Vote "yes" on question 5

[wzrd]

ok so i just read over the actuall question 5. all the bill looks to do is increase the amount of pot somone can have from 1 1/4 ounces to 2 1/2 ounces but that's only for a person who has it prescribed for a medical use. it would laos creat a idetification card for people whop need it medically as well as care givers so they they can not be prosecuted for having it.
im all for the idetification cards and think that's a great idea. what im nto for is why would somoen need more than 1 1/4 ounce on them at a time?? i need to look into this more because it also talks abotu expanding what conditions qualify for medical m.j. if somoen can get a headache and go to a doctor and get pot then im still voting no but its its legit conditions i might vote yes

bottom line noen of this has anythign to do with non medical use.

I also just finished reading the 9 pages of wording that we'll be voting on soon.Looked to me as if there will be lots of govermental [dhhs] oversite,yearly review process and lots of restrictions that the cali sceene dont have to deal with...This measure should calm fears of diversion ,since a drug dealer isn't gonna give up all the info required to playball with the dept of human services...looks to me [imho] to be a well worded bill....now what about that same sex marrage issue

 

[Kristof]

....now what about that same sex marrage issue

oh lord you really starting that debate? lol

 

[EddieHunt05]

donnnn't get me started

 

[Kati]

I'm going to vote tomorrow morning.

I saw and read that this will allow children to smoke marijuana with parental consent. I am NOT for children smoking anything.

I also saw and read that this will allow the cultivator/ user/ seller to have every bell and whistle from any head shop.

You should have seen the guy on the news the other day with his fancy bowl, he was voting yes so that he can legally get his marijuana to make him feel better as his AIDS or HIV medicine upsets his stomach.

 

[stiXXX]

WTF?

The bill contains absolutely NO language pertaining to parental consent for child smokers.

Let me guess-Fox News "information"??

That's no more factual than the myth that gay marriage and sex will be taught in schools if we allow gay marriage-which btw, I'm against.

("Civil unions", for gays, for insurance purposes, etc, is okay by me, but "marriage", IMO, is (historically) a hetero thing.

#5 will pass, easily, as it should.

The repeal of the gay marriage bill, I'd say, is shaky, it could go either way.

(Get it? "Go either way" Arararar!!)

 

[TheSoundMan]

Actually guys, from someone who has read the referendum very carefully, and actually discussed it with many activists and a couple of medical professionals. Voting yes will put the descision making on all medical marijuana matters in the hands of DHH, not really a good thing for a couple of reasons. as much as you might like to see it taken a step further, even the most hardcore activists in the state say vote no, that should tell you something. Think twice before you vote.......just my .02

http://www.maineville.com/detail/126128.html

 

[stiXXX]

If you vote no, it's back to Square One, and two more years of legislative BS while sick people suffer.

DHH are retards, but after a decade of Maine's "legal" medical marijuana, there is absolutely NO criteria in place to help the people who NEED it.

Period.

Any step forward, like this, at least isn't the complacent BS that we've had to stomach for a decade.

 

[TheNailman]

this will allow children to smoke marijuana with parental consent.

while i respect your opinion, i don't agree with you.

that's like saying that since tobacco is legal, you are allowed to give it to children. or whiskey, or oxycodone, or anything. . .

 

[TheSoundMan]

bump for being able to do what ever it is I want in my own home, without hurting anyone. How many people in this country come home from work, and drink them selves stupid every night? right. I don't drink, but im a responsible adult, with a steady, good paying job, and yes, i like to puff from time to time. AND, before I landed the job of my dreams, I spent 8 years engineering roads and highways that most of you probly drive on everyday.......yea, im braindead.

 

[Kati]

I saw a news program about the children thing and didn't believe it, and here is some wording:

2. Issuing registry identification card to minor. The department may not issue a registry identification card to a qualifying patient who is under 18 years of age unless:

A.
The qualifying patient's physician has explained the potential risks and benefits of the medical use of marijuana to the qualifying patient and to a parent, guardian or person having legal custody of the qualifying patient; and
 
B.
The parent, guardian or person having legal custody consents in writing to:
 
(1) Allow the qualifying patient's medical use of marijuana;


 


(2) Serve as one of the qualifying patient's primary caregivers; and


 


(3) Control the acquisition of the marijuana, the dosage and the frequency of the medical use of marijuana by the qualifying patient.


 



-----Added 10/31/2009 at 09:29:48-----

Info from: MPBN

 

[bigsxy]

Just to throw this out there with the whole kid thing does it matter if the cancer patient is 13 or 80 it still is cancer if a docter feels it is ok then whats the big deal.

 

[Kati]

I just feel that there'd be other ways for the kid to cope, rather than having them hooked on it for the rest of their life. How many pot smokers do you know that only smoked for a short bit of time ever to NEVER pick it up again? I only knew of 2 and they still dabble in it to this day. So an 8 year old with Cancer, who gets the treatment it needs, is fine after that, why allow the child to continue to smoke it? Especially if their parents are recreational smokers. I know if my brothers were born with something where the doctors said, "smoke some weed, you'll feel better" my parents would be smoking right there with them. Hell, they did, even without doctors consent.

 

[04wrx]

I just feel that there'd be other ways for the kid to cope, rather than having them hooked on it for the rest of their life. How many pot smokers do you know that only smoked for a short bit of time ever to NEVER pick it up again? I only knew of 2 and they still dabble in it to this day. So an 8 year old with Cancer, who gets the treatment it needs, is fine after that, why allow the child to continue to smoke it? Especially if their parents are recreational smokers. I know if my brothers were born with something where the doctors said, "smoke some weed, you'll feel better" my parents would be smoking right there with them. Hell, they did, even without doctors consent.

I've smoked weed only a handful of times along with a few of my best friends and none of us found it addicting at any point in time. Saying that pot is addictive is like saying that eating is addictive which is not true, yes some people may find it "addicting" but the majority smoke because they want to not because they are addicted to it.

 

[Kati]

okay then I shouldn't have said "hooked on it", but what I am saying is give them the opportunity and they'll use it as an excuse.

"but the majority smoke because they want to not because they are addicted to it."

Well, why do they want to? Because there's something that makes them WANT to do it?

So medicinal marijuana would be for people that WANT to smoke it rather than who "NEED" to smoke it?? Right there says there's truly no need for it.

 

[stiXXX]

From the U.K.

The Home Secretary Alan Johnson asked Professor David Nutt to resign as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD), saying he had "lost confidence" in his ability to give impartial advice.Related articles

Sacked drugs tsar warns more advisers may quit

Leading article: Unfair dismissal

Action on Britain's epidemic of pill addiction

Amy Jenkins: We're all paranoid about drugs

Steve Connor: Arbitrary classification has little to do with science

But last night Professor Nutt, who is head of psychopharmacology at the University of Bristol, retaliated, accusing the Government of "misleading" the pubic in its messages about drugs and of "Luddite" tendencies.

He was backed by other senior scientists and politicians.

Colin Blakemore, professor of neuroscience at Oxford University and former chief executive of the Medical Research Council, said: "The Government cannot expect the experts who serve on its independent committees not to voice their concern if the advice they give is rejected even before it is published. "I worry that the dismissal of Professor Nutt will discourage academic and clinical experts from offering their knowledge and time to help the Government in the future."

Richard Garside, director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London, where Professor Nutt made his comments, said: "I'm dismayed that the Home Secretary appears to believe that political calculation trumps honest and informed scientific opinion. The message is that, when it comes to the Home Office's relationship with the research community, honest researchers should be seen but not heard." He added it was "a bad day for science and for the cause of evidence-informed policy making".

Professor Nutt had become a thorn in the side of ministers with his criticisms of drugs policy. He clashed with former home secretary Jacqui Smith when he suggested ecstasy, which causes 30 deaths a year, was less dangerous than horse-riding, which causes 100 deaths a year. He also argued that, to prevent one episode of schizophrenia linked to cannabis use, it would be necessary to "stop 5,000 men aged 20 to 25 from ever using" the drug.

Most drugs experts believe his analysis is right. But ministers did not want to hear the truth or at least to be reminded of it repeatedly. The Home Secretary asked him to consider his position after a recent lecture in which attacked what he called the "artificial" separation of alcohol and tobacco from other, illegal, drugs. Last night Professor Nutt said he stood by his comments. "My view is policy should be based on evidence. It's a bit odd to make policy that goes in the face of evidence. The danger is they are misleading us. The scientific evidence is there: it's in all the reports we published. Our judgements about the classification of drugs like cannabis and ecstasy have been based on a great deal of very detailed scientific appraisal.

"Gordon Brown makes completely irrational statements about cannabis being 'lethal', which it is not. I'm not prepared to mislead the public about the harmfulness of drugs like cannabis and ecstasy. I think most scientists will see this as an example of the Luddite attitude of governments towards science."

He repeated his view that cannabis was "not that harmful" and that parents should be more worried about alcohol.

"The greatest concern to parents should be that their children do not get completely off their heads with alcohol because it can kill them ... and it leads them to do things which are very dangerous, such as to kill themselves or others in cars, get into fights, get raped, and engage in other activities which they regret subsequently. My view is that, if you want to reduce the harm to society from drugs, alcohol is the drug to target at present."

In a recent broadside, Professor Nutt accused Jacqui Smith, who oversaw the reclassification of cannabis from Class C to Class B, of "distorting and devaluing" scientific research. He said her decision to reclassify cannabis as a "precautionary step" sent mixed messages and undermined public faith in government science.

"I think we have to accept young people like to experiment

 

[wzrd]

How can anyone dare to judge what is appropriate treatment for someone else's medical condition? I thought the whole issue was covered under privacy regulation [hippa] what goes on between a doctor and patient is sacred/private and no one elses concern....that's like someone saying" i personally think opiods are the devils drug,we should never allow dr's to prescribe it to people because it causes addiction,and" I" dont like it"..And expect them MAKE IT illegal because of your veiw point..When in reality opiods under a dr's care are a essensial part of routine medicine,And have been for a long time ,despite the negtive side effects..good out weights the bad so to speak..

....I understand not wanting children to have access to illegal drugs ,and i cant imagine a situation where a dr would prescribe medical mj for a child,but if they did it would not be our business to judge..PERIOD.You as a parent have the final desision in the end so whats the problem......Then there was the ,want over need rebuttle argument,"knowbody really needs"again[imho]judgemental...Who are you to tell me,Im almost 50 years old,my nurolagist diagnosised me 10 years ago with "cervical radiculopathy"and "djd" in "c4-7 with nerve impingment" that runs down both arms.Im in chronic pain 24/7/365 .shouldnt i be able to LEGALY have access to a medicine if my dr and i decide its an apprpriate choice for my condition.

...im not very computer savy but i can flood this site with all kinds of info on the medical documentation.

 

[MAINIAC XV]

+ 1000 Paul

It all comes down to our personal FREEDOM.

 

[2point5RS_Dan]

+ 1000 Paul It all comes down to our personal FREEDOM.

This.

There are far too many uninformed people who think all sorts of ridiculous things about drugs and alcohol just because their parents/family/government/news outlets/Fox "News"/churches/politicians/other organizations, have all waxed on spouting their oppinions trying to futher their own agenda.

I've listened to years worth of radio shows where there was a licensed doctor and addiction medicine specialist who regularly talked about drugs and their affects on people. The sheer amount of stuff said on the news and by talking heads or regular people in conversation about controlled substances is hilariously misinformed. Misperscribed opiates and opiate abuse is startlingly destructive, yet I see no one going on a crusade about those.

Think drinking a beer is bad? Good for you, don't drink one.

Think smokin' a doober is bad? Good for you, don't smoke one.

Think guns are bad? Good for you, don't buy one.

Think gay marriages are bad? Good for you, don't get one.

Think strip clubs are bad? Good for you, don't go to one.

Think <noun> is bad? Good for you, don't <verb> one.

It's not that difficult, yet people get these agendas put into their head that just because they don't like something that no one should be allowed to do it.

If what you are doing is hurting someone else, then I have a problem with it; but I'm not disillusion enough to think that some guy smoking a doober in his moms basement is going to be this great travesty against my own life and murder future children along with single handedly bringing down society and open a pot store next to a kindergarden.

Like was said earlier, people get hooked up on opiates, should we outlaw those too since they're such bad evil drugs just like weed? What else should be taken away from me because they're bad and evil? Gotta take NyQuil off the shelves too because I might get the idea to chug it on a friday night and trip on the DXM. Welp I might hit a pedestrian, tow trucks coming to my house right now to take my car away from me. Gotta toss out my knives because I might stabmyself while cutting rope, gotta give those away too. Speaking of rope, people hang themselves with it, gotta burn every last inch. Where do we draw the line? At what point are we being irrational? At what point does it come down to personal responsibility and accountability for our actions?

The vote isn't even about legalizing weed, it's about letting people in pain have another option for relief. Ask yourself this question: "Do I want to deny someone in pain the option of trying a solution to attempt to find relief?" I did not say anything about med mj in that question. Are you voting to help people, or voting because your family / news channel / Bill O'Reilly told you it was bad?

This post doesn't really matter because it wont be read with an open mind and actually think. People just put their fingers in their ears and close their eyes so they can keep on believing what they want to believe.

 

[Kati]

thank you for continuing this thread, as voting day is nearing for many. There was a lot of important information in here, and definately conflicting sides.

I thought the information I pulled was from the bill,

.

The information provided was informative. Thank you.

 

[stiXXX]

Kati,

I just despise Fox News-style, faux neo-conservative, FEAR-based rhetoric.

Information is The Key, get Facts from, as I said, "moderate" sources, and try to use The Facts to balance the hype of groups with serious, FEAR-based, hidden agendas.

Then you'll be closer to the actual reality of what's best for "We the People".