are filling up with ads from medical marijuana dispensaries, which feature get-acquainted sales, gifts with purchase, etc, keeping them financially afloat as concert and club information, along with classifieds and meet-your-mate ads have moved to the internet.
But I don't know any real pharmacies that offer a bonus for filling the first prescription, or "Buy one, get one free!"
Most of the legal drug pushers are liscensees called Doctors practicing medicine. Apparently the biggest threat to health is called "Self Medicating".
But I don't know any real pharmacies that offer a bonus for filling the first prescription, or "Buy one, get one free!"
To be fair, when a Publix opened up in our area, they sent out ads offering 4 $25 gift cards for filling 4 prescriptions there. You'd better believe I switched my B.C. pill RX there lickety split, and still keep it there (and pick up whatevery groceries I need when I pick my pills up), even though that $100 is long gone.
I'm an old hippie. I know I was a MUCH safer person high than I was drunk. I haven't heard a good argument against legalizing pot.
I don't think women have any standing to complain about fake headaches.
So here's my question. Suppose I'm in Colorado on business (a not infrequent occurrence) and a person who is legally stoned smashes into my car.
Is there some test that the police can apply to determine that the person who hit is, in fact, stoned?
If the answer is in the negative, then is it not the case that the citizens of Colorado, and people who visit there for vacation or on business are at greater risk than people in states where marijuana is still illegal?
[I guess that's two questions.]
Ha ha ha. I think the same thing whenever I drive by all the dispensaries that have popped up around the CU campus.
There must be a lot of students in pain. Amazing all the pain.
Big Mike: If the answer is in the negative, then is it not the case that the citizens of Colorado, and people who visit there for vacation or on business are at greater risk than people in states where marijuana is still illegal?
But everyone who wants it already has it. No matter what state you live in, you already live in a world filled with pot.
This time, Ann, we agree 100%.
As noted earlier, The Blonde, RN of 42 years' experience, says the whole medical marijuana thing is a dodge. You get the same result if the medicine is administered IV-push.
Like everything else the Lefties push, it's just another lie intended to put people in a dependent state.
Is there some test that the police can apply to determine that the person who hit is, in fact, stoned?
I have no idea. But, the officers do have some field sobriety tests that can make a less conclusive determination. Also, if they smoked in the car, the cop will probably be able to smell it. I think if someone is extremely stoned, the cop will be able to notice that by field-testing their eyeballs and so forth.
If the answer is in the negative, then is it not the case that the citizens of Colorado, and people who visit there for vacation or on business are at greater risk than people in states where marijuana is still illegal?
People who drive stoned will probably drive stoned whether the weed is legal or not. And perhaps having marijuana criminalized causes people to have a general disrepect for the law, making them more likely to drive while intoxicated? People are driving all over my city while smoking blunts, I know that much.
Anyway, there's no breathalyzer-like device that can prove all kinds of impairments drivers might have when they're driving. For example, one of the main causes of accidents is sleep deprivation. There's a lot of people driving around with lots of impairments, so you just gotta try and be a very defensive driver.
Makes you yearn for the good old pre-Revolutionary days when patriots had popcorn and beer (defiant against tea)for breakfast.
I thought legalization was a good idea, until I saw this mess.
Next to a store I frequent is a "dispensary" and the unsavory clientele and the pit bull outside are downright frightening.
Marijuana is such a stupid-making drug.
One longs for the day when the stuff was illegal, there was no regulation to protect anybody from their suppliers, and if you wanted it, your only option was to break the law. Back then there was one kind of dishonesty, the manly dishonesty of breaking the law...and not this other weasely form of dishonesty, lying about headaches
Ah, it's not so manly. I got one of those marijuana possession tickets some years ago, and it was magically turned into a minor misdemeanor "disorderly conduct" ticket in court. They just wanted my money. Everything's a bunch of bullshit. Just straight-out legalize the stuff already.
I haven't heard a good argument against legalizing pot.
Long term affects of reasonably heavy use appear to be non trivial. Pretty much everyone I know who smoked daily over 30 years or so has somewhat similar symptoms, including an inability to deal with the noises and smells of daily life. They also seem to become increasingly incapable of dealing with people outside a small circle.
As noted earlier, The Blonde, RN of 42 years' experience, says the whole medical marijuana thing is a dodge. You get the same result if the medicine is administered IV-push.
That is, of course, the official line. But I think there is reason to believe that this is not true. Plenty people seem to have either not gotten the same relief from THC in an IV, or cannot tolerate it.
The problem there, as I see it, is that the federal government has effectively prevented adequate research in this area.
My personal view is that there probably are instances where smoking or eating marijuana works better than other alternatives. I do find it ridiculous that narcotics can be legally prescribed, but not pot. While pot may have adverse long term affects, it is, in my mind, far less dangerous than many medicines that can be legally prescribed under U.S. law.
The other problem with keeping pot illegal is the cost of the War on Drugs. Not just the cost of the police and prisons, but also the reduction in our civil liberties that have come as a result. I am esp. troubled by the militarization of our police, and the frequent use of SWAT teams to batter down doors to arrest people for minor drug crimes.
Pretty much everyone I know who smoked daily over 30 years or so has somewhat similar symptoms, including an inability to deal with the noises and smells of daily life. They also seem to become increasingly incapable of dealing with people outside a small circle.
Here is your own response: :-)
While pot may have adverse long term affects, it is, in my mind, far less dangerous than many medicines that can be legally prescribed under U.S. law.
And consider me an exception to your personal study of folks you know.
For me, it is not a good argument to say that there is a potential for abuse - consider alcohol - consider tobacco - consider - over-eating - consider - being angry all the time or self-pitying or whatever myriad of things that human beings do that have long-term negative effects.
We don't need to be nannied, imo.
Long term affects of reasonably heavy use appear to be non trivial. Pretty much everyone I know who smoked daily over 30 years or so has somewhat similar symptoms, including an inability to deal with the noises and smells of daily life. They also seem to become increasingly incapable of dealing with people outside a small circle.
This really troubles me, too- it's the perfect recipe for a compliant, dependant population (mandatory drug testing with a one strike rule for any gov't money recipients, and I'd feel better.)
Seems like, in my experience, most people outgrow interest in the stuff by the time they reach their mid-20's. Do you guys think legalization would change that? Most people still drink after that, but rarely binge drink, so I'm not sure how they compare.
- Lyssa
South Park, as usual, had the best take on this where a KFC becomes a marijuana dispensary and the townpeople try to get cancer in order to get a prescription...which leads the authorities to decide that KFC had to be why the cancer rate was low for so long.
Brilliant show.
Pretty much everyone I know who smoked daily over 30 years or so has somewhat similar symptoms
What about those friends who get drunk daily for over 30 years?
My thinking is, that this is just a steeping stone to outright legalization. I work in the transportation field and what effect will this have on D.O.T. jobs? Even in Colorado where Medical Marijuana is legal the federal statutes governing a D.O.T job would prohibit it's use. I don't know a whole lit about it but is random testing able to tell when a person smoked Marijuana? With Alchohol this is the case. I for one really would rather not have Airline pilots and truckers hauling hazmat stoned.
I'm wondering what kind of a sheltered bitch someone has to be to instinctively react with knee-jerking contempt to the idea that thousands of people with chronic, poorly treated pain might gain relief from something that was previously unavailable.
Some people don't want recreational users to ruin these laws for the sake of the patients. Althouse, OTOH, doesn't want the patients to ruin it for the sake of the integrity she requires of recreational users.
There is no way to describe such an attitude as anything other than one displayed by a petulant, publicity (and controversy)-seeking you-know-what.
Put her in a pain clinic for a day so that she can make real-life examples of some of the patients she wants to belittle and shit upon. You know, for the sake of the recreational user's "integrity".
What a crock of a post.
I don't know a whole lit about it but is random testing able to tell when a person smoked Marijuana? With Alchohol this is the case. I for one really would rather not have Airline pilots and truckers hauling hazmat stoned.
THC stays in your system a lot longer than liquor, and yes, they can test for it. I'm sure fields like airline pilots and truckers will continue to ban its use by employees even if the states legalize it.
I don't know why people freak out about this. A huge percentage of people already smoke pot. If they're going to drive stoned, they've probably already done it. Besides, it's already illegal in every state to drive while intoxicated, doesn't matter if it's alcohol, pot, or LSD.
"Back then there was one kind of dishonesty, the manly dishonesty of breaking the law...
... and not this other weasely form of dishonesty, lying about headaches."
The weasely dishonesty begins with President Obama. He should enforce all of the federal laws he took an oath to faithfully execute. If he doesn't like the law, he should ask the Congress to change the law. Otherwise, he isn't doing his job.
The little weasel.
And Hayden is right. The amount of research that was impeded on cannabinoid neurochemistry due to stupid laws is immeasurable. Unlike acetylcholine, norepinephrine, prostaglandins, dopamine, serotonin, etc., etc., ad infinitum ad nauseam, we didn't even identify the receptor for (endogenous!) cannabinoids until the late 1980s. It took another dozen years or so until researchers were in a position to conclude that, yes, THC mimics the action of natural compounds in the body and there is no reason to go against thousands of years of previous medical precedent in assuming that it can't be implicated in human disease and therapeutics.
He's also right in recognizing the lunacy that allows opioids, cocaine(!), and stimulants to have managed to find a way into therapy, while cannabinoids should somehow not. The toxicity between these substances and the latter is in no way even close to comparable.
Althouse should bother to look into the state of the research on cannabinoid neurochemistry before she recklessly opines on how the integrity of the law-breaker is at stake by making a relatively safe substance available to people who clearly seem to derive benefit from it.
Or else she could submit to having her peripheral nervous system forcibly removed and then ask a politician what he recommends she do about it. You know. For the sake of society and tradition and all that bullshit.
Meade should channel his rage against local cops for not doing enough to make sure every jaywalker isn't busted and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. You know. For the sake of dismissing the entire concept of "priorities" when it comes to public policy... as well as prosecutorial discretion.
I'm not surprised that someone that ignorant of how the law actually works won the heart of, well... whatever.
@Ritmo: Sir, I wish you good night, but first shit in your recreational bed.
My Doctor, who sits on a lung cancer board, said they are seeing more lung cancer cases from people who have only smoked pot, not cigarettes...not only does pot make you stupid it can kill you.
@Meade - Well, should I wish you anything less than the smugness that allows one to dismiss the pain or disability that would cause physicians and patients alike to resort to a substance that people here seem to think, "make(s) you stupid"?
No, your bliss apparently requires such ignorance. So much so that your response was utterly nonsensical. Enjoy.
@Meade - Well, should I wish you anything less than the smugness that allows one to deny the pain or disability that would cause physicians and patients alike to resort to a substance that people here seem to think - with obvious prejudice, one might add - "make(s) you stupid"?
No, your bliss apparently requires such ignorance. So much so that your response was utterly nonsensical. Enjoy.
Surely there must be a way to articulate to someone motivated by the "integrity of law-breaking" to see what is wrong with this post.
Nearly all prescription products used to treat pain can be abused. Nowhere have I ever witnessed someone denying that they should be available with a prescription on account of the fact that such things will be, and are OFTEN abused.
The view in the original post, which says just about as much, is extraordinary in light of that fact.
Yeah, that happens, but there are a lot of people who have medical conditions for which marijuana is the best treatment, sometimes the only treatment. I am one of them.
I have a hereditary movement disorder like Tourette's syndrome-- the standard variety with the motor tics, not the freaky verbal kind.
Marijuana is the only effective treatment. It alleviates about 70-80% of my symptoms; I have tried all the other available medicines but they are not nearly as effective. When I was younger I was on heavy-duty psychological drugs like Haldol that have absolutely terrible side effects and still didn't work very well.
I went a long time without treatment, and once in a while I still do (when I'm not in a medical-marijuana-friendly jurisdiction). It is very difficult to live life during those times-- I can't do many simple physical tasks and am amazed that people take their ability to do those tasks for granted.
But silly me, right?! How dare I try to live a fucking normal life and do normal fucking things like you fucking people can! (that's just profanity kicking in now, not the Tourette's...)
Online I just pretend I'm a stoner, tho', because it is simpler than explaining all of this, and because I value my fucking privacy. But you'd notice my condition in a half-second if you were to meet me in real life.
Anyway, sorry to get all huffy and puffy but it makes me absolutely incensed that someone would use patients as pawns in a battle over medical marijuana, or over anything for that matter. It's impossible to take someone seriously when they are so dismissive of the obvious argument related to patients' rights, and just for the sake of making a petty point about the law and bravery or whatever.
Anyone aware here that the Supreme Court ruled that a medication, despite accepting evidence from a physician that it could prolong someone's life, ruled that banning it could still be constitutional? No one else has a problem with this?
Life, liberty,.... etc. Just rhetoric apparently.
Ritmo, you are right about RX painkillers, but good doctors don't hand them out like candy, a person usually has to prove in some way what is causing the pain. I consider 215 doctors a lot like "scrip" doctors. They will give you a RX for a hangnail.
Sorry to hear about your medical condition, Jules. I'm sure you make an honest effort to change federal anti-cannabis laws. Unlike that weasel, President Obama.
But I don't know any real pharmacies that offer a bonus for filling the first prescription, or "Buy one, get one free!"
That's because prescription drugs are mostly paid for by insurance. The marketing promotions are therefore aimed at doctors and insurance companies, not at consumers (who pay the same copay whether the drugs cost $20 or $200).
For things that aren't covered by insurance (over the counter drugs, cosmetic surgery, Lasik, etc) there are sales promotions all the time. Here's are some results for a quick Google on San Diego area promotions:
1 Latisse Treatment for $72 (originally $120), plus a complimentary 30-minute consultation. CALL NOW and make an Appointment
A 40% off sale on eyelash lengthening!
Receive a free Vivite Defining Lip plumper with any Juvederm injectable gel treatment. Include one syringe of Botox for forehead wrinkles for $50.00 off the regular fee
There's your "buy X, get Y free".
$0 down 0% interest until 2012. Payments as low as $30 a month! Prices start as low as $299 per eye
Until you got to the word "eye", could you distinguish the ad copy from that of a furniture store?
Medical marijuana is turning out the same way those parts of the medical industry that aren't paid for by insurance do: prices are dropping and providers are competing like crazy for business. If insurance ever starts covering pot, you can rest assured prices will go up and customer service will go down. :)
Julius' story does not stand alone. There are many others. Some recognized by the Federal government and allowed by the Federal government to be not only treated with cannabis, but provided to them by the fucking Federal government.
Google Irv Rosenberg. Look into the compassionate use program administered by the government to those who suffer from disease that the federal government has only found marijuana efficacious in treating.
I'm sorry if there are people here too sheltered to know anyone with a debilitating neurological disorder or cancer, and whose only experience with weed came from knowing, you know, "stoners".
BTW, Irv is a very successful stockbroker - no doubt thanks in part to his ability to be a functional person. I'm sure that fact alone should warm the cockles of the selfish conservative hearts here.
Enough with the lunacy. Look into what's really known and stop with the propaganda. The cases to be made against abuse don't justify denying patients' rights.
It is essentially impossible to get prescription drugs to adequately treat chronic pain. Doctors who prescribe them in sufficient quantity run a serious risk of being targeted by the government.
I'm sure some percentage of people with medical marijuana certificates are just faking it. I know some of them myself. On the other hand, chronic pain is the #1 undertreated medical condition in America, thanks largely to the war on drugs making it hard to get effective painkillers in quantity.
Unlike that weasel, President Obama.
Concepts of the "unitary executive" notwithstanding, Obama cannot wave a wand and change the law. Perhaps this is something of which you were not aware. For this he needs Congress. You know, the same fucks that we elect in to stand up for law, order, decency and "traditional values".
Not that thousands of years of medical practice is tradition enough for some.
Anyways, make that Irv Rosenfeld.
Marijuana users (for whatever reason) might be persuaded to have some integrity at the very moment that the federal government decides to have any when it comes to this issue. And no, Obama, by himself, does not have sole control over the federal government.
Meh, I won't even beat around the bush: I smoke it. Pretty regularly too. In terms of recreational mood-alteration, I much prefer it to alcohol. I never drive while stoned, I never get violent or belligerent, I don't abuse my pets or shoot up heroin afterwards. Mostly I just turn on some music and read a book.
Frankly, I don't see why recreational marijuana is even controversial anymore. Anyone who has had actual first hand experience with pot knows that it's not going to turn you into a rapist/murderer with superhuman strength. I just makes you feel (1) good, (2) hungry, and (3) sleepy.
This is why I love living in San Francisco, where it's pretty much defacto legal. I see people smoking joints on the street. I've seen people smoking it in front of patrolling cops, and the cops just don't care. I wish it were that way everywhere.
Concepts of the "unitary executive" notwithstanding, Obama cannot wave a wand and change the law.
He has the power to pardon anyone he wants to, for any reason he wants to. So while he doesn't have the power to change the law, he has the power to prevent it from being effectively enforced.
And, as noted elsewhere, the "unitary executive" principle has nothing to do with changing the law. It simply restricts the kinds of laws Congress is allowed to pass. If Congress attempts to place improper limits on the President's authority over the executive branch, the President doesn't have to "change the law". He can simply ignore it.
Somehow I think (absolutely know) that if Obama thought for one second that legalizing (stopping Fed. enforcement of pot laws) weed would help his sorry ass in the polls, he'd do it in a smoker's heartbeat.
Hell, he retroactively/unilaterally lost 60 years of Cold War battles with a piddling signature. Imagine what he could do with a grown-up Executive Order.
but good doctors don't hand them out like candy
So what are we to do next? Regulate the meaning of "good doctors"? The states already do step in if they feel a physician is abusing his privileges. Revenant is right that this makes for fear among physicians to treat pain adequately - well, that and the fact that most of them aren't always well trained in it.
Some of the most problematic conditions aren't treated well by the most abuse-prone medications. Neurological pain is something that opioids don't have much affect on at all.
Nevertheless, there are well-established clinical guidelines for the use of opioids.
Weed, whatever its potential to be used in a manner that the righteous commentariat here deem "abusive", is in no way prone to the kind of health effects that you can see with opioids. For one, it won't kill you. No one's ever encountered such a thing as a lethal overdose with weed. What other medication can you say that about.
So people here don't like "pot-heads". Big deal. I don't like meth-heads. In China 100 years ago they didn't like the opioid dens. Let's make a distinction between abuse and clinical efficacy. And if we're going to go on about the dangers of a substance, let's at least be rational, avoid propaganda and put things into perspective.
And if your problem with weed, or even just its abuse, amounts to nothing more than vague social commentary about recreational habits, I submit that you're committing a huge injustice against certain people with very specific conditions undergoing very specific circumstances. And I find that appalling.
Why the hell shouldn't I?
@Blue: It's not controversial in CA. The attitudes all have to do with what people have lived around or grown up with.
That said, I'm not unsympathetic to people who come from Indiana and fear that they will smell Hindu Kush (or whatever) wafting up from the fields and farm houses as they drive along the interstate, or some more egregious "offense" to their sensibilities. But I cannot for the life of me understand why we can't make a universal (or at least national) consensus on the clinical benefits (and lack of harm) caused by something whose research and development was nonetheless hindered for years on account of the politics and controversy behind it.
If, despite all that, we've still managed to find as much promise as the experts have found - and I'm talking about experts who have researched the actual chemistry of cannabinoids and not the self-congratulatory "public-health" spokespeople, all the more reason to keep the conservative social reactions in check and understand what is actually at sake for people who cannot move their muscles or keep their stomachs from retching on a daily, hourly basis.
Since this thread seems to be dying anyway, I will end with just one thought: The reaction against weed is primarily based on the fact that it's considered "psychoactive". I don't know if there's a good (well, precise) definition for that. But at root there is a fear over a lack of control in how people perceive and react to the world. I think that is something that people widely relate to and, understandably, react to either positively or negatively. But it should have nothing to do with obvious concepts of sickness and health to which the above is all beside the point.
That was too harsh, so I deleted it. There but for the grace of God go I.
I was going to say something about the lack of outrage over recreational Viagra but had already commented plenty so I let Madison Man take the reins.
Then there were all the non-psychiatrists who thought it was quite cool to prescribe Prozac when it came out in the nineties.
The fact of the matter is that the line between recreational concerns and health concerns isn't always as stark as we'd like it to be, and grows blurrier by the year the more breakthroughs we make.
That said, I still think it's pretty abusive to ignore the fate of people with, say, multiple sclerosis so that you can conflate that with every kid with an interest in unwinding with "a little help from his friends".
Julius is right. Anything affecting neurological function is not something to shake a stick at. The impulse to dismiss those conditions or worse conditions is just something that really bothers me. I know not everyone is expected to understand such basic concepts in how many people are affected in an area of function that is essentially second nature, and that many of us instinctively take for granted. But that's all the more reason to be grateful for one's own health and compassionate (and reasonable) to those without it.
I'm sorry, but this is just something that I feel very strongly about. And yes, the fact that the Federal Government has continued to make it available for forty years to roughly a dozen people should say more about the hypocrisy of that institution and its abuse of science than of the hypocrisy of the people.
Despite the claimed ailment, the truth is that medical marajuana permits are used prophylactically to prevent the pain of prison rape. It's a very effective method and therefore it's morally unjustifiable to withhold it.
I for one really would rather not have Airline pilots and truckers hauling hazmat stoned.
as has already been mentioned, cannabis compounds exist in the human body for weeks after THC has been ingested/smoked. urine or hair follicle tests easily detect marijuana smokers.
the problem is that these tests don't really determine if the testee is actually under the influence (ie, judgement and sensory impaired). THC lasts in the body for around a month for a light smoker, while cocaine lasts for 3 to 4 days. a person who snorts a little blow on saturday night will test positive for cocaine use on tuesday but is not under the influence.
finally, i'm a trucker that hauls hazmat (gas and diesel fuel) throughout the denver area pretty much exclusively. having a bunch of boneheads blasted on pot driving around helps to explain the strange driving decisions i see on a daily basis.
@Ritmo:
You don't often give me a chance to honestly say this (heh), and I have little more than roughly scanned through the comments in this thread so far, but your making the best sense to me of almost anyone here tonight. Well done.
Except Ann enjoys stirring things up a bit, that's all. I suspect that the legal situation in the states would be much better if she were made drug freedom czar. :)
Thanks Largo.
As far as the Federal government's provision of medical marijuana goes, this Wikipedia article might put the point across better.
I don't ever want to read another post about how legalization, decriminalization, or medical availability ruins one's sense of romance with labeling something "illicit" until that article is read. It's astonishing that a lawyer-blogger would, through ignorance or worse, refuse to explore any medical aspect of this drug in her many writings about its use, abuse and legality, when the Federal government itself recognizes that and provides it to patients on that basis.
The case that prevented the federal government from denying marijuana to patients, and established its provision to them, is listed under Randall v. U.S. Look it up, Law Professor.
Or else just keep smoking what you're smoking and entice me to call you out on it again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4r1hUXeRA0
Pretty much says it all, at least as far as the application in California.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4r1hUXeRA0
Legalizing marijuana for medical purposes is the right thing to do. Why is there such a push back against this idea? It is time for citizens to be responsible on this issue. The people smoking glass pipes and rolling cigarettes are not the problem….it is the men with guns and prisons that chase them.
Sunflowerpipes.com
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा