Home › News › Local News
Oxnard to consider marijuana dispensary
Staff report cites need for establishment
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsA medical marijuana dispensary could fill a need in Ventura County for suffering patients while legally operating under state law and strict local regulations, an Oxnard city staff report says.
But the same report also says that crime increases in communities where dispensaries operate, and the establishments are still illegal under federal law, leaving many unanswered questions about oversight.
Oxnard's City Council will consider the report at 7 tonight at City Hall, 305 W. Third St.
No vote is required. But city officials want feedback from the council on whether to pursue drafting a law to allow a dispensary.
The city began exploring the issue in November 2005 after a Simi Valley man who uses medical marijuana asked to open a dispensary in Oxnard.
Council members approved an interim ban on such establishments and extended it through this November while city officials examined the pros and cons of an ordinance regulating dispensaries.
Interest in dispensaries is linked to the California Compassionate Use Act, approved by state voters in 1996. The law allows people to use marijuana with a doctor's authorization for illnesses such as cancer, AIDS and anorexia.
More than 200 dispensaries operate statewide, according to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. Ventura County has none so far. Simi Valley enacted a permanent ban on them in December.
In 2003, state lawmakers approved a bill that established guidelines for growing plants and a voluntary identification card system for medical marijuana users. As of April, 26 counties have issued a total of 12,305 cards, according to the state Department of Health.
Neither the 1996 initiative nor the 2003 bill, however, provides clear or strong regulations, those on both sides of the debate say. And the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal drug laws making all marijuana illegal take precedence over the state initiative.
A San Diego judge, however, upheld the state law in December. San Diego County, which sued over the law, has appealed the case.
City officials left to wonder
All this has left Oxnard city officials befuddled, and tonight's report suggests that they're not settled on the matter.
On one hand, the report says that allowing dispensaries would protect the city from lawsuits by people who believe that their rights under the Compassionate Use Act are being denied. Also, the establishments would fill a need in the city and county.
At least six people have inquired about establishing a dispensary, the report says. Medical marijuana users have testified about its benefits at city hearings, Susan Martin, Oxnard's planning manager, said Monday.
Also, the city could effectively regulate dispensaries, says the report, which cites the San Francisco Bay area city of Albany as an example.
On the other hand, crime is up in some cities where dispensaries operate, according to the Oxnard report.
Legitimacy an issue
Meanwhile, Ventura County has not adopted the ID card program, which leaves cities in the lurch when it comes to who is a legitimate user, Martin said. Just what constitutes a doctor's note is also troublesome, she said.
"It could be a letter or it could be a piece of paper," Martin said. "How do you determine if that's a legitimate note?"
The report also raises questions about where dispensaries get their marijuana and the cost of regulatory oversight.
"The real issue here is the conflict between federal law and state law," Assistant City Attorney Jim Rupp said Monday.
Lisa Schwarz, a former registered nurse who operates the Ventura County Alliance of Medical Marijuana Users, called the criticisms minor. Some dispensaries have problems, Schwarz said, blaming greedy "pot-trepreneurs" who operate them as "speak-easies."
"The only way it's going to happen is if it's regulated," said Schwarz, of Camarillo. The city could tax medical marijuana and spend the money on law enforcement and regulatory costs, she said.
"It should be for qualified patients, not college students with insomnia and stress," she said.
Posted by watts_gonon on May 15, 2007 at 12:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They need to find another city to have these establishments. Oxnard does not need more crime. Let another city fill the need. That is, after they figure out a way to circumvent federal law. Simi permanently band them, so should Oxnard.
The city will be protected from lawsuits, because federal law prohibits them.
The comparison to Albany, CA is not comparable to Oxnard. Albany has 16,500 people; Oxnard has 186,000. That's 11 times bigger. Albany can better manage their dispensary then Oxnard can due to its' small size. If a law is enacted, the city is going to have to ask for mandatory identification.
Posted by rebel123 on May 15, 2007 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The link between crime and medical marijuana dispensaries is weak at best. The fact that they have to operate in shady areas where crime is already a problem is more likely than not the reason. What possible harm can people who seek this out for medical reasons cause to you or the community? They are not criminals. They are not robbing people. They are simply trying to alleviate pain. The entire argument against pot is stupid. Stop wasting time on pot and start getting serious about meth, crack and heroin.
Posted by RC on May 15, 2007 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
AMEN rebel123...more important crap going on in Oxnard like gangs and ILLEGAL drugs!
Posted by butterflygone on May 15, 2007 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think this is the funniest thing. Now my ex husband won't have to drive so far to spend my childsupport money on weed instead of on his kids. I'm sure he is all for this. I don't think this is a huge issue, there are worse drugs being used in Ventura County. I think it should be completely legalized, sold and taxed by Uncle Sam. The money should be used for education and healthcare. Potheads are going to use anyway, may as well put the money to good use.
Posted by bucknasty on May 15, 2007 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rebel123 I agree with you 100 percent but why Oxnard? Why not Ventura or Camarillo? they are just down the freeway. Whether these dispensaries are legal or not, is still not clear, but Oxnard does not need another reason for people to look down on it. Before the city council begins to consider this, consider closing some of these liqour stores, why does Oxnard need so many? Consider allocating money for childrens summer programs and not just by the beaches but on the east side and south side of town. Council members do us a favor and spend time considering our childrens future let other cities in Ventura County worry about filling the need for dispensaries.
Posted by BeaHappi on May 15, 2007 at 9:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Honestly, just legalize pot and move on. We could regulate it, tax it, and then the 'illegal' aspects go away. No more crime $$ made from illegally growing, distributing, selling pot.
Like alcohol, there would be legal age limits for being able to buy and use marijuana. Just think of the tax revenues! And some of the precious jail space would be cleared out.
I honestly think the time has come. And no, I don't smoke pot; I just don't see the harm. If people want to put that into their bodies, let them. It's their body. Why in the world do I care if someone wants to do that? Cigarettes and alcohol are legal and in my opinion, those are far more harmful.
Posted by martin.gonzales on May 15, 2007 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Personally, I dont think that pot is bad. People dont get angry and hungover or get into fights with pot, like they do with alcohol. Statistics say that at least 50% of Americans have used marijuana, and 22-25% use it.The only reason it gets a bad rap is because it stays in your system for so long. When people are checked after an accident, they get penalized for pot they smoked amount ago, when the accident per say happened recently. I say legalize it. I dont think it matters where you put the Distributer, they have one in Santa Barbara already and isnt that as "straight edge" a place as its goin to get around here?
Have I used it , yes. Do i disagree with it, nope.
Just put an age limit or something on the thing.
Posted by shaver_one on May 15, 2007 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Pot is the Number One cash-crop in the state of California...only California doesn't get any of the proceeds. It's the Number One cash-crop in Hawaii. It could be the Number One cash-crop in America.
Legalize pot. Tax it. It has many uses: Recreational Smoking, Baking Ingredient, Medical Benefits, Rope, Clothing, Fabric for Heavy Industrial Use. And you could use the "waste material" for Biofuels for Industry. And the country would be a much happier place to live in.
Maybe with a more enlighted federal government in 2009, we'll see more enlightened laws. Just a thought...
Posted by hotwildflower on May 15, 2007 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am with you 100% Bea Happi! That tax money could be put to good use and freeing up the jail space for those commiting far worse crimes would be great. Keep the trash off the streets and away from our kids and help ease the discomfort of those in pain.
Butterflygone~did your ex not smoke weed when you made babies with him? Cause if he did, then you are just as guilty as he is...you should have known what you were getting into...sorry, no sympathy here with your arguement.
Posted by bugmenot on May 15, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Amen.
Half the time I go to the clubs in SB, it's all patients that drove from the Ventura area. These clubs do not attract crime. Weak at best is an over statement. The people that use these clubs *could* get medicine on the streets cheaper, but they prefer the SAFE ACCESS.
This is good news. I always wondered why VC never had any dispensaries and I've always had to drive to LA or SB county.
Posted by RC on May 15, 2007 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder why they just can't get pot in a pharmacy like Vicodin and Oxyctin? maybe they don't want a medical marijuana dispensary in Ventura becaue they have already have a methadone clinic which in my opinion is just as bad as heroin
Posted by Ventura22 on May 15, 2007 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is probably not a good idea in Oxnard folks. Maybe in another less-crime ridden area of the county that is less-prone to the type of foot traffic that will be encountered in Oxnard. These establishments DO in fact draw problems as the bad people will inevitably begin to flock near such a dispensing point. Seen this happen in other areas. Besides, if this stuff had any legitimate medical value, the big pharmecutical companies would have already lobbied to legalize it, patented it and be making millions from us like they do with other remedies! I think it's just a bunch of losers looking to get high and can't cope with life.
Posted by nannyfo1 on May 15, 2007 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The reason it can't be dispensed in a pharmacy is because it isn't medicine. The AMA, CMA, and IOM have all determined that there is no medical indication for the injestion of crude marijuana. The other reason you can't obtain marijuana from a pharmacy is that you need a prescription to obtain medicine from a pharmacy. There are no prescriptions for marijuana. It is obtained through a doctor's recomendation. According to the Compassionate Use Act, it is supposed to be recommended only after every other medical avenue has been exhausted. Even then it shouldn't be used for longer than six months.
The problem with our current system is this. There is not sufficient information to control doseage and delivery system in order to get the desired response. THC in low levels produces lethargy, but in higher doses can result in anxiety. Even if the THC percentage in the marijuana is known, how does one regulate the amount injested? How quickly do I inhale? How much smoke do I inhale? How long do I hold it in? How quickly do I exhale? How much marijuana do I smoke for a single dose? All of these details will effect the amount of THC injested and that will effect the response. Even when well-intentioned, we are clearly not dealing with what would be considered medicine or responsible healthcare by modern standards.
Posted by theonlycapsfan on May 15, 2007 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why not build it in Slimy Valley. The reason they are considering it is because some Slimy Valley guy who uses it want one built in Oxnard.
Posted by bugmenot on May 15, 2007 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hi nannyfo1,
I'd like to respond to your comment. Please don't take this as confrontational, but we sit on the opposite ends of this issue and you actually seem informed, so I'd like to make a rebuttle. I have 20 minutes, hopefully I can get it all in. I'll address your questions/statements one by one.
"The reason it can't be dispensed in a pharmacy is because it isn't medicine. The AMA, CMA, and IOM have all determined that there is no medical indication for the injestion of crude marijuana."
These FEDERAL organizations have determined this because The Department of Health and Human Services offical stance is that there is no medicinal use for marijuana. This stance has not changed for decades even though studies sponsored by the HHS show there are medicinal uses to marijuana. WHenever a bill comes up that may overturn the current laws on medical marijuana (MMJ) the senate/congress cite the HHS's official position and vote against said bill. So an national agency called ASA or Americans for Safe Access recently filed a lawsuit against the HHS, which is seeking the HHS to change their official position on MMJ. The idea is if the HHS has a different position, the senate and contress will not have an excuse to vote against the bills. This lawsuit was filed in February I believe. Hopefully this is the right path that ASA is taking and we may see some changes in the near future.
"The other reason you can't obtain marijuana from a pharmacy is that you need a prescription to obtain medicine from a pharmacy. There are no prescriptions for marijuana. It is obtained through a doctor's recomendation. According to the Compassionate Use Act, it is supposed to be recommended only after every other medical avenue has been exhausted. Even then it shouldn't be used for longer than six months."
I agree with you that it is a reccomendation and not a prescription, which why it's not distributed through a pharmacy. Where did you hear about six months? Is that in SB420 or Prop 215? Most doctors will write a recomendation for 1 year. I haven't seen any other than 1 year, except for terminal patients.
continued....
Posted by bugmenot on May 15, 2007 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"The problem with our current system is this. There is not sufficient information to control doseage and delivery system in order to get the desired response. THC in low levels produces lethargy, but in higher doses can result in anxiety. Even if the THC percentage in the marijuana is known, how does one regulate the amount injested?"
MJ affects different users differently, even the same strains and the same doses. There is no over dosing on marijuana and there are two major types of marijuana, indica and sativa. Your condition will typically require either more sativa or more indica. Even sometimes an indica can help conditions normally treated by a sativa. The patient will typically get a recommendation by the dispensary staff based on their condition. Because there is no overdosing, there is little danger in learning what helps your symptoms with trial and error. Here's an analogy...I'm famous for bad analogies. Say you have a cold coming on. I typically eat oranges and drink orange juice to try to prevent the cold. There's no law/regulation on the oranges I eat and drink to help with my cold. Why should there be on MJ?
You mention the amount of THC. Although this can be monitored, it's not the only factor in deciding the medicinal use of marijuana. Marinol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinol) is a drug usually used by cancer patients that is made of only THC. It is effective for some conditions such as nasuea caused by chemo but not other, such as muscle pain. The point is, the cannabis plant contains over 300 cannaboids that help with different ailments and THC isn't the only cannaboid that determines ones "high". See CBD, CBG, and CBC's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabin.... Another example; White Russian is a strain that was tested with a few hundred other cannabis strains and came up with the highest THC content (upwards of 25%), however, this strains is not nearly as strong as many other strains.
"How quickly do I inhale? How much smoke do I inhale? How long do I hold it in? How quickly do I exhale? How much marijuana do I smoke for a single dose? All of these details will effect the amount of THC injested and that will effect the response. Even when well-intentioned, we are clearly not dealing with what would be considered medicine or responsible healthcare by modern standards."
These will be different for every person. These will be different for every plant. I do see where you're going with this. Like with all other medication that is tested by the FDA, there is an exact science to it. There is an exact dosage of the active ingredients. A doctor will look at the medical history of the patient and typically give a dosage based on scientific information. With MJ it's hard to do this. These questions are not being answered because of the "hard-headness" of the federal government.
continued...
Posted by bugmenot on May 15, 2007 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is medicinal use for marijuana, if there wasn't, Marinol wouldn't exist. The federal government isn't willing to change their stance from the early 1900s and because of this, the answers to your questions are not being actively pursued.
Here are some bullet points I feel to be true in regards to medical marijuana (MMJ)
1. MJ does have medicinal uses.
2. Patients should be able to have save access to medical marijuana.
3. The federal government is hindering the state(s) from regulating this properly (see immigration laws)
4. MMJ dispensaries need an oversite committee to regulate them
5. There is a problem with some MMJ doctors handing out recomendations as fast as they can write them. This needs to be addressed...somehow.
I don't think you can argue in regards to the medicinal uses of marijuana. A lot of the issues with MMJ stem from the state taking a back seat and the patients writing all the laws. I think the feds need to take a step back, let the states regulate it. At this time the states won't have their hands tied behind their backs and can actually do the studies and regulate MMJ to address the issues you've presented. Can we agree on that?
As far as where it's built, I don't care. Let the cities decide, but there needs to be something closer than Reseda or Santa Barbara.
Posted by nannyfo1 on May 15, 2007 at 6:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bugmenot,
Thank you for the reply. I did not find it confrontational. If there was more respectful interaction between the two ideologies we might make some headway.
"There is medicinal use for marijuana, if there wasn't, Marinol wouldn't exist."
There is a difference between an exact delivery system of a purified form of a particular cannabinoid (marinol), and inhaling the smoke from the burned marijuana plant. I also make bad analogies. There is some recent research suggesting that nicotine may augment memory in patients with Alzheimer’s. This does not suggest a doctor should recommend a pack of Camel's. There are so many chemicals in marijuana that are contraindicated that the benefit just doesn't outway the risk.
There is some very interesting research being done at the U of SF. They are combining isolated cannabinoids with opiates to form effective analgesics. The idea is that patients with chronic pain can only be prescribed so much morphine. But a low dose of opiates mixed with a small amount of an isolated cannabinoid has produced encouraging results.
I am not aware of the HHS perspective. But here is what convinced me. The American Cancer Society, American Glaucoma Society, The National Multiple Sclerosis Society, The American Academy of Ophthalmology, and the American Medical Association have all rejected the idea of smoked marijuana as a medicine.
Posted by bugmenot on May 15, 2007 at 9:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All of the organizations you've listed are correct. Smoke is bad, period. It doesn't matter if it's from the camp fire or MJ. For most cases the harm caused by smoked marijuana probably outweigh the benefits. However, in some terminal patients the long term harm caused by smoke may not be of top concern. But you bring up a good argument, for most patients the harm outweighs the benefits. There have been some new(er) ways of consuming MJ recently that are going to address those concerns.
Topping that list is vaporizing. The idea is to heat the marijuana to a temperature that releases the cannaboids but does not combust organic material, thus no smoke, only vapor. When used properly, this eliminates the risks of smoke. See http://www.reuters.com/article/health...
There are also edibles, which have the body effects similar to vicodin, but without the opiates.
Posted by martin.gonzales on May 16, 2007 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Legalize it... there is so much more out there that is dangerous. Everything that is legal has a freakin side effect. heart disease, clogged artaries, stroke.....Just let people burn the plant for god sakes.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on May 16, 2007 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rebel123, You said it ! Geez Marijuana is not a drug that induces major crimes. Go after the meth , crack and heroin dealers !!!
Watts, How can Marijuana cause more crime? Have you tried it? Just curious. It makes you lazy , relaxed and hungry ! Not a major drug that effects your mind to commit crimes....
Bea, Your absolutely right. Free up the space in jails...... pot is here and not going anywhere. If they have a legal card to purchase it or get it free then give it to them!
Martin, Great comment, Alcohol turns peoples temper bad..........pot doesn't. Pot stays in your system for thirty days! Meth- 3 days! Go figure.
OK lots of reading here.... Lots of opionions. BUT I can tell you if you have ever seen someone dying of cancer........no chance of life.. You would do whatever you had to , to help this person with thier pain.... We considered giving my Mother in law Marijuana to see if it would help her feel better. After all she had less then a month to live. Now I wish we had, then I would know if it had helped her pain.
Posted by dtragic on May 16, 2007 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So what Was the final descision from last night then?
Posted by shaver_one on May 16, 2007 at 10:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BTW:
Pharmaceutical companies ARE making millions off of this drug...and that's the problem, and that's why pot is still illegal.
There is a synthetic version of THC on the market...by prescription only. It is in capsule form and prescribed as anti-nausea medication. It is expensive. It's prescribed to Chemo/Radiology patients for dosage after treatment.
It does not work. But, it is a cash-crop for the pharmaceutical industry.
Legalize pot, and those profits go away. Legalize pot and medical users will be able to grow their own, and the profits dry up. Keep it illegal, by claiming it is as dangerous as heroin, and the pharmaceutical companies can continue raking in the big bucks, like they do with methadone. Afterall, isn't heroin still illegal? Change the health-care laws to prevent Pharmaceutical companies from getting obscenly rich from the pain and suffering of Americans, and we'll all live longer and happier.
Posted by bugmenot on May 16, 2007 at 10:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
shaver_one
You are referring to Marinol. See my posts above. Marinol is proof that the FDA acknowledges benefits from MJ. However marinol only contains THC, which isn't the only active ingredient. Many other cannaboids also factor in, such as CBD, CBC and CBGs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabin....
So what was the conclusion from last night? Does anybody know? Did the city decide to move forward with a draft of the law?
Posted by nannyfo1 on May 16, 2007 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is the idea that is so misunderstood. Marinol is not marijuana. Marinol is a synthetic cannabiniod. The problem with marinol is that swallowing a pill is a poor delivery system. There is another medication in the works called Sativex. It is a bronchial inhaler type of product to ensure a more accurate dose delivery. It does not create a "high", but is an anti-emetic. Marinol is really not effective for patients receiving Chemotherapy because they can't keep food down. This eliminates the benefits of anything in pill form.
Here is the issue that we are up against. Specific cannabinoids may have medicinal value, but smoked marijuana does not. Research is being held up because of two basic reasons. One camp believes that there is no benefit to anything in the marijuana plant, therefore throw out the baby with the bath water. The other camp just wants to smoke weed and uses the medical arguement as the road to legalization. I would encourage both camps to exit the discussion and allow a reasonable exchange of ideas and research to take place so that we can make the necessary discoveries.
Posted by derekbill on May 16, 2007 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Someday people will look back on this debate and shake their heads in amazement. The sooner that happens, the fewer people will have to explain what took them so long to see what's already obvious to those who've had to live with someone with cancer.
Anti-marijuana laws are an ugly reminder of what racist paranoia and opportunistic politicians are capable of wreaking on an ill-informed or complacent populace. Without any sensible doubt, this is an effective herbal remedy to devastating diseases. Yes, some people will abuse it, just as some abuse alcohol or ice cream. Opposition to legalization is an attempt to preserve an ill-conceived cultural tradition with little (or no) value to society. Once we get over this silly prohibition we can concentrate on those things we can all agree are truly dangerous.
Posted by nannyfo1 on May 16, 2007 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you, Derek, for helping illustrate my point. I'm not sure what race and politics have to do with identifying a substance as a schedule one drug, but you have done an excellent job in demonstrating the irrational arguements that are flying around about this topic. These discussions generally degrade into little more than left and right wing propoganda blogs (your's seems to be of the left wing variety).
To provide an opportunity to redeem yourself, can you provide any type of documentation that scientifically proves that "this is an effective herbal remedy to devastating diseases".
By the way, I took that ice cream shot very personally. I had a very good reason for being at Cold Stone last night. Apparently when you mix butterfinger bars in with cheesecake ice cream it prevents male pattern baldness. That is something the hair club for men wants you to know nothing about. I'm just concerned about my appearance. It has nothing to do with the fact that I really like ice cream.
Posted by butterflygone on May 17, 2007 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I say legalize it for med and recreational use. Tax it. Why should the dealers be the only ones making $? MOST of you have great educated points to make on the subject, and it looks like most of us are on the same page with this. BTW-Ex-Mr.Butterflygone was not on pot when we made babies...and the reason butterfly is gone is because of meth (his). Seriously, I am working in AZ to try to make MJ as accessible as it is in CA. Prop 206 made it legal for medicinal use here, but so far, not very accessable. People in favor, do your part, be NORML.
Posted by narc121 on May 17, 2007 at 11:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
yeah, all Oxnard needs is more marijuana...
Posted by derekbill on May 18, 2007 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, nannyfo1, you COULD look it up, but apparently you're either too lazy, too busy, or too scared of the perfectly documented history of the substance, which was regulated only after hysterical white men decided it was favored by Mexicans stealing American jobs. You know, just like cocaine caused well-endowed Blacks to spoil our chaste White daughters?
And you've obviously never known someone whose pain, nausea, or lack of appetite has been alleviated by cannabis. This is equally well-documented. If the videotaped testimonials of grandma, the former police chief, the church deacon, and even the former prohibitionist - all begging for legalization of their only relief - don't turn your head around, what will?
Suffering, man, suffering! They'd much sooner take a pill or drink a tonic if that did the trick, but alas, it does not. Even faith won't make them well, but would you take that away, too, if its curative qualities couldn't be explained or demonstrated to your satisfaction?
Would some remedial Jesus lessons help, or do you need a personal visit from the man himself? If I were a believer myself, I'd pray that you don't contract cancer. And if you are a believer, maybe you'd better start praying yourself. Or would you still deny yourself relief even if cannabis was the only thing that worked?
Posted by bugmenot on May 18, 2007 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Genesis 1 KJV:
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Posted by nannyfo1 on May 18, 2007 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Always nice to the Bible quoted in a discussion like this. Alas, a few questions. Do you believe the entire the Bible or just the section that you believe justifies smoking mj? If you do believe the entire Bible then I would suggest reading Romans Chapter 1. If not, quit quoting something you don't believe. Maybe we can have the religious discussion another day.
Derek, if you had read any of my previous entries you would have learned that I have studied documented scientific studies intensively. Because you were so convinced of mj's effectiveness I assumed that you had access to information that I did not. Given your rant of a reply, my assumption was apparently incorrrect. Given your inability to complete a coherent thought, I would guess that you are a daily mj user. What you have provided is the same anectodal evidence that is normally presented from your side. Let me give you an example. Go ahead and sit back and relax, take a big bong rip and let me share with you another piece of anectodal evidence.
This is a documented medically true story. There was a man in 1998 that was diagnosed with a terminal brain tumor. His encologist gave him weeks to live. The man went home pondering his fate and decided to end it himself rather than die a suffering, tragic death.
He pulled out his handgun, pressed it against his temple, and pulled the trigger. His neighbor found him after hearing the gunshot and called 911. The paramedics rushed him to the hospital and to their surprise were able to revive him. His doctor was shocked to find that not only had he survived the direct gunshot, he had missed his brain while shooting out the entire tumor. The man is alive and well today with zero brain damage.
So Derek, while you ponder this miracle over the nachos that your previous bong experience must have inspired by now, would you suggest that we recommend medicinal 9 mm's for patients with terminal brain tumors?
Posted by nannyfo1 on May 18, 2007 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Derek, I really should apologize. Normally when I write, I assume intelligence on the part of the reader. That was really unfair to you. Let me see if I can help you connect the dots.
If I have a headache and smoking weed makes it go away, that does not make mj a scientifically proven effective medicine for treating headaches. You see, the brain is a powerful thing. Sometimes people take something that they believe will help, and therefore they percieve that it did. There was an interesting study sponsored by the The National Multiple Sclerosis Society examining the effect that injesting marijuana had on muscle spasms in clients with MS. They were able to observe these spasms both electronically and from the patients feedback. A majority of the patients reported that the mj reduced the number and intensity of their spasms while the electrodes actually reported that the spasms increased both in intensity and quantity. This is why The National Multiple Sclerosis Society has rejected the use of marijuana in treating the symptoms of MS.
Posted by dcal805 on May 18, 2007 at 8:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Potheads battling WANNABE geniuses.WHO WILL WIN
Posted by derekbill on May 19, 2007 at 10:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nannyfo1: It takes one to know one, and you obviously don't.
I recognize facts when they are proven and until they are disproven. I respect theories until they are disproven. Preventing someone from testing a theory does not disprove it. When something works and we do not know why, that does not mean it doesn't work. Telling someone there is no good reason for them to feel better may make you feel better.... but is that a morally defensible motive for doing so?
For the record, I do not smoke pot. Not because it isn't legal, but because......well, I guess because I don't want to. In the past its effects on me have been unpredictible. But if I did want to, I would really like a better reason not to than because you don't think it's a good idea, or because a bunch of people got together and decided it wasn't good for me.
In other words, I do not need a nanny. Which reminds me.....to be more accurate in describing your view of the world and of yourself, shouldn't you change your Username to 'nannyforAll'?
Your argument comes down to this: at best, pot is a placebo, and you do not believe in the use of placebos, so they should not be used in what we call medicine. A large number of medical professionals would disagree, and in fact there is ample evidence that the placebo effect is responsible for much of the effectiveness of any number of commonly used remedies. Does this offend you? Would you next ban prayer in hospitals until we can prove it works?
It all boils down to is this: If you believe in liberty, and don't want someone else to do something, you should have a reason (and it's always helpful if you have the honesty and self-awareness to attempt to explain that reason). In my opinion, to this point neither you nor anyone else has advanced a good reason for preventing someone from voluntarily consuming cannabis. Your argument that nobody's proven that pot makes people better (or feel better, if there's a difference) strikes me as beside the point at best and horribly cruel at worst.
I hope you will soon find a different use of your time. May I suggest that you add something positive to this world? Feed some starving kids or try to talk someone out of making more of them. Go down to the animal shelter and give a lost animal some hope. Pick up some trash along the side of the roadway. Smile at a passerby. But most important of all, find out why you'd ever do anything that would prevent someone from feeling better, especially if they don't have a lot of time left. There must be a reason why you are doing this, and just because you or I don't know what it is doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Posted by AnnaWhaat on May 27, 2007 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Derek I agree and about the MS ......why did Montel Williams announce on live TV that he used MJ and it helped him?
Posted by nannyfo1 on May 31, 2007 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Anna
Most of the MS patients in the study reported that they felt their spasms were reduced after smoking MJ when in fact they had increased. I am guessing that Montel had the same experience.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.