Police return seized pot

The Tribune (San Luis Obispo, CA) ^ | Jan. 04, 2003 | Patrick S. Pemberton

[MrLeRoy]

Are medical practitioners deregulated in CA?

I strongly doubt it.

[ApesForEvolution]

Thanks again. Very interesting indeed. I smoked pot for much of my younger life and within 18 months of quitting (a long time ago) my IOP shot up and, well...this is interesting indeed.

[MrLeRoy]

The same is said about rape and murder.

Rape and murder violate a person's rights; making, distributing, selling, buying, and using drugs do not.

To disagree with Hoover on this issue would define yourself as lawless and an anarchist.

I am not an anarchist---I want the law to defend individual rights, nothing less and nothing more.

[Dane]

What does the reporter have to do with a court's verification for the defendant's legal basis for possessing?

Uh like the newspaper reporter's job, to report the facts.

[ApesForEvolution]

Uh, the reporter did report the facts. The court verified the reason for possession. Why would the privacy of the prescribing practioner be violable by you or anyone else?

[tacticalogic]

It has been established that illegal drugs are financing in part terrorists. That might be a small reason for the priority.

I take it you and/or Ashcroft don't see protecting our right to keep and bear arms as part of our defense against terrorism.

[Dane]

Uh, the reporter did report the facts. The court verified the reason for possession. Why would the privacy of the prescribing practioner be violable by you or anyone else?

Huh, why do you all want to keep this "practioner's" name secret?

If he was true to the cause(pot is wonderweed) he wouldn't, shouldn't be afraid of his name being published in the local paper.

Oh yeah I forgot, you pro-potters think that he will be shipped to something worse than Stalin's gulag for disclosing his name on the "prescription".

You pro-potter's are a paranoid warped lot, IMO. But I am not surprised since constant use of cannabis(pot) does induce paranoia, IMO.

[ApesForEvolution]

LINK TO TEXT BELOW

WHAT'S YOUR DEFINITION OF A MEDICINE? A DRUG DESIGNED TO GIVE PATIENTS RELIEF FROM CERTAIN SYMPTOMS? OK, THEN WHAT ABOUT MARIJUANA? IT'S ILLEGAL, IT'S A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE, BUT IT GIVES PATIENTS RELIEF FROM CERTAIN SYMPTOMS. WHERE DO YOU STAND ON LEGALIZING IT? HERE ARE THREE VERY DIFFERENT MEDICAL POINTS OF VIEW.

BY THE TIME CANNABIS SATIVA WAS INTRODUCED TO THE WESTERN WORLD IN THE 18 HUNDREDS, CIVILIZATIONS FROM ASIA TO AFRICA HAD ALREADY BEEN USING IT FOR CENTURIES. NOW WE KNOW THIS HERB BETTER AS MARIJUANA. IT RELIEVED PAIN, RELAXED MUSCLES, AND HELPED INDUCE SLEEP. 1937'S MARIJUANA TAX ACT MADE IT ILLEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES. BUT TODAY, THE NATION'S MOST WIDELY USED ILLICIT DRUG IS EXPERIENCING A SURGE IN POPULARITY IN A RATHER UNEXPECTED ARENANAMELY, THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY.

Dr. Neil Flynn/AIDS Specialist:
"Most patients have tried marijuana at some time in the past. They've survived the experience with marijuana and they know that it gives appetite and it suppresses nausea and they often come asking if we can recommend it. We do that but only after other things have failed."

DR. NEIL FLYNN OF THE UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER IS ONE OF CALIFORNIA'S LEADING AIDS EXPERTS. HE SAYS THE AIDS EPIDEMIC HAS BROUGHT A NEW DEMAND FOR THE USE OF MARIJUANA AS A MEDICAL TREATMENTA TREATMENT HE CAN'T LEGALLY PRESCRIBE. AIDS PATIENTS OFTEN BECOME DANGEROUSLY MALNOURISHED AS A RESULT OF THEIR DISEASE...AND THEIR MEDICATIONS CAN CAUSE SEVERE NAUSEA. TRADITIONAL DRUGS ARE AVAILABLE, BUT OFTEN COME WITH A WHOLE SLEW OF SIDE EFFECTS.

Dr. Neil Flynn/AIDS Specialist:
"For example Compasine which is a drug that's been around a long time for nausea, in AIDS patients causes a lot of side effects. They become stiff, their jaw gets or they get what's called torticolis where their neck becomes stiff, very uncomfortable with it, or they shuffle and can't walk properly and so if that occurs, I can't use the drug anymore and we have to move on to the synthetic Marinol."

MARINOL IS THE LEGAL PRESCRIPTION FORM OF MARIJUANA. IT CONTAINS T-H-C, TETRO HYDRO CANABANOL, ONE OF THE HUNDRED OR SO CANABANOID SUBSTANCES FOUND IN THE PLANT. T-H-C IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MOOD ALTERING EFFECTS, AND IN THIS SYNTHESIZED FORM, PATIENTS EXPERIENCE DIFFERING RESULTS.

Dr. Flynn:
"The problem with Marinol is that people either get no relief or they get high from it. It's worse, they say, than getting stoned on marijuana."

Dr. Sidney Scudder/ Associate Chief Oncology & Hematology:
"In my own personal experience I've found that patients who are older do not like the marijuana very much because you can't control the amount of high you get with the pills."

DR. SIDNEY SCUDDER IS AN ONCOLOGIST AT THE UC DAVIS MEDICAL CENTER. PROPOSITION 215 - THE BALLOT INITIATIVE THAT PERMITS THE MEDICINAL USE OF MARIJUANA IN SEVERAL STATES - APPEARS TO ALLOW HIM TO RECOMMEND THE DRUG FOR ALLEVIATING THE SYMPTOMS ASSOCIATED WITH CHEMOTHERAPY. BUT BECAUSE OF LIMITED RESEARCH, DOCTORS ARE LEFT GUESSING AS TO HOW THIS DRUG WORKS.

Dr. Sidney Scudder:
"Probably the appetite control center and the nausea center are pretty closely juxtaposed in the brain stem. So the chemicals which get into the brain stem probably act to either suppress what we call the nausea center, but may also enhance the appetite center so that people regain their appetite."

GLAUCOMA IS THE LEADING CAUSE OF BLINDNESS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. CHARACTERIZED BY HIGH PRESSURE WITHIN THE EYE. ONE DRUG THAT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BRING THE PRESSURE DOWN IS MARIJUANA.

Dr. James Brandt Director, Glaucoma Service:
"Twenty or 30 years ago when marijuana was first looked at as a way to treat glaucoma, we thought of glaucoma as only a pressure disease. In other words, if you had a pressure above a certain number you had glaucoma, and if you got the pressure down below a certain number, that was sufficient. We now understand that glaucoma is a whole lot more complicated than that."

ACCORDING TO GLAUCOMA SPECIALIST DR. JAMES BRANDT, RESEARCHERS NOW KNOW THAT GLAUCOMA IS MORE COMPLICATED THAN JUST HIGH-PRESSURE IN THE EYE. THERE ARE GENETIC FACTORS TO CONSIDER, AS WELL AS INADEQUATE BLOOD FLOW TO THE OPTIC NERVE. AND ALTHOUGH MARIJUANA DOES RELIEVE THE PRESSURE, THE EFFECTS ARE TOO SHORT LIVED TO BE CONSIDERED ADEQUATE.

Dr. Sidney Scudder:
"It only lasts a couple of hours. And since people have high pressure that's causing glaucoma damage 24 hours a day, if you were to realistically use marijuana as a chronic treatment for the management of glaucoma, you would have to smoke a joint every two hours around the clock for it to have an adequate treatment effect."

SO, DOES MARIJUANA HAVE ANY REAL MEDICINAL VALUE? DR. BRANDT IS QUICK TO POINT OUT THAT NEWER, MORE EFFECTIVE MEDICATIONS OTHER THAN MARIJUANA HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED TO TREAT GLAUCOMA. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR NAUSEA AND APPETITE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH AIDS AND CANCER.

MEANWHILE, THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH HAS RECENTLY APPROVED THE COUNTRY'S FIRST SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF MARIJUANA. THE STUDY WILL DOCUMENT THE RISKS AND/OR BENEFITS OF ITS USE. HOPEFULLY, THAT DATA WILL HELP CLEAR THE SMOKE SURROUNDING THE FUTURE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

"I think the best way to approach this is to do the research that's needed on marijuana and find out why it works better than tetro hydro canabanol and pills."

THERE'S NEW INFORMATION NOW THAT MARIJUANA MIGHT HAVE TREATMENT POSSIBILITIES IN DISEASES LIKE ALZHEIMER'S, PARKINSON'S EVEN CERTAIN BRAIN INJURIES. BUT UNTIL RESEARCHERS CAN COME UP WITH HARD EVIDENCE TO BACK CLAIMS LIKE THESE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL NOT CONSIDER IT A VIABLE MEDICATION.

Very interesting indeed. I certainly can't imagine at any point in my life smoking 1 joint every 2 hours, let alone at this point. I have heard that THC levels are much higher today than 3 decades ago. I'll continue to believe the Lord for my healing with conventional medicine and without medicinal marijuana while I continue investigating...

[ApesForEvolution]

"Huh, why do you all want to keep this "practioner's" name secret?"

It's not my point. Whomever he/she is, this person wasn't on trial and the court (as if I put my trust in courts) deemed his/her able to prescribe and verified Mr. No Runner's possession via the practioner's diagnosis prescription under state law (as if state law means anything to you?)...or does that not concern a conservative like you?

If he was true to the cause(pot is wonderweed) he wouldn't, shouldn't be afraid of his name being published in the local paper.

Who says he/she is? Take it up with the court or call Mr. No Runner.

Oh yeah I forgot, you pro-potters think that he will be shipped to something worse than Stalin's gulag for disclosing his name on the "prescription".

I'm hardly a 'pro-potter'. I haven't smoked pot for more years than you've probably been on this earth. When was the last time you smoked pot, if you can possibly be honest about it? I notice you don't answer personal questions but insist on violating everyone else's privacy, so go ahead and answer honestly if it is within you to do so.

You pro-potter's are a paranoid warped lot, IMO. But I am not surprised since constant use of cannabis(pot) does induce paranoia, IMO.

Frankly, more and more the paranoid bunch appears to me to be the arm chair warriors in the WO(some)Ds; the ones that will swill their favorite adult beverage and act as though they have the market on intoxicants cornered.

[Dane]

Who says he/she is? Take it up with the court or call Mr. No Runner

Again isn't that the reporter's job?

I'm hardly a 'pro-potter'. I haven't smoked pot for more years than you've probably been on this earth. When was the last time you smoked pot, if you can possibly be honest about it?

Well since you took up the pro-potter stance, when was the last time you smoked pot? It is bad etiquitte, IMO, to accuse your fellow debater to answer a question, that you yourself won't admit or answer.

[carenot]

I'll continue to believe the Lord for my healing with conventional medicine and without medicinal marijuana while I continue investigating...

That don't make any sense.

[ApesForEvolution]

No...I could care less who prescribed it so long as the court deemed it legal. I last used marijuana in 1969. Your turn Mr. Good Form. I don't use booze anymore either. You?

[ApesForEvolution]

No...I could care less who prescribed it so long as the court deemed it legal. I last used marijuana in 1969. Your turn Mr. Good Form. I don't use booze anymore either. You?

[carenot]

Frankly, more and more the paranoid bunch appears to me to be the arm chair warriors in the WO(some)Ds; the ones that will swill their favorite adult beverage and act as though they have the market on intoxicants cornered.

I swill a lot of beer, coffee and tea. And I smoke a LOT of cigarettes.

Never even tried marijuana.

I am paranoid, tho.

[ApesForEvolution]

"I am paranoid, tho"

Carenot, the world really is out to get you! LOL!

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Order the extra grand slam breakfast?

That sure ain't parsley garnishing yer plate!

Hold muh weed...

[ApesForEvolution]

"That don't make any sense."

Why's that?

[A CA Guy]

Obviously you just want drugs at any cost and you are paying us lip service here at FR pretending to be reasonable.
You say that the drug issue doesn't violate another's rights. That is among the biggest lies ever posted on FR.

#1 The cost to the public in health care as they spread AIDS, die from cancers and other diseases related to using is high.
The costs goes from thousands to perhaps millions for the one with AIDS. This affects what you call "OTHERS".
So much for that total BS you posted.

#2 Liability to employ even "unknown" illegal drug users. They cause liability enough to in some cases close businesses down and create a loss of jobs for others clean of drugs.
Employers are open to all kinds of lawsuits if they have an illegal drug user working for them. Even if they were not known to be there, if they hurt themselves or others the liability to the employer is sky high. Again affecting "OTHERS" proving what you say is total bunk.

You said nothing that is true to me in your post and the lack of ethics you suggests regarding drugs is down right scary!
I think you are practicing the politics of addiction and could care less about the actual facts. That is my opinion based on what you posted to me. If you were honest, you could not deny the cost ever again in another pro-use thread.

[Dane]

No...I could care less who prescribed it so long as the court deemed it legal. I last used marijuana in 1969. Your turn Mr. Good Form. I don't use booze anymore either. You?

Mr. Good Form??? No reason to be sarcastic, when caught in Clintonian parsing.

Anyway to answer your question, I last smoked pot around 87. And yes I do like to have a beer and use wine in cooking.

Oh sheesh now the responses from the pro-potters will be the "joys" of cannabis rolled pork tenderloin.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Why not? Why not for anything or nothing? Why not just because you're home and you want to relax?

Better watch it. You can't go down that road. Next thing you know, we'll be buying guns w/out Brady background checks and keeping our entire paychecks! Hell, Congressmen could actually be SERVING the people again, and we wouldn't want that, now would we?