what happened at the meeting today?

[TheReleafCenter]

One could argue that a big mac is a harmful substance, a soda, deodorant, cell phones, and the list goes on and on.

1 in 2 people will develop cancer sometime in their lives whereas 50 years ago it was 1 in 10 (yet more than 50% of the population smoked cigarettes), diabetes is now an epidemic and just about every other major disease is striking a higher percentage of the population. Doesnt appear the govts attempt to protect us is working at all. But hey, at least the medical and pharmaceutical industries are making record profits.

The problem with our government is it works in the interest of those in a position of money and power, not the people it supposedly represents. Marijuana is a perfect example, it has been and still is labeled as a harmful substance by people with an interest in private prisons, alcohol companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc. and millions of lives have been ruined by the govt 'protecting us' from it.

1284 was created for many reasons and the least of it was to protect or benefit consumers.

So the government should protect us, but it can't because of money and power?

[copobo]

Shouldn't people be protected from ingesting harmful substances? What do you think the government should have the right to protect you from?

we certainly don't need to be regulating marijuana any more than we do fruits and vegetables in this regard.

marijuana isn't especially harmful, requiring special regulation for health and safety. in fact, it's especially un-harmful. We just don't need to be pretending we are doing the right thing, regulating it like it's cocaine, when it's just cannabis.

cannabis is as safe as mothers milk.

[Stickybooger]

we certainly don't need to be regulating marijuana any more than we do fruits and vegetables in this regard.

marijuana isn't especially harmful, requiring special regulation for health and safety. in fact, it's especially un-harmful. We just don't need to be pretending we are doing the right thing, regulating it like it's cocaine, when it's just cannabis.

cannabis is as safe as mothers milk.

:thumbsup:

[senorx12562]

I don't subscribe to most of the conspiracy theories you will read about on these forums and others. To be effective would require of the conspirators an efficiency and competency that government rarely if ever displays. I do however believe that government employees eventually seek to preserve and expand their own power base, at the expense of their original remit.

I also am a firm believer in the law of unintended consequences, by which the actions of government tend to have consequences that were unforeseen, and often make the "cure" worse than the "disease." In this case, clearly (to me at least) unadulterated marijuana is not dangerous enough to justify any regulation whatsoever. With respect to possible adulterants, without the rewards inherent in trafficking in a black market substance (which marijuana still is under the current regulatory scheme because of the "medical" sham) there would be no reason to use any such adulterants to stimulate growth or kill pests. Once again, an example of the law of unintended consequences.

[TheReleafCenter]

we certainly don't need to be regulating marijuana any more than we do fruits and vegetables in this regard.

marijuana isn't especially harmful, requiring special regulation for health and safety. in fact, it's especially un-harmful. We just don't need to be pretending we are doing the right thing, regulating it like it's cocaine, when it's just cannabis.

cannabis is as safe as mothers milk.

But if this is truly medical marijuana, shouldn't it be tracked like any other medication? We don't allow people to make pharmaceuticals in their homes and distribute them, regardless of how safe they are.

If you're talking about legalization, I think you make a fair point. I just feel like at this point we're muddling the two.

I don't subscribe to most of the conspiracy theories you will read about on these forums and others. To be effective would require of the conspirators an efficiency and competency that government rarely if ever displays. I do however believe that government employees eventually seek to preserve and expand their own power base, at the expense of their original remit.

I also am a firm believer in the law of unintended consequences, by which the actions of government tend to have consequences that were unforeseen, and often make the "cure" worse than the "disease." In this case, clearly (to me at least) unadulterated marijuana is not dangerous enough to justify any regulation whatsoever. With respect to possible adulterants, without the rewards inherent in trafficking in a black market substance (which marijuana still is under the current regulatory scheme because of the "medical" sham) there would be no reason to use any such adulterants to stimulate growth or kill pests. Once again, an example of the law of unintended consequences.

I disagree with you on stimulating growth, but let's turn the law of unintended consequences on it's head. If you remove marijuana from the black market, do we see a rise in illicit, highly addictive drugs? An increase in border violence as cartels struggle to retain power? I certainly wouldn't use either of these as arguments against legalization, anymore than say... a repeal of DADT may make some people uncomfortable, because it's the right thing to do. Unintended consequences are funny like that, though.

Should the government allow use of other relatively harmless substances, like LSD or mushrooms? MDMA? Do they have the right to tell you to wear your seatbelt? That you can't yell fire in a movie theater?

Just trying to get some bearings on where you're coming from.

[copobo]

But if this is truly medical marijuana, shouldn't it be tracked like any other medication? We don't allow people to make pharmaceuticals in their homes and distribute them, regardless of how safe they are.

If you're talking about legalization, I think you make a fair point. I just feel like at this point we're muddling the two.

just because it's 'medical' marijuana doesn't change the nature of it being cannabis. the regulation is all about the money, not safety.

[ds0110]

But if this is truly medical marijuana, shouldn't it be tracked like any other medication? We don't allow people to make pharmaceuticals in their homes and distribute them, regardless of how safe they are.

If you want to make fish oil or vitamin c, im sure there is no problem. Mj is more natural than both of those.

I disagree with you on stimulating growth, but let's turn the law of unintended consequences on it's head. If you remove marijuana from the black market, do we see a rise in illicit, highly addictive drugs? An increase in border violence as cartels struggle to retain power? I certainly wouldn't use either of these as arguments against legalization, anymore than say... a repeal of DADT may make some people uncomfortable, because it's the right thing to do. Unintended consequences are funny like that, though.

Should the government allow use of other relatively harmless substances, like LSD or mushrooms? MDMA? Do they have the right to tell you to wear your seatbelt? That you can't yell fire in a movie theater?

Just trying to get some bearings on where you're coming from.

YES, prohibition does not work. You got it. On anything. It only causes a black market which in turn causes violence. It creates and enables al capone and the mexican drug cartels. It does not decrease the supply, and actually if you look at the past 30-40 years, supply under prohibition has increased. Yes, this applies to all drugs. So making them legal isnt going to increase availability. If anything it will make it harder to buy these drugs, since youll need a license to purchase. (like how liquor is harder for a minor to buy than heroin) You can never eliminate drug use, as there has never been a 100% sober society in the history of mankind. What they need is to take all this money they spend on the drug war and use it on drug education and rehabilitation. Free needle exchange. Free hard drugs but the addict has to stay at the facility for a month out of the year and sober up. Cartels/Black market dies immediately, violence goes down, etc. Border violence is about control and debts, both of which are gone if the profits are eliminated. Its not about the drug, its about the money/profits. Society would not crumble from people getting too high, as drugs would be less available and less profitable under legalization. They would become boring.

Yelling fire in a theatre infringes upon other peoples peace, and therefore should get you kicked out. But its just speech, and should not be illegal.

[HighPopalorum]

I'm of the 'fruits and vegetables' mindset as well. Cannabis should be regulated as other products made for human consumption are: testing and inspection at every stage of production, strict controls on chemicals and additives, honesty-in-labeling requirements, unannounced inspections at retail sales locations. Like restaurants and other businesses there should be local and state licensing. Like restaurants, MMCs that sell contaminated cannabis should be warned, fined, and eventually permanently closed. Like produce, only commercial products should be regulated. (No regulation for non-commercial growers.)

However, I realize that MMJ is following a different regulatory pathway, closer to that of pharmaceutical regulation than food. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I think we'll see a shift when it is re-legalized.

[TheReleafCenter]

just because it's 'medical' marijuana doesn't change the nature of it being cannabis. the regulation is all about the money, not safety.

But observation isn't how we approve any other form of state recognized medicine. It seems like a few of you are compartmentalizing cannabis and how it should be treated, and I suppose that's understandable. It's a plant we love and it's unfairly demonized.

[GratefulMeds]

I wonder how many patients are going to leave the registry with these new proposals? If what I read is right, the patients picture, transactions including the amount of medicine purchased and the frequency of purchases will be captured on video and also entered into the database, I doubt if many patients will be willing to put their private lives under such scrutiny. I bet we see a lot more lobbying by these centers to make this a more patient friendly system or they will probably end up all shutting down. Hmm, I wonder

Again this is all part of the plan (To shut down 90% of the shops that were open back then, 2009) and this is just some more sweeping up for them, they let you think they over looked this or that. But as you see as soon as they noticed another way to make it more difficult and just not worth the cost and hassle to do business for centers they pull something out of their hats to make it so.
This is the worst infringement yet on the State Constitution and amendment 20 as written in 2000. almost 3/4 of that amendment talks about the registry and the need for it's confidentiality and how to enact this and ensure that it was and to talk about penalties for violating that confidentiality.
This is the oppositions "Holy Grail" (folks like Suthers, Romer and such) if they are able to pull this off the program (MMJ caregiver/patient program through the Health Dept.) is effectively destroyed, you constitutional right that was fought so hard for back in the 90's.
It most definitely takes out most of the Centers! remember folks we are competing over customers that are registered which right now makes up 2% of the States Population, for the centers to survive this percentage must increase. Even something as little as a .5 % drop in registry patients would take out many more shops. again seems to all be part of their plan.
(I'll take off my tin foil hat now and sign off):wtf::wtf: