# Massachusetts issues licenses for 20 marijuana dispensaries



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

BOSTON -State public health officials have released the list of the first 20 registered marijuana dispensaries licensed to operate in Massachusetts Friday.State public health officials have approved the first 20 licenses to operate medical marijuana dispensaries, the first in Massachusetts under a voter-approved law.

The registered marijuana dispensary selection committee made its selections based on a review of 100 finalists.

The process included extensive background checks and was based on factors such as overall quality of the application, appropriateness of the site, local support, and the applicant's ability to meet the overall health needs of registered patients while ensuring public safety.
A law approved by voters in November 2012 allows marijuana to be used for certain medical conditions, cancer, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease.
The list covers 10 of the state's 14 counties, including two in Boston.

Read more: http://www.wcvb.com/health/massachusetts-to-award-licenses-for-medical-pot-outlets/-/9848730/24216048/-/iqjrji/-/index.html#ixzz2s0b04pZg


----------



## FourInchFury (Jun 26, 2013)




----------



## Killjoy (Jun 23, 2003)

What a crock. Might as well sell whiskey as "pain medication". The only thing pot cures is someone's burning desire to get stoned. At least Taco Bell and Doritos stock will soar!


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Cool, I can drive to Salem and get me some. I'm really psyched about this, that city is way too uptight.


----------



## Hush (Feb 1, 2009)

Hank Moody said:


> And so the downward spiral of this state continues................


Country


----------



## wwonka (Dec 8, 2010)

Killjoy said:


> What a crock. Might as well sell whiskey as "pain medication". The only thing pot cures is someone's burning desire to get stoned. At least Taco Bell and Doritos stock will soar!


As usual you have no clue what you are talking about.

Stop being a lemming and read some of the research.

Yes some people will abuse it but for some people it is a better alternative to pain pills.

Most medical patients aren't looking to get high they are looking for relief.

Peace

Sent from my Galaxy S3.


----------



## LA Copper (Feb 11, 2005)

We've had these things out west for a number of years now. Stand by for the violence to begin. Many of our dispensaries have been hit with takeover armed robberies and burglaries... and I mean many. 

The dispensaries are an easier target than your average drug dealer who may be armed and fire back at bad guys who need their "medicine."


----------



## wwonka (Dec 8, 2010)

LA Copper said:


> We've had these things out west for a number of years now. Stand by for the violence to begin. Many of our dispensaries have been hit with takeover armed robberies and burglaries... and I mean many.
> 
> The dispensaries are an easier target than your average drug dealer who may be armed and fire back at bad guys who need their "medicine."


My guess Is that alot of the violence stems from the fact that because the federal government schedules mj the same as cocaine most banks will not do business with the dispensaries and they are literally sitting on pilles off cash which does make them tempting targets.

They can't take credit cards and can't deposit the money they are making legally and paying taxes on. Does that make sense?

There was a great article in Time magazine about this issue. It was a interesting read.

The tax revenue will be a nice windfall for this state.

Sent from my Galaxy S3.


----------



## Killjoy (Jun 23, 2003)

> As usual you have no clue what you are talking about.


Really? What type of serious medication do doctors prescribe with no actual amounts of dosage? "Oxycotin? Sure take as much as you want!" What other types of medications require you to inhale dangerous carcinogens? Any "medical" benefits can be received through THC pills, but unfortunately, those don't get you high. In California, potheads all laugh at the phony reasons they make up to get their medical marijuana cards. If you don't think "medical" marijuana is only a backdoor attempt at legalization then you really are smoking this stuff.

If you really think marijuana should be legalized for recreational use, fine, but don't piss on my head and tell me its raining.


----------



## Hush (Feb 1, 2009)

wwonka said:


> The tax revenue will be a nice windfall for this state.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy S3.


Can't tax "medicine" in MA. I agree that perhaps there are some analgesic properties in marijuana, but they could be extracted by means other than smoking. Medical marijuana for the most part is a workaround to legalization under the guise of medication. Nobody really cares about the terminal cancer patient looking to ease some pain, but they are the minority. The majority goes to phantom ailments, "anxiety", and people who are allergic to work. I've seen first hand how the CA system works, and its a joke. 4 20-year olds from MA on a cross country road trip shouldn't be able to walk into a clinic and walk out with cards and weed, but that's exactly how it happens.
This setup is ripe for abuse.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

wwonka said:


> As usual you have no clue what you are talking about.
> 
> Stop being a lemming and read some of the research.
> 
> ...


I'll give you this much, most people who are legitimately in need of pain relief aren't looking to get high. Just like we're not looking to get high on the myriad of prescription meds that we end up with. Some of us want to be able to go through a day without pain. Some of us want to be able to go out with friends and family and enjoy a nice evening being social instead of concentrating on how to fake it through the night so no one else knows how much we're suffering and not to ruin it for everyone else. Some of us want to never have to cancel plans day of because we know that today we're not going to be able to fake it through. The problem is we will be in the minority of people offered medical marijuana. Now we're not going to be in the minority because there are more patients with other debilitating conditions like cancer. No, "pain patients" will most definitely be in the majority, but the number of legitimate pain patients will be eclipsed by people with "pain." Before you jump on your soap box and try to knock me off mine, I'm not trying to start a "my pain is worse than yours" argument. I don't judge anyone with legitimate pain. It's not a competition of who has it worse. I do; however, judge people that can lead perfectly normal lives and do anything they want to who claim that they can't work or need medical marijuana for "pain." Here's a clue, if you can play basketball, spend an entire day sitting on the couch playing video games, pop out kid after kid, etc you do not suffer from debilitating pain.

Even though I'm one of those patients might benefit from medical marijuana, I voted no. I voted no not because I don't want to have a chance to be pain free even if it's only for a few hours and not because I don't want people I know who are suffering to be able to get help. I voted no because I know the reality. I did my homework. The reality is there are going to be far more people abusing it than benefiting from it. The reality is that as a pain patient managed by a physician I get drug screened every few months. I have to sign contracts agreeing that I will only get pain meds from one doctor. I have to acknowledge that I will not be able to get a new prescription if I lose my meds or if they are stolen. Without going into specifics, I am given a certain number of pills that have to last me a specific number of days with a very small allowance for a really bad day where I have to take an extra one. Do you really think that the "pain patients" getting their "medicine" for their "back pain" or "asthma" (because we all know smoking is great for asthmatics) are going to have to jump through the same hoops? Are they going to get a non-refillable prescription for a certain amount of marijuana that has to last them a specific number of days? Are they going to have to see the doctor every couple of months to get a new onw? Are they going to have to sign contracts and be drug tested every couple of months? Are they going to have to go to a psychiatrist to evaluate them for depression or addictive personality traits before they get their first prescription? No, they're not! They're not going to have to do any of that. If medical marijuana came with the same conditions and restrictions as other pain meds; then, I might have voted yes.

What all you supporters of medical marijuana who claim it's to help legitimate pain patients don't understand is, it's not going to help us in the long run. Give it a few months, maybe a year and there will be so much abuse that people with legitimate need will feel like they're being judged and be embarrassed. Don't even try to tell me that I'm exaggerating. I've already been judged by doctors, employers and others because they can't see how much pain I'm really in. You see pain is subjective. For most people you have to take their word for it when they say they're in excruciating pain. Now I'm one of the lucky ones in an odd way. I have actual pathology that supports my claims. Yet, I've been judged because of all the fakers out there. I have a good team now, but I've had doctors tell me that it's psychological. I've had them tell me to toughen up. I even had one very sincerely tell me that he didn't know how to treat me because when he read my intake he figured I was another drug seeker and after meeting me he knew that's not what I was there for. Unfortunately, that was the only thing he could offer me. So I repeat, if you want to make medical marijuana available to only people who are in legitimate need I may support you. Knowing that there are really no controls in place to prevent abuse, I'm against it. I don't need another way for people to judge me.

Oh and for the record, there are far better ways to use medical marijuana for pain relief than to smoke it. If all the supporters were really serious about helping people truly in need the law would have had regulations in place restricting the smoking of medical marijuana to only those patients who can't get relief by using it in it's other forms.

To anyone who read all that thank you. If you agree with me, I appreciate it. If you don't, I don't care. Until you've limped 20 yards in my shoes you'll never understand how this is a blown opportunity to really help people. Ok I'm getting off my soap box now, but I reserve the right to get back on it. I've earned it.


----------



## Pvt. Cowboy (Jan 26, 2005)

Alright... Know what I'm bullshit about?!?! 

That I didn't apply for a license!! These guys are gonna RAKE in the dough.


----------



## pahapoika (Nov 5, 2006)

Rolling down the "high"way


----------



## LA Copper (Feb 11, 2005)

wwonka said:


> My guess Is that alot of the violence stems from the fact that because the federal government schedules mj the same as cocaine most banks will not do business with the dispensaries and they are literally sitting on pilles off cash which does make them tempting targets.
> 
> They can't take credit cards and can't deposit the money they are making legally and paying taxes on. Does that make sense?
> 
> ...


Except they're not targeting the cash, they're going after the product.


----------



## wwonka (Dec 8, 2010)

Hush said:


> Can't tax "medicine" in MA. I agree that perhaps there are some analgesic properties in marijuana, but they could be extracted by means other than smoking. Medical marijuana for the most part is a workaround to legalization under the guise of medication. Nobody really cares about the terminal cancer patient looking to ease some pain, but they are the minority. The majority goes to phantom ailments, "anxiety", and people who are allergic to work. I've seen first hand how the CA system works, and its a joke. 4 20-year olds from MA on a cross country road trip shouldn't be able to walk into a clinic and walk out with cards and weed, but that's exactly how it happens.
> This setup is ripe for abuse.


Hush, 
you have some great points. I agree that there are and will be abuses and making sure there is oversight and monitoring like ABC does for alcohol is going to be important.

They are developing strains where there is no thc so there is no high. But if you have severe migraines it could help get you back in your feet. Ms patients have been shown to be helped greatly. Along with alot of chronic pain sufferers.

They are only the minority because the government has made it up to now illegal which forced then into the shadows.

It's Funny we have a serious problem with prescription pain pill abuse in this country and those are all legal drugs right? Oxycontin is never abused or sold right? Or suboxin, legal and widely abused.

I don't know if there is anyway to alleviate the abuse but that shouldn't override the benefits. I mean how easy is it for kids to get alcohol and weed now? I just chaperoned a high school trip and we caught a bunch smoking. 

So the argument that kids will get it isn't valid

Maybe we should bring back prohibition. Lol now I'm going to get yelled at but alcohol is a drug with far more reaching issues than marijuana and does it have any medical benefits? We do know alcohol is widely abused. 
But We also know that I prohibition does NOT work.

I'm just wish that people weren't so close minded. Not everyone is looking to get stoned.

And are we really going to dismiss the tax revenue that will be generated by all these pot heads?

Who's hoping for a card for the 82nd class? Or that they are trying to cut our pensions. Well screw that raise money wherever you can. Maybe they will have the funding for the 82nd and 83rd sooner rather than later.

Keep an open mind folks. I know it is alot to ask but try.

Peace 
Stay safe out there.

Sent from my Galaxy S3.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

> And are we really going to dismiss the tax revenue that will be generated by all these pot heads?


Well isn't that what it should all boil down to. Tax revenue. Prescription pain meds are abused and they are highly regulated. So to think that an unregulated or very loosely regulated medical marijuana industry isn't going to be even more abused is naive at best. I'm not even going to waste any more time arguing with you because you clearly won't get it. But hey, I guess we should all just roll with it and smoke it if you've got it.


----------



## wwonka (Dec 8, 2010)

This is a discussion board right?

I don't know why you think it will be loosely regulated, I am betting they will over regulate it here in mass.

*NY Times:Banks Say No to Marijuana Money, Legal or Not*

heres a good article from forbes: Until 100% Legal, Banks to Turn Away Marijuana Money
and another from Newsweek.Two Numbers. Why the IRS Will Love Legal Pot​

It doesn't matter to me personally, but I have friends that would benefit from it.
but I'm not going to dismiss everyone as a pothead just because that is how they choose to medicate. They are no worse than the housewife popping pills.

Peace


----------



## LGriffin (Apr 2, 2009)

LA Copper said:


> We've had these things out west for a number of years now. Stand by for the violence to begin. Many of our dispensaries have been hit with takeover armed robberies and burglaries... and I mean many.
> 
> The dispensaries are an easier target than your average drug dealer who may be armed and fire back at bad guys who need their "medicine."


Exactly. As soon as our hoods in Holyoke knock off that location, they'll head to NoHANKton and do theirs. Same in every other community.
Politicians are drooling over the revenue but can't be bothered to put on more bodies to deal with the fallout.

The "medicinal effects" aren't worth the lung cancer, etc.


----------



## Pvt. Cowboy (Jan 26, 2005)

LGriffin said:


> Politicians are drooling over the revenue but can't be bothered to put on more bodies to deal with the fallout.


Bam! Forget hiring more cops...

Sales of weed gonna fund more Eee Bee Tee!


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

wwonka said:


> This is a discussion board right?
> 
> I don't know why you think it will be loosely regulated, I am betting they will over regulate it here in mass.


You're kidding right? Do you really think they're going to put the same restrictions on this stuff that they do prescription medications? It may not matter to you, but it absolutely matters to me. You have friends that may benefit, I AM one those people that may benefit AND I can say without a doubt that this law and resulting consequences do nothing to help those legitimately in need of symptom relief. I don't get to live in a fantasy world of rainbows and unicorns where everyone does the right thing and no one abuses the things meant for people who really need them. I get to live in a world where insurance companies get to deny coverage, yet convicted felons and people allergic to work can get coverage for just about anything. I get to live in a world where employers can push people out of their jobs rather than accommodate their medical needs. Sure, you're probably thinking that there are laws against that. There are, but MCAD is not always the most helpful and even when they are it takes so long to go through the process that you start to wonder if it's even worth it anymore. Did you know that despite the law, a multi-billion dollar international corporation can successfully argue that providing a lumbar support chair and accommodating medical appointments is an unreasonable request because other people in the office might get jealous. I mention that to point out that it can be extremely challenging for someone who is legitimately in pain or suffering to get an accommodation even when the request falls within the letter of the law. You know what doesn't fall into the letter of the law? Showing up to work under the effects of medical marijuana. If an employer suspects you're using pot, you have an accident at work, or just randomly sends you to be drug screened you will be fired. You can't say that you're requesting an accommodation under the ADA. You're screwed.

The fact that you can say that I don't know that it will be loosely regulated just shows that you really don't understand what goes on in the real world of pain patients. I would guess you didn't bother to read my original comment to you. Let me guess tldr. Whatever, you want a discussion you're going to occasionally (ok maybe more often than not) get a long post especially if you get me fired up. So since it seems you either didn't read or forgot what I wrote earlier and presuming you haven't already decided tldr, let me explain it again. I am a chronic pain patient and have been for several years now. My initial prescriptions were given to me by PCP because it was believed that my symptoms were acute and would resolve within a few weeks to months with rest, medication and PT. Well, no such luck. Turns out that what was initially thought of as severely strained muscles turned out to be a royal pain in my ass. I say pain in my ass jokingly, but it's actually very true. There is a very small muscle that everyone has called the piriformis which stretches from the hip to the tail bone that most people have never heard of. Normally this muscle does it's thing and you go on your merry way as a happy camper. Well for some of us, this muscle contracts, becomes hard as a rock and stays permanently contracted. Sometimes trigger point injections work, but for a very small percentage of us they don't. This contracted muscle pinches the sciatic nerve and over time damages it. It also throws off how you walk which over time leads to hip problems and sacroiliitis. Now in addition to that and it may be the result of or it may just be a bonus because I'm lucky, I have the pleasure of having facet joint arthritis, fibromyalgia and a number of other diagnoses that make the first page of my medical record read like the ICD 10. So let's just say the doctors that I have now have little doubt that I'm being honest when I tell them that on an average day without medication my pain level is a 3-4 when I get out of bed and a 9.5 when I go to bed. That's on a good day, if I'm having a bad day or try to do too much of anything it's off the chart all day.

Ok, you still with wwonka? Now that I've shared way more with you than my own family has even been told I really hope you're still following along. Even though I have all that mess going on with my body, I still have to jump through hoops to get medication and treatment. Once I went from being an acute pain patient to a chronic pain patient, I had to start proving that I was legitimately in pain. I had several doctors tell me that I was depressed, needed to learn how to cope with life or some variation of that. I got the pleasure of having to meet with a psychiatrist to be evaluated for depression, addiction and drug seeking behavior. Whether you will agree or not, I am as sane and psychologically sound as everyone else. Once I got the all clear from the psychiatrist, I got to get drug screened. I get drug screened 3-4 times a year now for no other reason than I'm a chronic pain patient. Hell, I probably get drug screened more than people on probation for drug charges. Pass the drug screen and we're off. Now I get to go to the doctors approximately every 60 days to get a new prescription. I get exactly the number of pills I need to last me 60 days. If I'm having a flare up, I have to call the office and let them know. I'm only allowed to take extra medication a couple times during that 60 days or we have a problem. That is the regulation on pain medication now. Who knows what it will be in a year. Now do you really think that medical marijuana prescriptions are going to require a visit to a psychiatrist and drug screen prior to issue? Do you really think that people with medical marijuana cards are going to be drug screened 3-4 times a year? Are they going to have to go back to the doctors on a regular schedule to get a new prescription? Are they going to have to sign contracts saying that they will be the sole users of their medicine and agree that they will not get a new prescription if their medication is "lost or stolen". I put that in quotes because thanks to the scumbag abusers out there, if my medication is legitimately lost or stolen I'm SOL. Are people getting medical marijuana cards going to have to do any of those things? I bet you they won't and if they're not; then, I am most definitely correct in my assertion that medical marijuana prescriptions will be loosely regulated. Oh and guess what will happen to any legitimate prescriptions if a chronic pain patient tests positive for pot on one of those drug screens.

I'll try to keep this next part short, I promise. As for "look at the money made taxing the potheads" or however you put it. If the goal was to really help sick people, you wouldn't be so happy about the taxes. It cracks me up, I watched some of the casino hearings online because well I have a lot of free time now that I spend most of my time flat on my back. People against casinos argue that it's a tax on the poor and get up and arms. Yet, no one is up in arms that medical marijuana will be a tax on the sick and disabled.


----------



## Pvt. Cowboy (Jan 26, 2005)

So in summary HH...

...you're a hard ass.  

I'm interested to see how these dispensaries pan out. I'm very surprised that they had to pick 20 locations to get it done, and didn't just decide to have the .gov grow it and regulate. It's not like it's the science of putting together a medicine, testing it for the FDA, having trials and waiting for ultimate approval, something that companies like Astra Zeneca do because that's how they take risk, and make profit. This, is just growing a plant. Seeds, soil, water, sunlight. 

Like LA said about the attacks on the locations, that could work out for LE... Security details. Maybe they'll employ armed guards too. Either way this is a "let's sit back and watch" scenario.


----------



## LA Copper (Feb 11, 2005)

Pvt. Cowboy said:


> Like LA said about the attacks on the locations, that could work out for LE... Security details. Maybe they'll employ armed guards too. Either way this is a "let's sit back and watch" scenario.


Wouldn't it be ironic if you guys start doing details at these places....


----------



## Hush (Feb 1, 2009)

The attraction of a heavily-armed protection detail for these places is outshined by the realization of what you're protecting. Maybe the fun and profit are on the other side of the equation...


----------



## 7costanza (Aug 29, 2006)

Boo Radley.....I mean Wonka telling KJ that "as usual hes wrong"? and "dont be a lemming and to read some research"????? REALLY??. Only in the vacant space between the ears of a fuckin 2 time Obama voter could that even make sense. So you do more research on what lazy fuckin scum suckin leeches want than who you vote for?? This is my shocked face, I bet your the most popular CO with the inmates, I mean poor victims where you work.


----------



## Pvt. Cowboy (Jan 26, 2005)

Well hi there 7. Been waiting for you to show up.


----------



## LGriffin (Apr 2, 2009)

Pvt. Cowboy said:


> Bam! Forget hiring more cops...
> 
> Sales of weed gonna fund more Eee Bee Tee!


BAM! Speaking of EBT, this should do wonders for our obesity rate when those sloths get the munchies and tie up ER's even more with their obesity related diseases.


----------



## Mr Scribbles (Jul 7, 2012)

Don't think this is going to be nothing but a money maker? Check out who got a license-former Congressman Bill Delahunt (Dope-a-crat). I'm sure there are people who will benefit from this, but like welfare, EBT, etc for every one that it helps there'll be a dozen abusers. With an estimated $500/oz. price tag, all this will do is let the rich kids buy it without fear of getting ripped off-the poor will still have to get it off the street. Talk about your income inequality...


----------



## wwonka (Dec 8, 2010)

7costanza said:


> Boo Radley.....I mean Wonka telling KJ that "as usual hes wrong"? and "dont be a lemming and to read some research"????? REALLY??. Only in the vacant space between the ears of a fuckin 2 time Obama voter could that even make sense. So you do more research on what lazy fuckin scum suckin leeches want than who you vote for?? This is my shocked face, I bet your the most popular CO with the inmates, I mean poor victims where you work.


Yeah that's me the con lover. 
I'm the biggest white hat there is. Obviously you've never met me.

And my friends and family aren't scum sucking leaches that's where I work..

Sent from my Galaxy S3.


----------



## wwonka (Dec 8, 2010)

wwonka said:


> Yeah that's me the con lover.
> I'm the biggest white hat there is. Obviously you've never met me.
> 
> And my friends and family aren't scum sucking leaches that's where I work..
> ...


Sent from my Galaxy S3.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Pvt. Cowboy said:


> So in summary HH...
> 
> ...you're a hard ass.


Lol. Not the worst thing I've been called. Best part is anyone who didn't read my lengthy rant won't get the joke.

Oh *wwonka*, I'm still waiting........... I responded to your comment, you ignored it. Tldr, got it. I said I wasn't going to argue with you because you're not going to get it. You said this is a discussion. So, I responded and put forth my position for this "discussion" and you ignored it. Got it, tldr again. I'm going to keep this one real short for you. If you can answer (honestly answer) these questions correctly; then, I might agree with your position or at least part of it. No this is not some sort of trick. These are objective questions based on objective facts not opinions. They're yes and no. So here goes:

Will medical marijuana "patients" have to undergo the same medical scrutiny that those of us using prescription pain meds did prior to getting their "prescription"?

Will medical marijuana "patients" be drug screened prior to and regularly during their "treatment" with medical marijuana?

Will medical marijuana "patients" receive "prescriptions" for a specific amount of "medicine" that has to last a specific number of days and have a an exam with a doctor before getting more?

Will medical marijuana "patients" be able to pay for their "medicine" using EBT?

Does the legislature have a plan (even a rough draft) on how to regulate this industry?

Extra credit questions: (I'm not expecting an answer, these are just for "fun")

If the state has a plan, what is it?

If the true motive behind medical marijuana is to help the sick and disabled; then,
a. why is the state not doing a better job of regulating it?
b. why do they need 20 dispensaries to start and not a single source that could distribute it to the limited number of people who may really benefit? (Thanks Cowboy)
c. why is it the only "prescription" medication that will be taxed?
d. as a documented chronic pain patient can I get a tax exemption on this?
e. why aren't the liberals upset that this (if you really think the law was intended to help the sick and disabled) is a tax on the sick and disabled?

Isn't it true that the "medical marijuana" law was really passed for potheads by potheads and a few misguided souls who bought into the "you can help sick and disabled people ease their suffering" propaganda?

Gee I really hope spacing out the questions didn't make that look tltr for you, *wwonka*. I'll be waiting with eager anticipation for you to explain to me why my argument is flawed and my logic faulty.


----------



## Killjoy (Jun 23, 2003)

> Oh *wwonka*, I'm still waiting........... I responded to your comment, you ignored it.


----------



## Boot (Jun 8, 2012)

TLDR


----------



## 7costanza (Aug 29, 2006)

HH ,Ha ha, you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia," but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never ACTUALLY debate a liberal!"

You cannot discuss/debate/argue/rationlize with these people belive me I have logged more hrs attempting to they have a mental disorder, it cant be done. These are the same people that just gave us Obamacare right? lies lies lies...and he tells us to "do some research" It would be funny if it wasnt real.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Lol. There doesn't have to be a debate. All he has to do is answer those questions and prove my argument is flawed. Unless of course the answers to those questions support my argument.  Although, I will admit I may be slipping. I should have asked for sources, but since I'm not really expecting answers that's not really necessary.


----------



## Herrdoktor (Jun 23, 2010)

First off, alcohol gives police officers more problems than weed ever will

It's gonna be legal in our lifetime. I would rather they speed up the legalization process and tax the shit out of it than pussyfoot around calling it medicinal.


----------



## Fuzzywuzzy (Aug 15, 2013)

Drivers Licenses for illegal aliens and marihuana dispensing facilities opening up. When will they changing the state name to East California?


----------



## Hush (Feb 1, 2009)

Why play by any rules anymore.


----------



## LGriffin (Apr 2, 2009)

The only research worth doing on this topic pertains to stats about how many man hours these dispensaries use up. Let the union translate it into manpower.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Herrdoktor said:


> First off, alcohol gives police officers more problems than weed ever will
> 
> It's gonna be legal in our lifetime. I would rather they speed up the legalization process and tax the shit out of it than pussyfoot around calling it medicinal.


I don't agree with your argument, but at least you're not trying to blow smoke up my ass.

Maybe I should have started out with an easy question, like what is the correct ignition timing for a 1955 Bel Air Chevrolet, with a 327 cubic-inch engine and a four-barrel carburetor?


----------



## Pvt. Cowboy (Jan 26, 2005)

HistoryHound said:


> I don't agree with your argument, but at least you're not trying to blow smoke up my ass.
> 
> Maybe I should have started out with an easy question, like what is the correct ignition timing for a 1955 Bel Air Chevrolet, with a 327 cubic-inch engine and a four-barrel carburetor?


"That's a bullshit question!"

Nice reference, HH.


----------



## wwonka (Dec 8, 2010)

HistoryHound said:


> Lol. There doesn't have to be a debate. All he has to do is answer those questions and prove my argument is flawed. Unless of course the answers to those questions support my argument.  Although, I will admit I may be slipping. I should have asked for sources, but since I'm not really expecting answers that's not really necessary.


Why should I bother All you guys want to do is insult my do to my Poor voting record which I admitted was a mistake.

Yes you have legitimate concerns and yes people will try to abuse them just like they do other prescription meds.

But because people abuse other Meds isn't a reason to block access to another.

Herrdoktor was correct it will be legal within our lifetime. All I'm saying if that lumping everyone that might choose to treat their symptoms with weed as Useless potheads is close minded and uninformed.

And for the record; I sure as hell hope they can't buy weed with their ebt cards.



> Will medical marijuana "patients" have to undergo the same medical scrutiny that those of us using prescription pain meds did prior to getting their "prescription"? YES THEY HAVE TO SEE A DOCTOR.
> 
> Will medical marijuana "patients" be drug screened prior to and regularly during their "treatment" with medical marijuana?
> 
> ...


I believe the Law states 9 ounces every 90 days.
How this will be tracked I have no idea. does this seem like alot, YES but if someone gets a prescription for say 300 oxy a month that might be considered excessive also.
When I was getting My Pain Killers due to my IA I didn't have to get drug tested.

Watch this video: If this was your Daughter god forbid what would you choose? skip to 2:35










http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/


----------



## wwonka (Dec 8, 2010)

*CNN)* -- Over the last year, I have been working on a new documentary called "Weed." The title "Weed" may sound cavalier, but the content is not.​I traveled around the world to interview medical leaders, experts, growers and patients. I spoke candidly to them, asking tough questions. What I found was stunning.​Long before I began this project, I had steadily reviewed the scientific literature on medical marijuana from the United States and thought it was fairly unimpressive. Reading these papers five years ago, it was hard to make a case for medicinal marijuana. I even wrote about this in a TIME magazine article, back in 2009, titled "Why I would Vote No on Pot."​Well, I am here to apologize.​I apologize because I didn't look hard enough, until now. I didn't look far enough. I didn't review papers from smaller labs in other countries doing some remarkable research, and I was too dismissive of the loud chorus of legitimate patients whose symptoms improved on cannabis.​Instead, I lumped them with the high-visibility malingerers, just looking to get high. I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance because of sound scientific proof. Surely, they must have quality reasoning as to why marijuana is in the category of the most dangerous drugs that have "no accepted medicinal use and a high potential for abuse."​They didn't have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true. It doesn't have a high potential for abuse, and there are very legitimate medical applications. In fact, sometimes marijuana is the only thing that works. Take the case ofCharlotte Figi, who I met in Colorado. She started having seizures soon after birth. By age 3, she was having 300 a week, despite being on seven different medications. Medical marijuana has calmed her brain, limiting her seizures to 2 or 3 per month.​I have seen more patients like Charlotte first hand, spent time with them and come to the realization that it is irresponsible not to provide the best care we can as a medical community, care that could involve marijuana.​We have been terribly and systematically misled for nearly 70 years in the United States, and I Medical facts ofMarijuana​
On August 14, 1970, the Assistant Secretary of Health, Dr. Roger O. Egeberg wrote a letter recommending the plant, marijuana, be classified as a schedule 1 substance, and it has remained that way for nearly 45 years. My research started with a careful reading of that decades old letter. What I found was unsettling. Egeberg had carefully chosen his words:I hope this article and upcoming documentary will help set the record straight.​"Since there is still a considerable void in our knowledge of the plant and effects of the active drug contained in it, our recommendation is that marijuana be retained within schedule 1 at least until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve the issue."​Not because of sound science, but because of its absence, marijuana was classified as a schedule 1 substance. Again, the year was 1970. Egeberg mentions studies that are underway, but many were never completed. As my investigation continued, however, I realized Egeberg did in fact have important research already available to him, some of it from more than 25 years earlier.​*High risk of **a**buse*​In 1944, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia commissioned research to be performed by the New York Academy of Science. Among their conclusions: they found marijuana did not lead to significant addiction in the medical sense of the word. They also did not find any evidence marijuana led to morphine, heroin or cocaine addiction.​We now know that while estimates vary, marijuana leads to dependence in around 9 to 10% of its adult users. By comparison, cocaine, a schedule 2 substance "with less abuse potential than schedule 1 drugs" hooks 20% of those who use it. Around 25% of heroin users become addicted.​The worst is tobacco, where the number is closer to 30% of smokers, many of whom go on to die because of their addiction.​There is clear evidence that in some people marijuana use can lead to withdrawal symptoms, including insomnia, anxiety and nausea. Even considering this, it is hard to make a case that it has a high potential for abuse. The physical symptoms of marijuana addiction are nothing like those of the other drugs I've mentioned. I have seen the withdrawal from alcohol, and it can be life threatening.​I do want to mention a concern that I think about as a father. Young, developing brains are likely more susceptible to harm from marijuana than adult brains. Some recent studies suggest that regular use in teenage years leads to a permanent decrease in IQ. Other research hints at a possible heightened risk of developing psychosis.​Much in the same way I wouldn't let my own children drink alcohol, I wouldn't permit marijuana until they are adults. If they are adamant about trying marijuana, I will urge them to wait until they're in their mid-20s when their brains are fully developed.​*Medical **b**enefit*​While investigating, I realized something else quite important. Medical marijuana is not new, and the medical community has been writing about it for a long time. There were in fact hundreds of journal articles, mostly documenting the benefits. Most of those papers, however, were written between the years 1840 and 1930. The papers described the use of medical marijuana to treat "neuralgia, convulsive disorders, emaciation," among other things.​A search through the U.S. National Library of Medicine this past year pulled up nearly 20,000 more recent papers. But the majority were research into the harm of marijuana, such as "Bad trip due to anticholinergic effect of cannabis," or "Cannabis induced pancreatitits" and "Marijuana use and risk of lung cancer."​In my quick running of the numbers, I calculated about 6% of the current U.S. marijuana studies investigate the benefits of medical marijuana. The rest are designed to investigate harm. That imbalance paints a highly distorted picture.​​


----------



## wwonka (Dec 8, 2010)

*The challenges of marijuana **r**esearch*​To do studies on marijuana in the United States today, you need two important things.​First of all, you need marijuana. And marijuana is illegal. You see the problem. Scientists can get research marijuana from a special farm in Mississippi, which is astonishingly located in the middle of the Ole Miss campus, but it is challenging. When I visited this year, there was no marijuana being grown.​The second thing you need is approval, and the scientists I interviewed kept reminding me how tedious that can be. While a cancer study may first be evaluated by the National Cancer Institute, or a pain study may go through the National Institute for Neurological Disorders, there is one more approval required for marijuana: NIDA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse. It is an organization that has a core mission of studying drug abuse, as opposed to benefit.​Stuck in the middle are the legitimate patients who depend on marijuana as a medicine, oftentimes as their only good option.​Keep in mind that up until 1943, marijuana was part of the United States drug pharmacopeia. One of the conditions for which it was prescribed was neuropathic pain. It is a miserable pain that's tough to treat. My own patients have described it as "lancinating, burning and a barrage of pins and needles." While marijuana has long been documented to be effective for this awful pain, the most common medications prescribed today come from the poppy plant, including morphine, oxycodone and dilaudid.​Here is the problem. Most of these medications don't work very well for this kind of pain, and tolerance is a real problem.​Most frightening to me is that someone dies in the United Statesevery 19 minutes from a prescription drug overdose, mostly accidental. Every 19 minutes. It is a horrifying statistic. As much as I searched, I could not find a documented case of death from marijuana overdose.​It is perhaps no surprise then that 76% of physicians recentlysurveyed said they would approve the use of marijuana to help ease a woman's pain from breast cancer.​When marijuana became a schedule 1 substance, there was a request to fill a "void in our knowledge." In the United States, that has been challenging because of the infrastructure surrounding the study of an illegal substance, with a drug abuse organization at the heart of the approval process. And yet, despite the hurdles, we have made considerable progress that continues today.​Looking forward, I am especially intrigued by studies like those in Spain and Israel looking at the anti-cancer effects of marijuana and its components. I'm intrigued by the neuro-protective study by Lev Meschoulam in Israel, and research in Israel and the United States on whether the drug might help alleviate symptoms of PTSD. I promise to do my part to help, genuinely and honestly, fill the remaining void in our knowledge.​Citizens in 20 states and the District of Columbia have now voted to approve marijuana for medical applications, and more states will be making that choice soon. As for Dr. Roger Egeberg, who wrote that letter in 1970, he passed away 16 years ago.​I wonder what he would think if he were alive today.​


----------



## 7costanza (Aug 29, 2006)

Well, im sold...ill take a lb of Bubble Kush a bag of Cool Ranch Doritos and Pink Floyd The Wall on Blu Ray to go pleaze...How bout fuckin jobs...whatever happened to J O B S .Gee what a novel idea THAT would be....instead we have Democrats who want to legalize drugs,give amnesty to 60 million illegals,let violent criminals out early,let juvenille murderers like Philip Chisolm get another shot at brutality all while "tightening" gun laws for law abiding Citizens..sounds like someone is trying to create a pressure cooker to me, and you wonder why my tone is slightly annoyed.


----------



## 7costanza (Aug 29, 2006)

Hows this for "research", from todays CBS.

Study: Fatal Car Crashes Involving Marijuana Have Tripled

*SEATTLE (CBS Seattle*) - According to a recent study, fatal car crashes involving pot use have tripled in the U.S.
"Currently, one of nine drivers involved in fatal crashes would test positive for marijuana," Dr. Guohua Li, director of the Center for Injury Epidemiology and Prevention at Columbia, and co-author of the study told HealthDay News.
Researchers from Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health gathered data from six states - California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and West Virginia - that perform toxicology tests on drivers involved in fatal car accidents. This data included over 23,500 drivers that died within one hour of a crash between 1999 and 2010.
Li reported in the study that alcohol contributed to about 40 percent of traffic fatalities throughout the decade.
The researchers found that drugs played an increasing role in fatal traffic accidents. Drugged driving accounted for more than 28 percent of traffic deaths in 2010, which is 16 percent more than it was in 1999.
The researchers also found that marijuana was the main drug involved in the increase. It contributed to 12 percent of fatal crashes, compared to only 4 percent in 1999.
"If a driver is under the influence of alcohol, their risk of a fatal crash is 13 times higher than the risk of the driver who is not under the influence of alcohol," Li said. "But if the driver is under the influence of both alcohol and marijuana, their risk increased to 24 times that of a sober person."
Researchers found that the increase in marijuana use occurred across all ages for males and females.
Jonathan Adkins, deputy executive director of the Governors Highway Safety Association, told HealthDay News that marijuana impairs driving in much the same way that alcohol does.
"This study shows an alarming increase in driving under the influence of drugs, and, in particular, it shows an increase in driving under the influence of both alcohol and drugs," Jan Withers, national president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, added.
"MADD is concerned anytime we hear about an increase in impaired driving, since it's 100 percent preventable," Withers said. "When it comes to drugged driving versus drunk driving, the substances may be different but the consequences are the same - needless deaths and injuries."
Adkins noted that the legalization of marijuana in some states makes these findings important to traffic safety officials.
"It's a wake-up call for us in highway safety," Adkins added. "The legalization of pot is going to spread to other states. It's not even a partisan issue at this point. Our expectation is this will become the norm rather than the rarity."
Li added that police do not have a test as accurate as the Breathalyzer to check a driver's marijuana intoxication level.
"In the case of marijuana, I would say in maybe five years or more you will see some testing method or technique that may not as accurate as the Breathalyzer, but is more accurate than the testing devices we have today," Li said.
The study was published online in the _American Journal of Epidemiology_.


----------



## wwonka (Dec 8, 2010)

Look were all entitled to our opinion. 
I just don't think that the Legitimate patients should be looked down upon.

I'm certainly in no position to judge how someone else feels. HH you have some great points and concerns about how it will be regulated and so do i, 
i certainly don't want my teenage kids to have access. 

And I certainly don't want a partner who comes to work high or drunk. 

And driving under the influence of any drug whatever it may be is always wrong. 
And taking about jobs where do you think all the tax revenue will be going? Maybe it might help the 82nd get funded quicker. 

No one wants to pay any more than we already do in taxes and here's a taxes source and your just going to sniff your nose at it? 


Peace 

Sent from my Galaxy S3.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Wwonka, no arguing here just a response to your post. I'm more than willing to hear you out if you can back up your argument. I may not agree with you in the end, but I'll at least consider your position.



> Will medical marijuana "patients" have to undergo the same medical scrutiny that those of us using prescription pain meds did prior to getting their "prescription"? YES THEY HAVE TO SEE A DOCTOR.
> 
> Will medical marijuana "patients" be drug screened prior to and regularly during their "treatment" with medical marijuana?
> 
> ...


You answered that they will need to see a doctor. True enough, but the question wasn't just do they need to see A doctor. I had to see a primary doctor who eventually referred me to a pain specialist, who sent me for additional screening and then ordered a drug test before they would give me a prescription.

You also asked me what they would be drug tested for. I have no idea, but I would hope it's the same drug test that I have to submit to every few months.

You say they will be restricted to 9 ounces every 90 days, but you don't know how this will be tracked. Well that's a bit of a problem if no one knows how it will be tracked. I'm guessing you don't know if they will be required to see a doctor to get a new prescription since you didn't address that part.

Yes I do think 9 ounces for 90 days is a lot. I'm also not sure where you're getting 300 oxy for 30 days. That seems like an awful lot too. It may be because of my size, but I don't get anywhere close to 10 a day of my medication. I don't actually know anyone who has received a script for that many. I'm sure someone out there has, but that just seems like an exception and not the rule.

You didn't get drug tested most likely because either you had your injury before this became common practice or more likely because you were an acute pain patient. I never got drug tested as an acute pain patient, but the day the diagnosis changed to chronic pain everything changed.

I've never once argued that there aren't people who might benefit from medical marijuana. As I've said more than once, I might be one of those people. My problem is and has been that this law was never intended to help people like me, or more importantly the little girl in the video or the person with cancer and that is frustrating. This law was a sneaky backdoor attempt to legalize marijuana and sorry I can't buy into the "it'll happen sooner or later so why not now" argument. I'm sure a lot of the people who voted yes, did so because they really believed the hype that it would help sick people. If you were one of them, you were misled. If this state didn't have a habit of putting things on the ballot and then saying "oh shit now what" when they pass; then, this could have been an opportunity to help people as it was hyped to be. The problem is that no planning went into this so in the end it was an opportunity lost.

I'm not saying throw the baby out with the bath water here, it just would have been nice if the legislature made an effort to not allow every shithead on the street to jump in the bath with the baby.


----------

