My Photo

June 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

BlogStats


« ‘Misreading the Nordic Model’ | Main | Playing with Amnesty »

02 September 2016

Comments

rl crabb

Anyone who believes that Prop 64 will settle the cannabis question once and for all has been smoking too much... http://www.scpr.org/programs/take-two/2016/09/01/50698/gavin-newsom-on-recreational-pot-we-don-t-want-to/

Patricia Smith

I too am against Prop 64 because it gives recreational users more rights than MMRSA gives legitimate patients. Both would open the door for HUGE commercial operations. These laws are designed to end MMJ programs in favor of recreational marijuana lke they have already done in Washington.

Bonnie McGuire

Looking back many years I remember government and doctors not being against smoking cigarettes, although alternative medical doctors were saying it was. It took the controlling experts twenty years (or more) to decide smoking was bad for your health. The AMA bunch were also against health food stores and all natural healing remedies. Again, I'm hearing about mj healing people and it looks like the same old battle with who gets to control what reason and at what cost. It's disgusting, but blessed are those who do and say things with the right motives.

Don Bessee

Dr. R, a note of clarification, the Judge did not stop them from advertising, he approved our No on 64 ballot statement that said 64 would allow TV advertising. The Parker/Newsom team wanted that language stricken from the voter guide.

George Rebane

DonB 1057am - Many thanks for that clarification Mr Bessee which, however, does not change my attribution of sleaze.

Don Bessee

Agreed! The very guy who developed the joe camel and spuds McKenzie ad campaigns has been working with the legalizers so we know why they don't want that aspect of 64 made public. This is right out of the big tobacco hand book; get the kids at 13 and you have a customer for life.

Patricia Smith

If you still think MJ has no medical benefits, look up patent #6630507. https://sites.google.com/site/6630507/

Don Bessee

And that has what to do with prop 64 Pattie?

Patricia Smith

Besse, above and 12:02: Because AUMA (or Prop 64) places recreational MJ above medical. Washington has disbanded their medical program altogether to favor recreational. I hope people realize they are voting for people's right to get "stoned" over patients' rights to get healed.

BTW, weird as it may be that we are on the same side of this issue, I'll do it based on facts, not hyperbole. AUMA specifically bans the use of "Joe Camel" type ads. There are plenty of things to rail against Prop 64, try sticking to the facts.

From AUMA:
ADVERTISING: misleading claims and marketing to minors are banned. No billboards along interstate highways, and no use of cartoon characters, language, or music known to appeal to kids. (26150-5).

Bill Tozer

Hello Patricia. How does it feel to be chewed up, spit out, and dropped like a hot potatoe as soon as your fair feathered friends found out they don't need you to get their recreational pot. Now you will be just a pesky mosquito in their ear that they will start swatting at. Then they will attack you worse than any good ole boy on my side would ever consider if you don't fall in line. :)

I feel your pain, Patricia. Really, I do. Keep up the good work and focus on singleness of purpose (as you have always done on a daily basis.). When the stampeding herd needs you again they will not hesitate to come knocking. There is no honor among thieves. Not knocking you. I am knocking them. You have maintained your integrity under pressures greater than yourself. Good job so far. Keep striving to walk with your head up high on the sunny side of the street. Whatz ya gonna do when the term "Medical Marijuana' goes the way of My Space or Cyber Space and you can buy it in pill form down at Walgreens....paid for by medicaide? Vacation maybe?

Don Bessee

Pattie, Pattie, Pattie the Judge disagrees with you on the tv ads and that's why we will see our language as written on the No on 64 sample ballots. They say they can not advertise if the child audience is above a percentage, a percentage that is greater than the percentage of minors in CA. Please also see how that has worked out in the real world in CO.

Lets talk the now for a moment on human trafficking. I am just back from the Silicone Valley MJ conference. One of todays presenters focused on Asian gangs brining in illegals and having them work off their debt by living in say a rented 5 bd rm house full of weed full time with a futon as personal space amidst the pesticides, chems. and molds. In an even more bizarre weed factoid from yesterday-

http://cosmopolitan.com/politics/a63560/marijuana-industry-sexual-abuse-rape

Don Bessee

Pattie, debates aside, I too have to acknowledge the confluence of interests regarding NO on 64 is interesting. ;-)

Patricia Smith

Bessee, Bessee, Bessee...I have the numbers, why don't you? No cartoon images can be displayed anywhere, anytime and when they can advertise, "71.6% of the audience must be comprised of people that could reasonably be expected to be 21 years or older as determined by reliable up-to-date audience composition data." This is a one good thng that I like about AUMA even though it is redundant since MCRSA already has the same requirement.

Were you invited to be on the LWV fprum on AUMA? It will be so weird to be arguing No on AUMA together! Please study and get your facts straight so I don't have to spend all my time correcting you! I need to focus on the Yes on AUMA side.

Bill T, Yeah, people are jumping the medical ship for the recreational one, but my agenda won't change until every patient that needs MMJ has safe and reliable access to thie medicine. Some people are fighting for their livlihoods, I'm fighting for lives. I'm not too worried about buying a pill at Walgreen's, they haven't got it right yet and I doubt they ever will because MMJ just doesn't fit the big pharma "one size fits all" formula.


BradC

I am not sure what the difference is between medical and recreational MJ is - except for possible income tax deductions for medical/prescription drug writeoffs.

If recreational MJ legalization opens up a more competitive free market environment resulting in cheaper MJ products, it may not be worth the hassle for medical users to save all their receipts and file for income tax deductions every year.

So, I guess my question is: who cares if medical goes away? MJ will still be available in all kinds of boutique strains such as Sativa, Indica, and hybrids thereof. I am sure there will also be high CBD strains and other hybrid strains available in order to meet more specific medical requirements. It is simply a demand/supply thing.

I am pretty sure Oregon is also planning to do away with medical/prescription MJ sales.

Patricia Smith

There is a world of difference between recrational and medical MJ. First you have to do away with the notion that most patients still smoke cannabis - they don't.

Even now when medical MJ is the only thing that is legal, it is really hard to find the products you need at a dispensary. If they do away with medical, it will be even worse.

WA has done away with their medical program and patients are already having a really difficult time finding what they need.

It matters a lot for kids like Silas who do not have the luxury of running out of meds. Fours hours without his meds can cause him to spiral into uncontrolled seizures.

So it's up to us on how we vote on Prop 64. I urge you to vote NO.

Patricia Smith

Doing my debate prep and came across this tidbit for Don Bessee. Prop 64 claims to have the "toughest laws in the nation to protect kids". Really? The penalty for someone OVER 18 for possessing over an ounce of MJ on K-12 school grounds is a whopping $250 fine. A second or subsequent offense is $500 fine and/or 10 days in jail. Obviously, someone over 18 years on school grounds is probably dealing MJ to kids. What kind of punishment is this???

The State believes they will rake in $1billion a year but none of the money goes to school or infrastructure improvements. It is all directed to implementing the bureaucracy and cannot replace existing funding, it can only supplement those budgets.

fish

While I admit that there is a small subset who benefit from the non-recreational pharmacological consumption of cannabis; I suspect that the following headline is far more indicative of the motives of the majority of those in favor of legalization rather than the plaintive......"I nee my mehsin...!


Cannabis: the new Californian gold rush


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-3794856/Cannabis-new-Californian-gold-rush.html


Still in favor of legalization.

Patricia Smith

So am I Fish if done properly and not at the expense of patients. Prop 64 misses the mark.

Brad C.

Expect supplies of RMJ and MMJ smokables and edibles to be out of whack for a while. When Washington legalized RMJ there were extreme shortages of all kinds of MJ products. The same thing is happening in Oregon. Demand went way up after legalization, so prices followed, now they are 'dry' in many areas waiting for the fall harvest because the plant growing infrastructure is not fully in place yet.
When supplies exceed demand, more varied products will be more readily available once again. But as long as a grower can get top dollar for the MJ flower why should they bother to make it into an edible? The demand for Rick Simson Oil and other CBD edibles may have gone way up also, creating temporary shortages of CBD products as more people hear about the medical benefits of these strains.

Patricia Smith

Patients do not have the luxury of waiting for supplies to catch up to demand.

George Rebane

To see an analysis of facts re the states legalizing MJ, please go to -
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2016/09/the-effect-of-state-legalization-of-marijuana.html

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad