Marijuana Possession

[Gary F]

Depends on the definition. By this* broad definition, EVERYTHING is a drug; A drug, broadly speaking, is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function.

Attempts to lump all drugs together is a ploy used to confuse the uninformed.

So then sugar is a drug, so could Gatorade I guess.

I can tell you as a carbohydrate addict that sugar is dangerous stuff but at least it is not psychotropic.

The reality is that while "a drug by definition" no one calls someone that drinks alcohol recreationally a druggie, that is just stupid. Perhaps an abuser, but just normal use? Not so much.

Marijuana is used almost exclusively for it's mind altering properties. Alcohol is also a psychotropic drug but it can be used at doses where the effects are minimal and the FAA has well established rules concerning it's use by pilots.

 

[pilot_dude]

Depends on the definition. By this* broad definition, EVERYTHING is a drug; A drug, broadly speaking, is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function.

So then sugar is a drug, so could Gatorade I guess.

The reality is that while "a drug by definition" no one calls someone that drinks alcohol recreationally a druggie, that is just stupid. Perhaps an abuser, but just normal use? Not so much.

I understand what you're staying, tdager.

Allow me to give my mindset so you and Gary F. can understand where I'm coming from as I have done a poor job communicating my point. Before I do, Gary F., at no time did I mean to imply you were stupid. If that came across, I apologize.

I come from a family with a history of alcoholism. My father was a recovering alcholic for the last 22 years of his life. I watched what alcohol did to one who consumed it in excess. I also watched a man turn his life around once the monkey was off his back. With that as my backdrop, I find it personally disturbing and disengenuine when I see things written such as alcohol and drugs. From my perspective, there is no distinction between the two, other than the legality of the former, as both can be exceptionally distructive to mind, body, soul and family.

I hope that helps explain where my mind is on this topic. I'm not asking for anyone to agree with this but rather providing insight to my comments.

 

[Henning]

Marijuana is used almost exclusively for it's mind altering properties. Alcohol is also a psychotropic drug but it can be used at doses where the effects are minimal and the FAA has well established rules concerning it's use by pilots.

Poor argument as pot can, and typically is, used the same way as alchohol. A person who drinks "a drink" also will typically take "a hit" with a decent corollary to levels of intoxication. Typical users of either don't stop at "one" though. Primary difference is the level of violence involved after ingestion of typical dosage either substance. Drunks cause way more problems than stoners.

 

[steingar]

I understand what you're staying, tdager.

Allow me to give my mindset so you and Gary F. can understand where I'm coming from as I have done a poor job communicating my point. Before I do, Gary F., at no time did I mean to imply you were stupid. If that came across, I apologize.

I come from a family with a history of alcoholism. My father was a recovering alcholic for the last 22 years of his life. I watched what alcohol did to one who consumed it in excess. I also watched a man turn his life around once the monkey was off his back. With that as my backdrop, I find it personally disturbing and disengenuine when I see things written such as alcohol and drugs. From my perspective, there is no distinction between the two, other than the legality of the former, as both can be exceptionally distructive to mind, body, soul and family.

I hope that helps explain where my mind is on this topic. I'm not asking for anyone to agree with this but rather providing insight to my comments.

My condolences for your experiences, and it is nice to hear that your father was able to recover. Alcoholism is a mental disease, like bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, and can be just as disabling. I must point out that there is a huge difference between me having a glass of wine with dinner last night, and me drinking a six-pack of beer to get blasted. In the former example ethanol is part of a beverage, the latter a drug.

Marijuana is very different. It is not a spice or a herb. It is simply a drug. It is actually fairly safe as a drug, it does not foster physiological dependency and is difficult to overdose. It does have long-term side effects as described elsewhere in this thread, but so do most recreational chemicals. Of course, it can be just as disastrous as ethanol to those predisposed to substance dependancy, since their addictions are psychological, and not physiological.

 

[tdager]

Imagine if effort was put into moving the vast amount of wasted money we throw at law enforcement locking up addicts and moving that money into treating addiction and drug use as to what it really is: a public health issue.

Drugs and addiction are a public health problem, not a law enforcement problem. Period. Our current situation of locking up addicts is just as ridiculous as the TSA groping people at the airport. It's theater for the 6 o'clock news, no more no less.

And there is part of the problem. As a generally law abiding, non-illegal drug using tax payer, I am fine with spending tax dollars to enforce the law (whatever it is though I may not always agree) as that is a collective task.

However my tax dollars going to "treatment" for people that CHOOSE to be high? No thanks...you smokey-the-dopey you-payee-the-clinic yourself. You cannot...tough cookies. You break into a house to get your fix...we toss you in jail.

 

[tdager]

I understand what you're staying, tdager.

Allow me to give my mindset so you and Gary F. can understand where I'm coming from as I have done a poor job communicating my point. Before I do, Gary F., at no time did I mean to imply you were stupid. If that came across, I apologize.

I come from a family with a history of alcoholism. My father was a recovering alcholic for the last 22 years of his life. I watched what alcohol did to one who consumed it in excess. I also watched a man turn his life around once the monkey was off his back. With that as my backdrop, I find it personally disturbing and disengenuine when I see things written such as alcohol and drugs. From my perspective, there is no distinction between the two, other than the legality of the former, as both can be exceptionally distructive to mind, body, soul and family.

I hope that helps explain where my mind is on this topic. I'm not asking for anyone to agree with this but rather providing insight to my comments.

Fair enough. I do see what you are saying as I too have had alcoholic family members. In the end though that is an issue with them, not alcohol. I drink recreationally, have quite a nice selection of wines, rums, and other liquors. I do drink sometimes to "get a buzz", and sometimes to even "get drunk" but I can quit tomorrow and not pick it up if that is a decision I make or a requirement I have to meet. So for *me* and many (if not most) drinkers, unless we want to stretch the definition of drugs to call a person that puts sugar in their coffee a druggie (double druggie?) than no, we do not call simply drinkers drug addicts.

 

[pilot_dude]

My condolences for your experiences, and it is nice to hear that your father was able to recover. Alcoholism is a mental disease, like bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, and can be just as disabling. I must point out that there is a huge difference between me having a glass of wine with dinner last night, and me drinking a six-pack of beer to get blasted. In the former example ethanol is part of a beverage, the latter a drug.

Marijuana is very different. It is not a spice or a herb. It is simply a drug. It is actually fairly safe as a drug, it does not foster physiological dependency and is difficult to overdose. It does have long-term side effects as described elsewhere in this thread, but so do most recreational chemicals. Of course, it can be just as disastrous as ethanol to those predisposed to substance dependancy, since their addictions are psychological, and not physiological.

Thank you. If I may make a distinction, my father never "recovered" but was always in a state of "recovering". Symantics maybe but that has been drilled into my head for as long as I can recall.

We are in agreement with what you stated.

 

[elmetal]

Poor argument as pot can, and typically is, used the same way as alchohol. A person who drinks "a drink" also will typically take "a hit" with a decent corollary to levels of intoxication. Typical users of either don't stop at "one" though. Primary difference is the level of violence involved after ingestion of typical dosage either substance. Drunks cause way more problems than stoners.

I agreed with you until you said the bold statement.

That is simply not true of alcohol. I can easily go to lunch get a beer and an IPA and be good.

now and Alcoholic, won't stop at one or two or three. Alcoholics aren't typical users.

With that said, I agree with the rest

 

[Everskyward]

Please keep in mind again that not all "unregistered" posts are from me, the OP.

Why don't you sign in then? It makes the conversation hard to follow when there are a number of unregistered posters.

 

[Everskyward]

What seems to be the argument now is when marijuana IS LEGAL federally, should pilots be allowed to use it.

There are a whole list of drugs which are legal but are regulated or prohibited as far as being a pilot is concerned.

 

[murphey]

You don't get arrested for being over 0.04. You get grounded. You don't know much about the difference between civil, regulatory and criminal law, do you?Yes you are. No, I'm not going to because you have already demonstrated that you discount anything you don't agree with, and have also demonstrated that your comprehension of criminal penalty vs. civil penalty is nil. In short your are trolling purporting to be a voice of reason. But you are transparent. It's also apparent you can't understand the research method, so what's the point. You need to return to school. I'm not here to be your professor.How likely are constitutional amendments to remove said clause? How long do we wait for the federal courts to get up to the appeals courts to change the presumption of >1 oz = intent to deliver. Stop trolling.Another example of trolling. It's obvious you've never run an enterprise. You should spend more time and effort in making sure your randoms really remain negative. It's a matter of GREAT concern to enterprises, Boards of Directors, and CEOs. The affect on Judgement is enormous. I'n not going to launch into a description of the difference between good judgement and being smart. That's way outta the park for this discussioni.Right. The big issue is the amounts of $$ involve in the Cocaine, Heroin and Fentany trade are starting to corrupt our institutions. You obviously have no LEO experience either..and affect his judgement. But you don't know what that is, do you.

I'm done. Have a nice relaxed life.
This board has been amazing the last two weeks. Bevis and all his relatives have suddenly roosted here.......

oh my...the OP is reminiscent of rec.aviation.* - not as vitrolic but just as clueless.

Great stuff Dr. Bruce - once again, this is a great place to learn about more than just aviation. I wasn't aware of the biochemistry involved nor the long-term residual effects in the body,

Now, to use a phrase from r.a.*, can we stop feeding the trolls?

 

[murphey]

I suppose you and I can "agree to disagree" on the topic of marijuana. I would really recommend you rethink calling me a troll though. I have done nothing to provoke emotions out of anyone here. That's not the case for some of the posters in this thread.

Well, it's very easy to label you a troll. By the loose definitions of the internet, a troll is someone who continually argues with no factual evidence. And I quote from the Urban Dictionary

"One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption"

Note there is no reference to obscenity, profanity nor invective. However you repeatedly make specious pronouncements about behaviors you attribute to others with no references, no facts.

Yes, you are entitled to your opinions, but that's all they are. They are not based on facts, not on validated scientific and/or medical research.

You have demonstrated the most offensive behavior possible in a newsgroup - you are tedious and boring.

 

[murphey]

Because it is no way a matter of "if". Marijuana WILL be legal sometime in the future. Read all the stats, facts, and what ever else you want here: http://mpp.org/

Support for legalization has rose every year for the last 6 or 7 years, and is now at a point where it is almost 50-50. If you have any idea as to the demographics of who is for and against marijuana, it is quite clear that a very significant majority of the country's population will be in support.

Somehow, I cannot accept the Marijuana Policy Project as objective reporting
.

 

[steingar]

And there is part of the problem. As a generally law abiding, non-illegal drug using tax payer, I am fine with spending tax dollars to enforce the law (whatever it is though I may not always agree) as that is a collective task.

However my tax dollars going to "treatment" for people that CHOOSE to be high? No thanks...you smokey-the-dopey you-payee-the-clinic yourself. You cannot...tough cookies. You break into a house to get your fix...we toss you in jail.

I am afraid I take violent exception to this. The definition of stupidity is to unknowingly do the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome. The definition of insanity is to knowingly do so.

We have been interdicting drugs and throwing their users and purveyors in prison for years. We have the largest prison population in the world, and our law enforcement expenditures continue to grow in this regard. Moreover, law-abiding citizens have lost basic freedoms with regard to travel and privacy issues, casualties in our law enforcement efforts. Our efforts have done naught but enrich those who smuggle the contraband to the point where they are disabling and destroying many of their basic institutions.

While paying my tax dollars to treat those who wound up bitten by the substances they voluntarily did is a bitter pill, it is at least a novel direction that is less likely to endanger both my freedom here and the lives of those in other lands.

 

[Gary F]

I agree that misuse of alcohol often results in very bad consequences. Rather than argue that another psychotropic drug be legalized, perhaps alcohol should be made illegal. Except for the fact that the previous attempt to do this ended in failure and we all know prohibition will not be attempted in the near future. At least the FAA has a mechanism for dealing alcohol.

Should marijuana be legalized? This is a philosophical or political question. What role should the government have in deciding what I can ingest? If it is legalized the FAA will have it's hands full trying to decide how to deal with it. Until then it is apparent that you cannot hold a valid medical certificate if you use marijuana. I still don't know how this would affect balloon or glider pilots.

I have noticed that some of the posts (including mine) have been getting a little acrimonious. This often occurs when controversial subjects are being discussed. Hopefully future posts will be more civil and respectful even if the person who disagrees with me is a complete idiot. oops sorry.

 

[tdager]

I am afraid I take violent exception to this. The definition of stupidity is to unknowingly do the same thing over and over and expect a different outcome. The definition of insanity is to knowingly do so.

We have been interdicting drugs and throwing their users and purveyors in prison for years. We have the largest prison population in the world, and our law enforcement expenditures continue to grow in this regard. Moreover, law-abiding citizens have lost basic freedoms with regard to travel and privacy issues, casualties in our law enforcement efforts. Our efforts have done naught but enrich those who smuggle the contraband to the point where they are disabling and destroying many of their basic institutions.

While paying my tax dollars to treat those who wound up bitten by the substances they voluntarily did is a bitter pill, it is at least a novel direction that is less likely to endanger both my freedom here and the lives of those in other lands.

I hear your viewpoint, and too a degree understand it, I simply disagree. Sometimes the "right" thing is more costly to do. In this case society sets rules, you follow them or you pay. Want to get addicted to a substance all on your own? You, your family, or charity gets to help. Break the law we toss your ass in jail. Not nice, not pretty, expensive...but it is still the "right" thing to do. *shrug*

 

[steingar]

I hear your viewpoint, and too a degree understand it, I simply disagree. Sometimes the "right" thing is more costly to do. In this case society sets rules, you follow them or you pay. Want to get addicted to a substance all on your own? You, your family, or charity gets to help. Break the law we toss your ass in jail. Not nice, not pretty, expensive...but it is still the "right" thing to do. *shrug*

While I acknowledge the wisdom you profess, and label it such, there is another aspect to the issue. The "right" thing can have different meanings. One is moral, the right and proper thing based on one's moral code. Thus society makes something verboten, if you indulge you are punished.

Another definition of the "right" thing is the one that works better. Our interdiction/punishment approach has never worked. We imprison more, spend more, and yet narcotics are freely available in many in not most places. This is incontrovertible.

Since we are unable to successfully stop the flow of these substances, interdiction does not seem to be the "right" thing in terms of workability. A new approach seems necessary. Thus the "right" thing winds up being the one that does the least damage. Letting the stuff flow and dealing with the damage might wind up being the "right" thing in the long run. It does require us to do the repugnant thing of putting some dollars to work on treatment that could be spent elsewhere. On the other hand, it can save us on the order of fifty billion dollars a year (this year's Federal spending on narcotic interdiction) and bring in untold revenues from substance taxation.

Remember, the stuff is illegal only because society says it is. Society could say different.

 

[TMetzinger]

Nearly everyone I ever worked with in Drug Enforcement felt that Demand Reduction was the only strategy with any hope of long-term success. But we'd need a similar culture change to the one we have seen with tobacco. And if we legalized drugs, got the culture change so that most people avoided them completely, we'd still lose a not-insignificant number of people every year, in ways that would be much worse than what we lose to tobacco.

 

[Palmpilot]

This whole alcohol vs. pot debate is fairly meaningless, one is illegal and the other is not.

In the discussion of whether pot should be legal, the above would be a circular argument.

 

[Unregistered]

Murphey:
Thank you for also labeling me a troll. Unfortunately, all of your reasons for labeling me such is simply not true. I have provided multiple citations to the FACTS I draw my opinions from throughout the thread. Sure, MPP itself might not be the most objective source, but if you even had a look, you would see their data comes from Gallup poles conducted annually for over 40 years.

Here is a direct link to Gallup if you can't figure it out for yourself:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/144086/New-High-Americans-Support-Legalizing-Marijuana.aspx

Again, you are another example of "the pot calling the kettle black." What have YOU contributed here besides trying to convince others I am a troll.

--

The reason I am anonymous is because I do not want my opinion on this topic to affect my persona to be altered in this clearly very hostile forum.

 

[Palmpilot]

However my tax dollars going to "treatment" for people that CHOOSE to be high? No thanks...you smokey-the-dopey you-payee-the-clinic yourself. You cannot...tough cookies. You break into a house to get your fix...we toss you in jail.

I like my tax dollars to be spent on measures that are effective.

 

[Palmpilot]

oh my...the OP is reminiscent of rec.aviation.* - not as vitrolic but just as clueless.

Great stuff Dr. Bruce - once again, this is a great place to learn about more than just aviation. I wasn't aware of the biochemistry involved nor the long-term residual effects in the body,

Now, to use a phrase from r.a.*, can we stop feeding the trolls?

You admit that you've learned from the thread but you want it to stop?

 

[Unregistered]

However my tax dollars going to "treatment" for people that CHOOSE to be high? No thanks...you smokey-the-dopey you-payee-the-clinic yourself. You cannot...tough cookies. You break into a house to get your fix...we toss you in jail.

If marijuana was legal, the government would not only be making money off of it, but would also be SAVING money and reducing crime. They would tax the hell out of it, be able to spend much less on law enforcement and the incarceration of marijuana users. Further, LEOs would be able to focus more criminals who actually hinder society.

 

[Palmpilot]

Somehow, I cannot accept the Marijuana Policy Project as objective reporting.

Obviously they have a point of view, but I wouldn't want to form a conclusion on the validity of their claims without seeing if they cite scientifically valid sources.

 

[murphey]

You admit that you've learned from the thread but you want it to stop?

I haven't learned from the thread, just from Dr. B. And I could have asked him a question about the toxicology without the thread.

 

[steingar]

Nearly everyone I ever worked with in Drug Enforcement felt that Demand Reduction was the only strategy with any hope of long-term success. But we'd need a similar culture change to the one we have seen with tobacco. And if we legalized drugs, got the culture change so that most people avoided them completely, we'd still lose a not-insignificant number of people every year, in ways that would be much worse than what we lose to tobacco.

What you leave out is that we already loose plenty of people. I do agree, in the wake of a hypothetical legalization movement the number of damaged individuals will likely rise, then fall as the societal damage becomes evident. That has already happened with cocaine, despite it's illegality. However, dollars from the taxation of narcotic substances can be routed into treatment programs to try and limit the damage. Moreover, legalization would restrict the damage done to the innocent in foreign lands, where the drug trade is run by criminal organizations whose violence readily spills into the population around them, and does far more damage than addiction does here.

 

[Palmpilot]

I haven't learned from the thread, just from Dr. B. And I could have asked him a question about the toxicology without the thread.

I've learned from Dr. B too, but I have also learned from others, and in any case it wouldn't have occurred to me to ask about this stuff.

Do you feel a need to control what other people talk about? Is someone forcing you to read the thread?

 

[ScottM]

Cannabinoids in the urine are grounding whether medical or not. The side effect profile of the "medication" is unacceptable to the FAA.

When my mom was ill and not eating from her chemo, the docs prescribed Marinol. I was told it was a THC derivative and would make her get the munchies. I have not looked to see if it is a grounding drug. But if a pilot were prescribed this and otherwise medically fit to fly, would they test positive of cannabinoids and thus be grounded for an unacceptable urine test?

I know this is a bit of a thread jack from the riveting conversation of what is better for you, marijuana, booze or cigarettes. But I thought I should ask.

 

[steingar]

When my mom was ill and not eating from her chemo, the docs prescribed Marinol. I was told it was a THC derivative and would make her get the munchies. I have not looked to see if it is a grounding drug. But if a pilot were prescribed this and otherwise medically fit to fly, would they test positive of cannabinoids and thus be grounded for an unacceptable urine test?

I know this is a bit of a thread jack from the riveting conversation of what is better for you, marijuana, booze or cigarettes. But I thought I should ask.

If you have a condition severe enough to cause anorexia, you probably shouldn't be flying anyway.

 

[Gary F]

I am almost certain that it is not on the list of approved medications. Marinol is used mostly to help with nausea from cancer chemotherapy which is disqualifying and anorexia due to advanced HIV disease, probably disqualifying.

 

[weilke]

When my mom was ill and not eating from her chemo, the docs prescribed Marinol. I was told it was a THC derivative and would make her get the munchies. I have not looked to see if it is a grounding drug. But if a pilot were prescribed this and otherwise medically fit to fly, would they test positive of cannabinoids and thus be grounded for an unacceptable urine test?

Yes.

Marinol/Dronabinol is the medicinal and legal form of THC. This is from the package insert:

you should know that dronabinol may make you drowsy and may cause changes in your mood, thinking, memory, judgment, or behavior, especially at the beginning of your treatment. You will need to be supervised by a responsible adult when you first begin taking dronabinol and whenever your dose is increased. Do not drive a car, operate machinery or do any other activity that requires mental alertness until you know how this medication affects you.

Beyond Marinol, there is very little to no medical need for 'medical marijuana'. The potheads and the associated dope-dealers with a medical license claim that 'marinol just doesn't work right' and that THC only works if inhaled. There are probably other cannabinoids that have a different/better profile from delta9-THC and if that is so, further pharmacologic research is probably a good idea. The current fad of legalizing MJ through the medical loophole does absolutely nothing to further this research.

 

[Unregistered]

I agree. Medical marijuana quite largely a "loop hole." Although marijuana truly is the only form of relief to a number of patients, I believe the majority of "medical" users really do not need it.

In my opinion, the medical use of marijuana, though still important, is not the highest priority reason for the legalization.

 

[Keith Lane]

The reason I am anonymous is because I do not want my opinion on this topic to affect my persona to be altered in this clearly very hostile forum.

Huh?
Something about this doesn't sound right.
It's a "I feel a whole lot more like I do right now than I did when I first got here", sort of thing.

 

[Unregistered]

Huh?
Something about this doesn't sound right.
It's a "I feel a whole lot more like I do right now than I did when I first got here", sort of thing.

Why does it matter? I would not like for people who have called me a "beavis", "pot head", "delusional", etc.. to attach any of their judgments about me in this otherwise aviation forum.

 

[Henning]

When my mom was ill and not eating from her chemo, the docs prescribed Marinol. I was told it was a THC derivative and would make her get the munchies. I have not looked to see if it is a grounding drug. But if a pilot were prescribed this and otherwise medically fit to fly, would they test positive of cannabinoids and thus be grounded for an unacceptable urine test?

I know this is a bit of a thread jack from the riveting conversation of what is better for you, marijuana, booze or cigarettes. But I thought I should ask.

Moot point since the underlying condition would be grounding.

 

[ScottM]

Moot point since the underlying condition would be grounding.

Which underlying medical condition? I clearly said prescribed this and "otherwise medically fit to fly". It is a hypothetical question.

 

[weilke]

I agree. Medical marijuana quite largely a "loop hole." Although marijuana truly is the only form of relief to a number of patients, I believe the majority of "medical" users really do not need it.

Here is weilkes model MMJ law:

If you
- have cancer
- are under the care of an oncologist and a pain medicine specialist (typically an anesthesiologist or internist with specialty training)
- are on an accepted regimen of pain control, nausea and dietary medications
- you have failed a treatment attempt with oral marinol

AND
- you are still in pain, nauseated and or loosing weight.

THEN
- you should not be held criminally responsible if you use smoked cannabis in an attempt to relieve your suffering.

If you
- have progressive MS
- you are under the care of a neurologist
- receiving an accepted regimen of treatment for MS and its symptoms
- you have failed a treatment attempt with oral marinol

AND
- you still have unrelenting pain, fatigue, weight-loss

THEN
- you should not be held criminally responsible if you use smoked cannabis in an attempt to reduce your suffering.

If you
- have end-stage AIDS
- you are under the care of an infectious disease specialist
- receiving a regimen of antiretroviral drugs, dietary support, secondary infection management.
- you have failed treatment with oral marinol

AND
- you are still loosing weight, suffer from pain related to neurologic manifestations of AIDS

THEN
- you should not be held criminally responsible if you try to use smoked cannabis in an

If you
- have glaucoma
- are under the care of an ophthalmologist with subspecialization in glaucoma
- have failed multi-drug therapy with proven intraocular pressure lowering drugs and/or filtering surgery as appropriate

AND
- you still have elevated IOP, progressive loss of optic nerve tissue or eye pain

THEN
- you should not be held criminally responsible if you use smoked cannabis in an attempt to relieve the suffering from this condition.


Everything else is bulls###.



Btw, I am very much in favor of the decriminalization of cannabis. Legalize it, regulate it, tax it. Just like strip-clubs, it will allways appeal to a segment of the population. Just because there are such clubs available it doesn't mean that each and every man spends his evenings looking at nekkid coke addicts. By continuing the current drug policy, we are simply creating a low-risk method for criminal cartells to earn large amounts of money in what is essentially a simple agricultural operation which they use to subvert the goverments of countries who are our allies.

Just leave medicine out of it.

 

[Gary F]

I am disappointed that the marijuana advocates are willing to abuse the democratic system to further their goals by misleading the public on medical marijuana. It is obviously a backdoor approach to legalization. I bet that 99.99% of the people who voted for it in Michigan had no idea that Marinol was available for those who might benefit. I am convinced that the voters did not think it would be so easy for anybody to get a prescription for a bogus diagnosis. Hopefully the state medical board will identify the abusers and yank their licenses. Update, it is already happening:http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/12/22/complaint-doctor-prescribed-pot-pregnant-woman/?test=latestnews

I expect that marijuana will eventually be legalized or decriminalized to the extent that it will be much more widely available. Nobody can predict with any degree of certainty what the results will be but I expect a lot of unintended negative consequences. Academic achievement is already on the decline and I am convinced that it will get worse when more students start using this stuff. I guess we will find out in a few years.

I just read weilke's post above and I agree completely.

 

[Everskyward]

Hopefully the state medical board will identify the abusers and yank their licenses.

Speaking of which...

A state official confirmed this morning that a Colorado doctor accused of recommending medical marijuana to a woman who was 6 months pregnant is the same doctor who was arrested over the summer in an undercover police sting.

Dr. Manuel De Jesus Aquino could become the first doctor in Colorado to lose his medical license for providing sub-standard care in making a medical-marijuana recommendation. The Colorado Medical Board suspended his licence in November, after he was accused of recommending medical marijuana to a 20-year-old pregnant woman without giving her a physical examination, doing a thorough review of her medical history or asking whether she was pregnant.
​

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16920641

 

[weilke]

Speaking of which...



http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16920641

The number of MMJ recommendations will dip by about 10% until a new fool who is willing to risk his medical license for a boatload of money is found.