Ryan: Don't interfere with legalized medical pot

Althea;1073253 [QUOTE said:
That's funny. You think it takes 600 dispensaries to supply the handful of patients who actually have a need for medical marijuana?

Are you aware that many cities passed legislation before Obama was elected that regulates the explosion of medical marijuana?
ya. it's freaking side splitting affair, Let's start with this - Dr's write Rx's based on subjective criteria - recall MM is a Schedule 1 drug "no legitimate uses" by the FDA.
We both know there are medicaa uses - beyond the one's you mentions such as cancer pain, or AIDS wasting syndrome.
I've found evidence it even helps with retinitis pigmentosa. Also macular degeneration -and glaucoma. 100's of conditions.
The problem with glaucoma is the reduction in occolar pressure is only short alleviation - so pharmaceutical drugs are more long lasting, but MM still works.

Start to do some reseacrh ( or i'll do it if necessary) that shows 100's of uses for MM - even cannibinois #5 is in research for flesh eating bacteria/
The point here is there are so many uses, and since the Dr.'s may know them, they prescribe, what you (not you personally) don't easily
recognize as normal useage.
Which means there are ppl spread out all over that stae/country whom may find alleviation from MM.
Until the fed's re-Schedule -it's up to Dr's to use their best judgement -because there isn't any PDR(Physician's Desk Reference) they can refer to.

I mean the detail men (phamaceurical reps) don't come around with brochures, and samples like they do with Dr.s.-right?

All of which shows possibly millions of Rx's may be written for the 'burnouts' whom really are patients.
But you deny the widespread useage is legit. I don't affirm,but i'm not in denial either. I figure is this odd situation; it's up to the Dr. and patient.

It's Wiki, so I don't know how accurate all of this is. The problem with searching for info, is that the first 20 pages are full of whiners such as yourself. They skew the facts to make their case.

One video claimed that Obama declared that marijuana is just as dangerous as morphine. I posted his real comments in a previous post.

Ok. what point are you making here? Thtat's its difficult to research? I agree. you have an illegal drug used for medical uses, there is going to be "skewed data"


Many cities just don't want the influx of this industry.
LA banned the entire industry. check out this clusterfuck
For years, Los Angeles has been a mecca for medical marijuana dispensaries. Anyone with a doctor's recommendation could stop in at chic storefronts offering cannabis-laced desserts or at the more underground clinics, labeled only with a green cross. Hundreds, maybe 1,000 of these pot shops popped up around L.A.

City officials tried to get a handle on the proliferation, with endless meetings, community hearings, police raids and lawsuits. Finally, the council decided "enough is enough," says City Councilman Jose Huizar, who wrote a bill outlawing all dispensaries. The council overwhelmingly passed the ban in July.

"It was getting way out of control," Huizar says. "A thousand dispensaries? Some neighborhoods have two per block, and young people have access. They go around the corner, they smoke it. Crime increases around these dispensaries, the traffic, the robberies."

Huizar's bill didn't outlaw medical marijuana, but it did call for a so-called "gentle ban," which would allow only three or fewer patients or their caregivers to grow their own.

At one pot clinic in L.A.'s Franklin Heights neighborhood, Egyptian meditation music mingles with the scents of indica, sativa and hybrid marijuana strains. Sitting in the front office is Marc O'Hara, the executive director of Patient Care Alliance Los Angeles. He scoffs at the idea that a gentle ban would provide access to medical marijuana.


Around the Nation
L.A. Council Bans Pot Shops After Regulation Struggle SCPR
"It's inconceivable to think that three homebound patients suffering from spasticity, cancer, autism could somehow pull together the wherewithal to produce medicine with the potency and the medicinal effect of what's grown by the best cultivators on the planet," O'Hara says.

His group is suing the city over its handling of medical marijuana clinics. His colleague Tiffany Wright, who says she's a cannabis patient, says the city's ban would drive legitimate users underground.

"I feel like we're almost being forced back into the dark ages," she says. "Nobody that I know who's a card-carrying patient wants to get their medicine from some suspect in a dark alley, that could potentially be contaminated with mold and pesticides, with no knowledge of who grew it or where it's been grown."
http://www.npr.org/2012/09/06/160654734/los-angeles-pot-ban-suspended-for-now


And you keep ignoring the fact that most patients don't need 'medical' marijuana for anything other than an end run around existing drug laws.
Better to have access then not -where we seem to hit the wall of disagreement. Sure there are scammers, but we're talking weed, one of the most innocuous substances around. You can't get sick/overdose on weed. CAUTION: "burnout zone" is possible.


If you were interested, you'd spend some time wading through the bullshit links, and find numbers re. the mm scams in EVERY state with legalized mm.
I'm sure, im not all that interested, as I don't consider it a problem as much as denying legitimate useage. It's early for me, but the "weed war thread" shows just how patchwork a state network we have, there are going to be problems in diagnosis, distribution.
Until it becomes something other then Schedule 1, it's best to do what Ryan said." Let the states handle their own affairs".
Obama did promise that much (sorta. like he always weseals his words).

We can quibble over what was said, but unleashinfg the USDA's on fishing expeditions was clearly something he didn't say.
He even got a new memo (Cole ) -I think it's DEA presure, but Obama already used Exec priv. to "sop disclosure of DoJ internal deliberaion" in Fast and Furious -so we're just guessing.

-
Different topic. I'm for decriminalization...not legalization. Neither has anything to do with THIS topic
NO. ON TOPIC. Your the one wo keeps bringing up drug diversion as this critical problem.

Pharmacies carry a variety of drugs. What do dispensaries carry? We don't close pharmacies. We prosecute those who obtain/dispense controlled substances illegally
.EXCEPT NO CRIMINAL LAWS WERE BROKEN IN THE CLOSURE OF DISPENSARYS -just the threat of RICO by the USDA's is what closed them. There are a few that prolly did break zoning laws ( like Long Beach raid) but that is not CRIMINAL law.

Do you want Holder to arrest the stoners with illegally obtained medical weed? Obama said he didn't want to do that, and he hasn't.
I want Holder to stay out of state law as far as possible, as the Ogden memo showed. we're not talking individual possesssion, why do you bring this up?
.Me too. That's not what this discussion is about.
we just disagree, on the EvilWeed diversion to the 'stoners' is a big problem.
I would rather have same diversion (as in any drug distribution), then lack of patient access.

The real answer is to put in in legit pharmacies - as a Schedule 2 drug. Until that happens, dispensarys have to self screen ,and keep records.
most do that,if itis a clinic that doesnt -OK shut it down.

But until the DEA gets off this, and lets the states do their best, all this accomplishes is driving the underground market.
sadly with Sativex do out -it's not going to happen -Obama is making that pretty clear ( and he could have the Atty General simply declare it a Schedule 2).
But Obama is bowing to big pharma. we were THIS CLOSE to somewhat of a sane marijuana policy, until the new RICO threats threw everyone into utter confuson.

sure they do. And as usual, 90% of the problems are caused by those who try to abuse the system.
No. where do you get 90%??
Noone knows he %'s -we do know many are now unabe to receive their medication

Have a good one Althea -I got termite prob to take care of again ( damn Florida is a swamp)
 
Last edited:
dude, it's only been a couple of days......how could you have forgotten already.....you remember the thread.....I quoted you as saying "we bring it up" and then you said "I don't bring it up"....and I asked you why the contradiction and you said "You lie!".....and now, here you are bringing it up.....go figure.....

POST IT DUMMY.

What's the fucking problem with you doing that?

The problem is that you're a fucking LIAR.

POST WHERE I SAID I DON'T TALK ABOUT RACE.

You're a fucking LIAR.
 
^ Hi BAC- I got termite probs again. havent talked to you lately -take care, i'll catch up to you soon!
 
POST IT DUMMY.

What's the fucking problem with you doing that?

The problem is that you're a fucking LIAR.

POST WHERE I SAID I DON'T TALK ABOUT RACE.

You're a fucking LIAR.

stop posing....I've already posted your statement......I note that you don't deny saying it, you just keep saying post it.......since you keep saying that even though I posted it four times in the other thread as well as here its obvious you want something more than simply posting it......tell us what it is?.....
 
Last edited:
until it is taken off the top schedual as a drug then by law Obama or any president has to follow the laws.


They have a duty to make sure the MJ dispensories are distributing legally and within the laws that exsist.

Do you really think NO ONE complains about these dispensories in the communities in which they exsist.


What do you think the right would have done to Obama if he pulled MJ off the drug list in his first term?

That is quite funny given Obama chose to ignore enforcing the law when it comes to immigration. Why is it not his duty to follow those laws Desh?
 
Here's the thing you pot heads don't quite seem to understand... you'd be much better off instituting state laws to provide medical marijuana under a REPUBLICAN president, as opposed to a Democrat. Sure, a Libertarian would be even better, but you're not going to elect a Libertarian, and such a thing probably won't happen in our lifetimes. Either a R or D is going to win the presidency. Of those two, the R's are the ones who advocate state's rights, the Democrats want the federal government to control what your state does. Since a vast majority of people in the country are not in favor of 'legal weed' you have a problem with a statist federal government, which you would not have if feds minded their own business and left states to decide this for themselves. If left to federal officials, you'll never see pot legalized fully, because too many people across the nation don't agree with you. Whereas, with a federal government which believes in states rights, and steps aside to let the state do what the people of the state want to do... well, there is at least the possibility of seeing legalization that way. Of course, you can also wait for a few decades and hope that society 'evolves' more, but then... you aren't going to enjoy your pot much in the nursing home, most of them don't allow smoking these days.
 
Here's the thing you pot heads don't quite seem to understand... you'd be much better off instituting state laws to provide medical marijuana under a REPUBLICAN president, as opposed to a Democrat. Sure, a Libertarian would be even better, but you're not going to elect a Libertarian, and such a thing probably won't happen in our lifetimes. Either a R or D is going to win the presidency. Of those two, the R's are the ones who advocate state's rights, the Democrats want the federal government to control what your state does. Since a vast majority of people in the country are not in favor of 'legal weed' you have a problem with a statist federal government, which you would not have if feds minded their own business and left states to decide this for themselves. If left to federal officials, you'll never see pot legalized fully, because too many people across the nation don't agree with you. Whereas, with a federal government which believes in states rights, and steps aside to let the state do what the people of the state want to do... well, there is at least the possibility of seeing legalization that way. Of course, you can also wait for a few decades and hope that society 'evolves' more, but then... you aren't going to enjoy your pot much in the nursing home, most of them don't allow smoking these days.
You don't have to sell me on federalism ( please don't call it state's right's -use the proper definition), and I agree in part the Libs tend to always want an increase in Fed'l scope and powers.
most ppl in this country now do want deciminalization/legalization -i'll post a poll if you wish. It's the entrenched special interest groups -in this case big pharma, and the DEA that will not let it go - they insist on their abiluty to keep screwing around with medical marijuana.
The current head of the DEA is a Bush appointee.
Michele Leonhart is a former Bush appointee and the current DEA Administrator for the Obama administration.

so i'm not sure your argument flies.
 
You don't have to sell me on federalism ( please don't call it state's right's -use the proper definition), and I agree in part the Libs tend to always want an increase in Fed'l scope and powers.
most ppl in this country now do want deciminalization/legalization -i'll post a poll if you wish. It's the entrenched special interest groups -in this case big pharma, and the DEA that will not let it go - they insist on their abiluty to keep screwing around with medical marijuana.
The current head of the DEA is a Bush appointee.
Michele Leonhart is a former Bush appointee and the current DEA Administrator for the Obama administration.

so i'm not sure your argument flies.

You can post whatever poll you like, there are large swaths of this country that would NEVER vote to legalize pot. Hell, we can't even get a lottery in Alabama, even when every state around us has one! Now... if you want to consider the huge population centers on the Left Coast and the liberal northeast, then perhaps the raw numbers add up, but that's not how things are determined by Congress. It's precisely why we have electoral votes.

The DEA is not a special interest group, they are a department of the federal government. Does Bush appointee, Michele Leonhart, make up their own policies, or do they follow the policies set forth by the administration they are working for? I'm assuming you understand how government operates, and we don't need to really debate this. The DEA will follow whatever policy the president lays out, and that's that.
 
stop posing....I've already posted your statement......I not that you don't deny saying it, you just keep saying post it.......since you keep saying that even though I posted it four times in the other thread as well as here its obvious you want something more than simply posting it......tell us what it is?.....

How about you sticking your head up your ass? :0)

That's what I want.

All I needed from you is to demonstrate that you're a liar and can't support the bullshit you post.

And you did just that.

Thanks
 
You can post whatever poll you like, there are large swaths of this country that would NEVER vote to legalize pot. Hell, we can't even get a lottery in Alabama, even when every state around us has one! Now... if you want to consider the huge population centers on the Left Coast and the liberal northeast, then perhaps the raw numbers add up, but that's not how things are determined by Congress. It's precisely why we have electoral votes.

The DEA is not a special interest group, they are a department of the federal government. Does Bush appointee, Michele Leonhart, make up their own policies, or do they follow the policies set forth by the administration they are working for? I'm assuming you understand how government operates, and we don't need to really debate this. The DEA will follow whatever policy the president lays out, and that's that.

you bring up a good point:
Does Bush appointee, Michele Leonhart, make up their own policies, or do they follow the policies set forth by the administration they are working for?
sure the DEA follows DoJ policy, but since MM is a Schedule 1 drug, the DEA doesn't recognize "smoked marijuana as a medicine"
(direct quote).
The question becomes to what degree the DEA pushes on DoJ/Obama -i assume a LOT of pressure, they are a huge powerful agency, with worldwide. Offices.
DEA is in every major city within the United States, and has foreign offices in more than 50 countries around the world
http://www.justthinktwice.com/content/inside_dea.html

You can see what happens, the DEA Adm is a hardnosed anti - marijuana woman, the whole agency is like Hoover's FBI on steroids.

So. They can use the clout - maybe mention "hey if you want us to use our powers to stop narco-traffcing of marjijuana, into the US. -
you (Obama/Holder) have to let us enforce internal laws."

Now that's pure speculation on my part, but you know how bureaucratic maze work inside gov't. you want co-operation? fund me, or give me this or that,
and i'll prioritize your request.
What I'm trying to say the institutional bureaurcrats outlive any Adm. They want the budgets, and turf, they can help or hinder an Adm's goals.

IMHO -this is what is happening -no proof -just my opinion, the DEA wasn't going to stand around and let states be the "laboratory of democracy".
No way, the states were impeding the DEA's scope of domestic power.

So they sat down with Obama, and told him how it's going to be, which generates pressure on the DoJ -which resulted in the shift from the Ogden memo to the Cole memo -and not happy with the fact ( which ALTHEA IS correct about) some weed was getting diverted.

They did the same thing down here in Florida, for pain clinics, Fl had lax controls, and the DEA pushed for a state database, so now if you want pain meds -other than Tramadol (Ultram) - you have to get an MRI, and such. i can cost hundreds of $$.
With the database the DEA can and DOES -look thru Rx's, and will go after a Dr. with criminal charges.

It happened to a good decent dr, that used to write me pain meds, when I needed them for sciatica.
Orlando doctor accused of running pill mill wants trial's venue changedOrlando Sentinel
Attorneys for an Orlando doctor accused of running a pill-mill argued Wednesday that there's too much publicity on the prescription-drug epidemic in Central Florida for him to get a fair tria. But a judge said they need to try to pick a jury locally first before selecting a panel from outside the area.

Roman Mosai was arrested two years ago in one of the first large-scale investigations into Central Florida physicians accused of illegally prescribing highly addictive drugs such as painkillers http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...ill-change-of-venue-motion-management-clinics.
 
Last edited:
I was wondering when you'd show up in this thread. :0)

and yes, a small termite that's dumb and a perpetual liar.

Not a problem.
LOL. I'm still goofing around at DCJ, but it's such a waste, just easier to post there. LOL "termite problems" too?"
I'm working 2 jobs. I finally get a day off, and my bathroom wall collapes on me ( the tiles -think there is termite damage)
 
LOL. I'm still goofing around at DCJ, but it's such a waste, just easier to post there. LOL "termite problems" too?"
I'm working 2 jobs. I finally get a day off, and my bathroom wall collapes on me ( the tiles -think there is termite damage)

You're alive and working.

Sounds good to me brother.
 
LOL. I'm still goofing around at DCJ, but it's such a waste, just easier to post there. LOL "termite problems" too?"
I'm working 2 jobs. I finally get a day off, and my bathroom wall collapes on me ( the tiles -think there is termite damage)

Oh, so sorry! Hope it is a chep fix, but if it is termites, probably not!
 
sure the DEA follows DoJ policy, but since MM is a Schedule 1 drug, the DEA doesn't recognize "smoked marijuana as a medicine"
(direct quote).
The question becomes to what degree the DEA pushes on DoJ/Obama -i assume a LOT of pressure, they are a huge powerful agency, with worldwide. Offices.

Do you not see the ridiculous irony in what you are claiming? The DEA can't "follow the DoJ" and also "push on" them. They are not a more huge and powerful agency than the Federal government, the DoJ or the president, they serve at their behest. IF the DoJ sez leave it the fuck alone, and the president sez, leave it the fuck alone, the DEA is going to do what? Come on, it's real simple, even you can figure that out!

Again, the point being... Republicans are much more likely to advocate federalist (or states rights) policies, and allow the states to determine through the voting process, how to handle medical marijuana. Democrats are more likely to do what they have done under the Obama administration, and DENY states this right. BUT.... Liberal politicians will blow smoke up your skirt and tell you that the (R's) are all a bunch of bible-thumpers who want to tell you what to do, and if you will just keep electing them to power, you'll have all these 'freedoms' liberals long for. That's simply not ever going to happen, and we see the evidence right before our very eyes. Virtually the same argument could be made for abortion or gay marriage as well, we aren't going to see a national effort from feds, there is too much at stake politically, and they simply can't do it. The way you get this stuff is by supporting federalist policy, whereby the state retains the right to make these decisions, then you simply have to convince the voters in your state.
 
You're alive and working. Sounds good to me brother.
Thanks. One gets older and just more weary, of living the life of the working poor.It's still good alive to be in this garden of paradise(non-biblical).
The bugs do bug me though. the crappy economy, and the outlook for more crappy economy as far as economic models show.

"All things must pass away" -but until I do, i'm going down swinging. :good4u:
 
Do you not see the ridiculous irony in what you are claiming? The DEA can't "follow the DoJ" and also "push on" them. They are not a more huge and powerful agency than the Federal government, the DoJ or the president, they serve at their behest. IF the DoJ sez leave it the fuck alone, and the president sez, leave it the fuck alone, the DEA is going to do what? Come on, it's real simple, even you can figure that out!

Again, the point being... Republicans are much more likely to advocate federalist (or states rights) policies, and allow the states to determine through the voting process, how to handle medical marijuana. Democrats are more likely to do what they have done under the Obama administration, and DENY states this right. BUT.... Liberal politicians will blow smoke up your skirt and tell you that the (R's) are all a bunch of bible-thumpers who want to tell you what to do, and if you will just keep electing them to power, you'll have all these 'freedoms' liberals long for. That's simply not ever going to happen, and we see the evidence right before our very eyes. Virtually the same argument could be made for abortion or gay marriage as well, we aren't going to see a national effort from feds, there is too much at stake politically, and they simply can't do it. The way you get this stuff is by supporting federalist policy, whereby the state retains the right to make these decisions, then you simply have to convince the voters in your state.
It's not so simple, the stuff is Schedule 1. and Gonzalez v Raich
allows the DEA - independent of WHATEVER policy the JOJ espouses -is codified to act.
The questions becomes at what level, does the DEA push into state law. The DoJ sets the policy, what makes me wonder ( and i might be wildly off base), is what is making the Cole Memo supplant the Ogden Memo.
"Stoners" Burnouts" - i doubt it, i still think because the DEA is an extreme power, and can push DoJ - I did say it was simple speculation on my part.

So I could be completely off base.

You don't have to sell me on getting rid of Obama, but I'm not going to vote for Romney or Ryan, whom also have their desires to expand the military.
I tend to tack libertarian, but not strick orthodox adherence. I'm going for Gary Johnson, because as important as the war on medical marijuan is -the utmost importance is ending these perpetual "wars on terror".

I'm an old "peace Democrat" I can't support Obama's escalation inAfPak, nor indiscriminate drone use .
I also hate the 2 party system, so I'm going libertarian. Thanks for your thoughts -we are not so far apart-but we are also not the same, as I fear the US is headed into another Crusade type perpetual war(s).
 
It's not so simple, the stuff is Schedule 1.

Schedule 1 doesn't mean jack shit with regard to medical prescription drugs.

The DEA is not some rogue agency that does whatever it pleases. If you think that, you are a moron who doesn't understand basic government and how it works, and there isn't much I can do to help you with that problem. The Drug Enforcement Agency is part of the US Government, and they follow the policies set forth by the DoJ and the President. Congress could completely get rid of the agency if they wanted to, they have absolutely NO autonomous power.

Now Big Pharma, you can make the claim they are a powerful lobby... but again, is it more difficult to lobby 1 Congress in Washington, or would it be considerably more difficult to lobby 50 state legislatures? It would be entirely cost-prohibitive to try and stop medical marijuana on a state-by-state basis, they'd go broke trying. The point I am making is, you have to take this out of the hands of the federal government, and let states determine for themselves. Granted, some states (like Alabama) might not ever approve medical marijuana, but I am betting a large number would. Once you get to the point where 3/4ths of the states have such laws, the Supreme Court can rule that it's "unconstitutional" to prohibit the activity by the states who hold out, and everyone gets medical marijuana, like it or not. The way you're NOT going to get legal weed, is by continuing to elect Liberals who want the federal government to handle everything, and the states rendered powerless. That's a sure fire way to NOT get pot legalized.
 
Schedule 1 doesn't mean jack shit with regard to medical prescription drugs.

The DEA is not some rogue agency that does whatever it pleases. If you think that, you are a moron who doesn't understand basic government and how it works, and there isn't much I can do to help you with that problem. The Drug Enforcement Agency is part of the US Government, and they follow the policies set forth by the DoJ and the President. Congress could completely get rid of the agency if they wanted to, they have absolutely NO autonomous power.

Now Big Pharma, you can make the claim they are a powerful lobby... but again, is it more difficult to lobby 1 Congress in Washington, or would it be considerably more difficult to lobby 50 state legislatures? It would be entirely cost-prohibitive to try and stop medical marijuana on a state-by-state basis, they'd go broke trying. The point I am making is, you have to take this out of the hands of the federal government, and let states determine for themselves. Granted, some states (like Alabama) might not ever approve medical marijuana, but I am betting a large number would. Once you get to the point where 3/4ths of the states have such laws, the Supreme Court can rule that it's "unconstitutional" to prohibit the activity by the states who hold out, and everyone gets medical marijuana, like it or not. The way you're NOT going to get legal weed, is by continuing to elect Liberals who want the federal government to handle everything, and the states rendered powerless. That's a sure fire way to NOT get pot legalized.

Schedule 1 doesn't mean jack shit with regard to medical prescription drugs
:palm: "no legitimate medical use" means EVERYTHING.Even cocaine is Schedule 2. it means any state law on MM is inherently "illegal", as shown by Gonzalez v Raich.

Look. tone it down, with the 'moron' speech, I don't speak to you that way, there is no reason to be so crude, i understand how gov't is set up.
Do you want me to walk back my hypothesis? Fine -I have no proof of it, it is just that I understand the power of bureaucrats, they are instutional, not elected official whom come and go.
We have no idea what type of power plays go on - since the DEA has enormous scope and reach, nothing has to even be said directly, there can be political pressures? really who knows?, and AGAIN It wa simple speculation.

Which still leaves me with the question then, of WHY the shift? More imporatantly why the INTENSE use of random RICO threats sent out by the USDA's - there are probably close to a thousand by now, if i must repeat myself, they are on a fishing expedition.

They started out with "big is bad", then "poorly run", and if you look under the General Politics(Weed Wars)expanded that to even a clinic such as Harborside, wich is probably the most well run clinic.

Even if it were desirable for every medical marijuana patient in the country to grow their own cannabis at home, for many patients it is simply not practical.
Dispensaries, many of which are non-profit co-ops, are the only feasible option for many patients to obtain treatment prescribed to them by a physician and authorized by state law.

OK -so please i'm up to my armpits in termite damage, trying to quiet my mind a bit on my day off -and you and I keep having this discussion.

I'm fine with your politics, i try to stay as non-partisian, and non-idelogical as possible, i don't like partisian squabbling, without some accomodation for the others p.o.v. That's my bottom line the duopoly is going to kill this country, we're at war with the world, and at war with ourselves.(hyperpartisianship).

So just have nice day, i stopped by to discuss this, and probably should not have put my speculative idea out there, as it seems to everything is black or wnite, when i know the politics should be mostly shades of grey. accomodation if at all possible, without abondoning your core principles.
 
Back
Top