Author Topic: If you don't like my fire, don't come around, cuz I am gonna burn one down  (Read 50808 times)

Offline TheFang

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1673
    • View Profile
I'm in a bit of pain most every day # :nerd: # and I would hate to think/live in a world where the Gummint would tell me what I could/coudn't use as an analgesiac . . .

Too late for the Dubster, you already do.
"I can't help it, I'm a greedy slob. It's my hobby." -- D.D.

Online CeeDub

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1850
  • [Wed 12:33] <missa> thats it! CW IS BANNED
    • View Profile
I have met Bill Baroni and he is good people.

I'm in a bit of pain most every day # :nerd: # and I would hate to think/live in a world where the Gummint would tell me what I could/coudn't use as an analgesiac . . .

Offline TheFang

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1673
    • View Profile
N.J. may soon allow medical marijuana use

BY MARY JO LAYTON
NorthJersey.com
STAFF WRITER

Patients suffering from cancer, AIDS and other chronic or debilitating illnesses could use marijuana medicinally under a bill passed by the state Senate today.
 
New Jersey would become the 14th state to have a medical marijuana law, which would allow patients to keep six marijuana plants and one ounce for personal use.
 
State Sen. Nicholas P. Scutari, D-Linden, said the legislation he sponsored was as "an avenue of last resort" for patients suffering from nausea, chronic pain, wasting syndrome, seizures and other ailments.
 
"This is not the legalization of marijuana for recreational use," said Scuteri, a lawyer and municipal prosecutor. "We're not talking about thrill seekers and drug addicts here."
 
Under the proposed measure, patients would have to be diagnosed by their physicians as having a debilitating medical condition. The patient would then obtain a photo registry card issued by the state Department of Health and Senior Services so they could obtain marijuana from an alterative medicine center without fear of arrest or prosecution.
 
Supporters of the bill, including Sen. Bill Baroni, R-Mercer, offered passionate testimony about suffering patients, including a 37-year-old father of three young children plagued by multiple sclerosis who found relief from medical marijuana, not oxycotin, sleeping aids or other prescription painkillers.
 
State Sen. Gerald Cardinale, R-Cresskill, was among several Republicans who opposed the bill, claiming it was written too broadly. Cardinale said he didn't object to the concept, but said that "a very small percentage" of users in states that allow medical marijuana are patients the law is intended to aid.
 
Cardinale cited an analysis of medical marijuana patient records reviewed by the San Diego County District Attorney, which revealed that less than three percent of patients were suffering from AIDS, glaucoma or cancer. Additionally, more than half of those permitted to use medical marijuana were under age 30 and research indicates the substance is harmful..
 
"Moderate use of marijuana causes brain cells to die," Cardinale said. "That's why the federal government made marijuana forbidden."
 
After the vote today, State Sen. Loretta Weinberg, a co-sponsor of the legislation, said she supported it because it could give relief to chronically ill patients who were not benefiting from pain-relief prescriptions.
 
Weinberg noted that this weekend was the 10th anniversary of her husband's death following a long illness. Hospice nurses provided morphine, but her husband wasn't able to remain conscious, said Weinberg, D-Teaneck.
 
"To get relief and still be able to communicate would have been much better," she said.
 
Stephen Cuspilich, 46, of Burlington County, lobbied lawmakers in support of the measure before the vote today. Using a cane and carrying a plastic bottle with more than a dozen prescription pain medications to ease suffering from Crohn's Disease, he said marijuana had alleviated severe pain in his hips and back and stopped his vomiting.
 
"It's a social issue, not a criminal issue," said the father of three, a union pipefitter who can no longer work due to his disability.
 
Opponents of the measure, including John Tomicki, executive director of the League of the American Families, vowed to fight the proposal when it is considered in the Assembly. Each member would be polled by his organization to determine their vote prior to the election, he said. "They are going to be called and asked 'yes' or 'no,'" he said.
 
David Evans, executive director of the Drug Free Schools Coalition, cited the lack of scientific evidence on marijuana use and noted that several law enforcement organizations and anti-drug groups -- including the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence of New Jersey -- oppose the bill.
 
"The majority of people who are getting it are using it for back pain, insomnia and other minor problems," Evans said. "The standards for who gets it are very loose."
 
However, the public typically supports legalizing marijuana for chronically ill patients, said Roseanne Scotti, director of Drug Policy Alliance New Jersey.
 
"It's polled as high as 86 percent in favor, Scotti said. "Everybody understands this could be me, my loved one, she said. "It's the option everybody would want."
 
The bill passed 22 to 16, mostly along partisan lines. Five Republicans voted for it. Two Essex County senators abstained from voting. It was unclear this afternoon when the Assembly might consider the legislation.
"I can't help it, I'm a greedy slob. It's my hobby." -- D.D.

Offline jcpeace

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Just Say Faux OP!
    • View Profile
a) ouch! my knee!
b)please pass the girl scout cookies  :P

c)


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/ljYkQiIrFtU&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/ljYkQiIrFtU&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1</a>
« Last Edit: 02-26-2009, 04:48pm by jcpeace »
"If your children ever find out how lame you really are, they'll murder you in your sleep." Frank Zappa (1965)

TheFang: Did you know they were made in chicken eggs! Oh no! Not chickens.

Offline TheFang

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1673
    • View Profile
Holder says Feds will stop medical marijuana raids



For those of you keeping score at home, add another major policy shift by the Obama administration to the tally. Breaking with precedent set under former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the Department of Justice will not raid medical marijuana dispensaries allowed under certain state laws.

President Obama had promised this during the campaign, but a recent raid -- conducted before new officials were in place -- led some to question whether that promise would be kept. On Wednesday, Huffington Post's Ryan Grim reports, Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters that it would be.

It's a common misperception that, in states like California which have passed measures legalizing it, medical marijuana is completely legal. It's not. Federal law takes precedence, and federal authorities have made no secret of their belief that any user or distributor -- even one authorized by the state -- can be arrested at any time.

There are, at most, only a handful of people who can legally use medical marijuana whenever and wherever they please -- marijuana supplied to them by the federal government, no less. They were part of a program that ran from the late 1970's until the 1990's, when the first Bush administration shut it down, and they were grandfathered in. When last I checked, there were an estimated five patients still remaining, but that was a few years ago, and one or more may have died since.
― Alex Koppelman
"I can't help it, I'm a greedy slob. It's my hobby." -- D.D.

Offline Soshin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1614
  • "coal eating wangophange"
    • View Profile
    • Buddha in the beerglass
decriminalization is a good first step.......

but across the board legalization and regulation of ALL drugs should be the ultimate goal.
this would certainly stimulate the economy, be much safer and would get government out of the legislation of regressive morality business.



+1... however...

Decriminalization is more or less already the way in the UK where pot is a Class-C drug resulting in nothing more than a small fine for possession of a small amount.  The downside to this particular step is that the government really doesn't make that much money off those fines and the distribution and real capital is still in the hands of the drug dealers.

They need to go straight to the legalization and taxation of it without this somewhat pointless first step.  We've already done all the studies about the harmful/harmlessness, let people make their own decisions.
"god hates you. you will all go to yuppie hell. in yuppie hell there is no starbucks or hole foods or sushi bar. in yuppie hell you will work 16 hours a day in a bodega. in yuppie hell your car will not start when the sweeper is coming down the street. in yuppie hell your doorman will terrorize you and have sex with your wife or husband...when you are at work....in the bodega. in yuppie hell you will go to the laundromat and lose your last quarter in a broken washing machine. in yuppie hell you will buy all your food and clothing at the 99 cent store. in yuppie hell there are no cell phones, you will use a pay phone. a filthy pay phone".      -   Cat_Man Dude

Offline jcpeace

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1116
  • Just Say Faux OP!
    • View Profile
decriminalization is a good first step.......

but across the board legalization and regulation of ALL drugs should be the ultimate goal.
this would certainly stimulate the economy, be much safer and would get government out of the legislation of regressive morality business.

"If your children ever find out how lame you really are, they'll murder you in your sleep." Frank Zappa (1965)

TheFang: Did you know they were made in chicken eggs! Oh no! Not chickens.

Offline TheFang

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1673
    • View Profile
Though I will say one thing, that might make me lose my fans here.  ;)

I am against legalization until there is a test that can be done similar to a brethalizer to test and see if people are intoxicated while driving. At the moment the best tests (urine, blood, hair) don't test for right now, they can go back months. So when you can come up with a test that says I'm high now and shouldn't be driving as apposed to I was high yesterday, then we can legalize it.
"I can't help it, I'm a greedy slob. It's my hobby." -- D.D.

Offline PuddinPop

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
    • View Profile
+1 on Decriminilization happening first.
Thanks for the insight Fang


Offline TheFang

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1673
    • View Profile
It'll never pass because of all the years of the drug wars people can't seem to see the difference between marijuana and heroin. There's a difference between just legalizing it and making it as available as milk, and making it like alcohol and putting some real regulation and restrictions on it.
Not only will it save billions of dollars in money that we are putting in to lose the "war on drugs", but marijuana is California's largest cash crop. California (which is the world's 5th largest economy btw), just had a major problem passing their budget last week, and this could very easily fill that gap and give them a surplus. It would also help the rest of this country get out of debt as well.

But, I think going straight for legalization is the wrong idea, what should be pushed first is decriminalization, which will at least start us down the right road of saving tons of money by not arrest people with possession and throwing them in prison. Especially in a state like CA with it's moronic three strikes policy. Which is also part of the reason why they're having such trouble staying afloat because of the over crowding in their prisons, but that's for another thread.

Someone who could put this alot better then me said last night: (emphasis mine)
Quote
The majority of Americans are far from chanting for legalization, but, realistically, that's the wrong question—should we leeeeeegalize marijuana?—to ask. I've spoken to lots of middle-of-the-road folks who think arresting people for smoking pot is wasteful and wrong, but they oppose legalizing marijuana "because it's illegal" (which is the sort of circular logic that makes you wonder if humans are devolving as species). But I understand where they're coming from. Drugs are harshly prohibited, so the idea of just legalizing pot all willy nilly is pretty terrifying to a lot of parents. All these questions arise: Would pot be sold next to Snickers bars in the candy store, handed out with milk in the lunch line, placed like prizes in the bottom of Cracker Jacks boxes? Jesus, no legalization for me, thanks.

More realistically, the most lax rules for pot would be similar to alcohol: standards for quality and potency, mechanisms for licensing dealers, and minimum age requirements for consumers, etc. But—seriously—we are not about to drop the entire war on pot and start taxing it overnight. So the fact that only a minority of people say they "want to legalize pot" right now is a moot point.

The question for people is whether they would support decriminalizing marijuana. This is a locally attainable, easily implemented policy that makes penalties less harsh but keeps pot against the rules. It's still bad, mkay? Police can take the stash, give folks a ticket, etc. Just last November, Massachusetts decriminalized pot—the penalty for possessing an ounce is now only a $100 fine—with 65 percent of the electorate voting for it. Pot smokers aren't going to the slammer, kids aren't smoking dope in the lunch line; no legalization required. So the question that would better elicit where America stands on illicit pot is this: Would you support decriminalizing marijuana for adult personal use, so that police could not arrest people for possessing it but instead issue them a fine like a parking ticket?



Though, one thing to keep in mind is that Obama's appointment for our new Drug Czar, is the former police chief of Seattle, and according to those out there he has been much more liberal, or at least common sensical towards drug policy, unlike our past several drug czars, with the exception of Elvis of course. ;)

From FiveThiryEight.com:
"I can't help it, I'm a greedy slob. It's my hobby." -- D.D.

Offline bdlaw

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2495
    • View Profile
Good luck with this. Even as wacky as the Ninth District can get this'll never fly IMO.
Bobblehead: Wow, BMWs, cameras, and anal probes. Are we in Berlin?

[10:33 AM] del ban Woodsy: You do that and I will wash your mouth out with summer's eve after I kick your ass jehu.

Darna: it's because my people spend much of their lives barefoot, so when they discover shoes, it's a party!

RB: i rubbed mine last night to be ready for tonight

Burroughs: Thank you for a country in which no one is free to mind his own business

Online shahaggy

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 910
    • View Profile
I wanna burn one down, move to the Emerald triangle with me  O0
[04:53 PM] Soshin: I don't think I've ever had fig spread Darna but I like figs and they make my sphincter sing power ballads

[12:48 PM] Bobblehead: Yo, you know I'm really happy for you and Ima let you finish, but soshin had one of the best meercat shouts of all time

[10:23 PM] skwirrlking: you submitting darna for beards eating cupcakes - mca?

[03:24 PM] Darna: [03:22 PM] jeht'aimeu: skw, you are climbing up my pole as well... 

[02:28 PM] propscene: I DPON"T MEAN I LOVE YOU DEEP INSIDE AS MUCH AS I LOVE HIM DEEP INSIDE OH GOD

[12:58 PM] nikki: i feel like i should like the opposite of whatever jehu says

Offline PuddinPop

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
    • View Profile
Those Californians sure are progressive on many levels we here are not...
Just one more reason I am heading west.


______________________________________________________________________________________________
Legal pot: Bill sees cash harvest for state


ShareThisBy Jim Sanders
jsanders@sacbee.com
Published: Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 1A
Last Modified: Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2009 - 8:10 am
Smoke weed – help the state?

Marijuana would be sold and taxed openly in California to adults 21 and older if legislation proposed Monday is signed into law.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, said his bill could generate big bucks for a cash-starved state while freeing law enforcement agencies to focus on worse crimes.

"I think there's a mentality throughout the state and the country that this isn't the highest priority – and that maybe we should start to reassess," he said.

Critics counter that it makes no sense for a Legislature so concerned about health that it has restricted use of trans fats in restaurants to legalize the smoking of a potentially harmful drug.

"I think substance abuse is just ruining our society," said Assemblyman Paul Cook, R-Yucca Valley. "I can't support that."

"I think it's a slippery slope," Assemblyman Tom Berryhill, R-Modesto, said of easing pot laws. "We'll do everything we can to defeat it."

Medical use of marijuana already is legal in California, but the new legislation would go a step further by allowing recreational use.

Assembly Bill 390 would charge cannabis wholesalers $5,000 initially and $2,500 annually for the right to distribute weed.

Retail outlets would pay fees of $50 per ounce of cannabis to generate revenue for drug education programs statewide.

The bill would prohibit cannabis near schools. It also would ban smoking it in public places or growing it in public view.

Before California could sell marijuana openly, however, it would have to persuade the federal government to alter its prohibition on pot.

Ammiano said that such a change in federal law might be possible because new President Barack Obama – several years ago – expressed a desire to consider decriminalizing marijuana.

If the federal ban never is lifted, AB 390 would prohibit state and local officers from assisting federal agencies in enforcing marijuana laws.

It would instruct state and local officers not to make arrests for cultivating, selling, possessing, transporting or using the drug.

Capitol visitors interviewed randomly Monday had mixed views about AB 390.

"It makes a lot of sense," said Claudia Murdock, 59, of Folsom. "It's so black market now – and a tremendous amount of money could be generated."

Gabriel Antonio Evans, 29, said people already are acquiring marijuana now, legal or not.

"Like any other drug, if people want to get high, they're going to find a way," he said.

Timotao Parker, a 43-year-old Napa resident, said use of marijuana in the past prompted him to try other drugs.

"It lowers the inhibitions and makes you want to try other stuff, just like alcohol," he said.

Theresa Loya, 43, of Mariposa, said the bill indirectly could affect children.

"I'm afraid it would send the wrong message – that drugs are OK," she said.

Marijuana's supporters and critics often argue over whether pot poses risks.

The Office of National Drug Control Policy contends that short-term effects of marijuana use can range from memory loss to anxiety and increased heart rate.

The state attorney general's office declined to comment Monday on AB 390, as did the U.S. Department of Justice and federal Drug Enforcement Administration.

California reported 16,124 felony and 57,995 misdemeanor arrests linked to marijuana in 2007, the most recent statistics available.

Possessing less than 28.5 grams of cannabis can result in a base fine of up to $100 under state law, an amount that can rise to more than $350 with state and county penalty assessments.

Possessing larger amounts of marijuana can draw a maximum six-month jail sentence and/or a base fine of $500 under state law.

In a state whipsawed by recession and falling retail sales, legalization of marijuana could provide a much-needed financial boon, supporters claim.

"Marijuana already plays a huge role in the California economy," said Stephen Gutwillig, state director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "It's a revenue opportunity we literally can't afford to ignore any longer."

Gutwillig said the state's prohibition on marijuana also has been "a disaster when it comes to keeping pot out of the hands of young people."

A state-sponsored survey of California children in 2007 found that marijuana had been used by 9 percent of seventh-graders, 25 percent of high school freshmen, and 42 percent of 11th-graders.

Board of Equalization Chairwoman Betty Yee released a statement Monday supporting Ammiano's bill as a way to help law enforcement set priorities while raising new revenues.

AB 390 could generate roughly $1.3 billion per year from marijuana sales – about $990 million from the fee on retailers and $349 million in sales taxes, according to BOE estimates.

Anita Gore, BOE spokeswoman, said the agency estimates the value of marijuana grown annually in California at about $4 billion. Other estimates put the figure as high as $14 billion.

Legalizing marijuana is not supported by the California Narcotics Association, California Police Chiefs Association or California Peace Officers Association, lobbyist John Lovell said.

Lovell said it's "preposterous" to say that AB 390 would free officers to focus on worse crimes.

"Law enforcement activities always have been prioritized," he said.

"But to say that law enforcement should simply write off whole classes of socially destructive conduct I think is very bad public policy."

http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1647570.html



Jersey City, NJ Community Forums