Slashdot Mirror
Pot Grower's Privacy Challenged
damaged_sectors writes "A map marking what are supposed to be secret locations of 60 warehouses and other buildings where medical marijuana is grown in Boulder has accidentally been made public by the city. Officials say an 'oversight' led them to publish the map on the city's Web site. Kathy Haddock, Boulder's senior assistant city attorney who advises the council on medical marijuana issues, said Thursday that the map would be removed from the city's Web site. No conspiracy here folks. In other news the council will decide at its Jan. 18 meeting whether Boulder should circumvent the open records act exemption for cultivation centers by requiring applicants for medical marijuana business licenses to waive their right to privacy. The council could force all growing centers to sign such a waiver as a condition of receiving a city-issued business license. While the risk this would make it easier for Federal authorities to raid grow-ops might not concern council members and others opposed to medical marijuana — I have to wonder what sort of mentality thinks exposing growers to the very real risk of armed robbery by criminals is justifiable."
Governments should't be keeping secrets
But let's compare to some other businesses. Banks, for instance, are businesses that are often targeted by criminals. They - OH MY GOD - list their addresses publically! I feel the bank's right to privacy has been violated here. Not only that, but how can the banks survive now that the criminals know where they are?! OMG!
Seriously, people. If you legalize the growing of marijuana, it's just like any other product now. You want to run a respectable business, then do it. If you are concerned about security, do what any other company concerned about security would do, put down the pipe, and GET SOME SECURITY.
Should we hide the locations of diamond distributors? Electronics makers? Lots of people deal in valuable merchandise, and they hire security and pay for insurance to cover the risks.
I support medical cannabis -- indeed, I support the end of all drug prohibition laws. But how is there a "right to privacy" any more than for any other pharmacetuical? Every pharmacy has stuff with more street value than weed, yet the locations of licensed pharmacies are public records, aren't they?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
"Medical marijuana" is just a scam. 60 "grow facilities" in Boulder, Colorado? Four times as many "dispensaries" in San Jose as 7-11s?.
If it's to be treated as a medical treatment, it should be moved to Schedule II or III, prescribed by doctors, and distributed through pharmacies. Some people need to be on full-time pain relievers, but not that many. And in real treatment, you try to get people off medication.
That's funny... Seems to be a lot of that going on these days
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
As a former Boulder resident, I challenge anyone who thinks this is a privacy issue to find any address in Boulder where they aren't growing pot. It's as "legal" there as it is anywhere.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
Quote:
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect." ...
Earlier work established that marijuana does contain cancer-causing chemicals as potentially harmful as those in tobacco, he said. However, marijuana also contains the chemical THC, which he said may kill aging cells and keep them from becoming cancerous.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Let's be clear - this is a business license. The city is well within their right to place requirements on a business as part of a business license application. Now, the term used here was waive their "right to privacy", but this is almost certainly not what the city ordinance will say. The ordinance will likely say that inspections can be done to ensure compliance with state law as well as for public safety reasons to make sure that there isn't a fire danger.
I'm not sure what the intentions of Boulder are, but we just got done crafting our own city ordinances for our small town in Montana. I think we did a fantastic job and one of the key objectives of writing it was to set up the guidelines under which the business license could be issued. The other major concern was zoning. At no time did any of us think, "Oh, we gotta collect all this information so we can do a raid." We collected it because a) it's the same information we collect for other businesses and b) there are some special concerns related to public safety and it would be completely irresponsible to to ignore those. For example, we require a security system and an inspection to make sure one was installed.
----- obSig
I demand my right to a medical blowjob!
Yes.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
You want to argue for legalization of marijuana? Fine, argue for the tax potential. Or take a philosophical perspective to liberty and how severe ill effect should the be before we limit that. Or argue based on actual data about countries where it is legal. Or argue that we shouldn't criminalize something that we can't really control. I still won't agree with your conclusion but those are all valid views on which reasonable arguments can be based upon.
But the "It's a plant" and "You can't criminalize a plant, man" are just stupid. If you are saying that everything natural should be legal just because it is natural, you are arguing for cannibalism, murder, incest and numerous other things that do occur in nature but we prefer to keep illegal. When arguing whether substance X should be legal or illegal is really quite irrelevant from whether it is created by growing plants or synthetizing it in a laboratory (aside from the "difficult to control" thing, which is whole another argument)
The danish can:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/1499735/Taxpayers-foot-bill-for-disabled-Danes-visits-to-prostitutes.html
In a move that has provoked angry protests but has delighted the country's legalised sex industry, the Danish government has launched an information campaign advising the disabled how best to go about obtaining erotic services.
...
In Aarhus, the second-largest city, disabled residents have been told that they may visit a brothel or call a male or female prostitute to their home once a month and pass the bill - which can be up to £300 - on to the state.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Yes.
Your .sig is uniquely appropriate in light of your post.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
On the other hand...
Long-Time Marijuana Use Linked to Psychosis in Young Adults
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
You are in luck: Cocaine is a schedule 2 substance, legally available by prescription, whose primary medical purpose is anesthesia in nasal, ophthalmic, and other facial surgery.
Not as commonly used now(mostly replaced by synthetic alkaloids of various flavors with similar effects); but the legal status remains.
You can't exactly walk into a pharmacy and expect to walk out with a 30 day supply; but a fair amount of stuff whose "street" form has been thoroughly demonized is actually schedule II or below in its more respectable medical guise: Cocaine, opium, amphetamines, methylphenidates, methamphetamine, PCP, etc.
I do believe some hospitals do still use cocaine as a topical anesthetic.
OMG... I have a sig?
Stupid AC. You are taking a substance, setting it on fire, and sucking the resulting smoke and other substances down into your lungs. It makes you cough. That alone tells me that it ain't probably "good" for you. And I fully support the legalization of all drugs, not just marijuana. I think you should be able to go buy a ounce of pot, a fifth of booze, 30 pills and a few rocks of crack, some LSD, and PCP, along with antibiotics, and other stuff like cyanide, if you chose to do so as an adult.
Medical Heroine... Morphine or Dilaudid?
And Heroin was a brand made by Bayer (yes, the aspirin people...), and is a derivative of morphine
OMG... I have a sig?
Classic propaganda from someone who obviously has no direct contact with anyone who actually consumes the stuff. The people I know who do consume it are more caring and intelligent than those I see constantly opposing it's existence. but.... haters gonna hate.
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
"Medicine" doesn't come in "joints".
No, it comes in brownies and rice crispy treats.
As opposed to the very real risk of armed robbery every business and person faces? This is a red herring.
First off what does this have to do with cancer?
Second off:
Of the 1,272 participants who had never used marijuana, 26 or 2 percent were diagnosed with psychosis. Of the 322 people who had used marijuana for six or more years, 12 or 3.7 percent were diagnosed with the illness.
The difference was only 1.7% thats not that big of a difference, and I wonder what the margin of error is.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
And this becomes a non-issue. After all liquor stores publicize their locations. After all liquor is a more addictive, more harmful drug by orders of magnitude yet it is regulated and legal.
Oh, look... he's advocating security through obscurity. Haven't we already agreed this isn't security? I guess not.
The way to FIX this is to legalize it. Then anybody can grow it - it's not that hard or expensive - and they'd have no reason to send squads of armed thugs to someone else's house to raid their stash. Then security wouldn't even be an issue. Diamonds and gold are valuable because they're relatively scarce (hard to mine), but marijuana is valuable ONLY because it's been arbitrarily made illegal.
Nice link, but there's no reason to think that the causation isn't the other way: people with psychosis tend to use marijuana.
It's known as "self medication." It may not be wise, but then people with psychoses are not necessarily known for good judgement.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
There is a ton of different pharmaceutical opiods. Primarily for the reason that nothing else can really come close for pain management. They're the best option, even with the problems they have (dependence, constipation, etc).
I seem to recall that heroin was developed as a less dependency-causing alternative to morphine. I guess that didn't quite pan out, did it...
It's kind of funny when you think how far we've come in medicine, with some incredible breakthroughs - and yet our heavy painkillers haven't much changed in centuries. Poppy sap, and similar synthesized compounds.
Sent from my PDP-11
I'm anxiously waiting to hear the decision. If they start posting this information I'll expect a call from my insurance carriers announcing a rate increase or cancellation. Either way I'll have to hire real security until I can move shop.
As another poster said, there's some evidence to suggest that the THC prevents cancers forming in the lungs. However, given that the mechanism involved in doing this involves killing the cancerous cells, I wouldn't be surprised if smoking cannabis causes other forms of lung damage. Regularly inhaling smoke is not likely to be good for you, irrespective of what you're burning.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
A) Those with a chronic disease or disorder will self-medicate. Branches of psychology and physiology are dedicated to its study. Examples are easily found for all chordates.
B) The correlational association for a period of six years can be monstrous. We're talking thousands of degrees of freedom. Need to see the original study to see how they are controlled for. Really large freedom for selection errors such as 'Those that have been arrested for pot possession will more likely admit to pot use' That statement may not be true but gives example for what you have to control for, or you might end with a conclusion that jail causes crime.
C)...this study builds off other studies... is an awfully hand-wavy statement. What are these studies?
D) As far as finding about "Association Between Cannabis Use and Psychosis-Related Outcomes Using Sibling Pair Analysis in a Cohort of Young Adults" I wish I wanted to spend the $30 and read the actual paper, but meh, the abstract leaves me with a few questions as the study is about 228 sibling pairs but the business week article is stats about a subset of 1594 of 3801 subjects that make up the core data of the study.
I do not think that anyone can sign away provisions of a State law? The Colorado Medical Marijuana Code specifically requires licensing authorities to keep location information of optional premises cultivation operation confidential.
12-43.3-310.Licensing in general.
14) THE LOCATION OF AN OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION OPERATION AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 12-43.3-403 SHALL BE A CONFIDENTIAL RECORD AND SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE COLORADO OPEN RECORDS ACT. STATE AND LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITIES SHALL KEEP THE LOCATION OF AN OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION OPERATION CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL REDACT THE LOCATION FROM ALL PUBLIC RECORDS. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, A STATE OR LOCAL LICENSING AGENCY MAY SHARE INFORMATION REGARDING THE LOCATION OF AN OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION OPERATION WITH A PEACE OFFICER OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
24-72-202. Definitions. As used in this part 2, unless the context otherwise requires:
(6) (b) "Public records" does not include:
(XI) Information security incident reports prepared pursuant to section 24-37.5-404 (2) (e) or 24-37.5-404.5 (2) (e); or
(XII) Information security audit and assessment reports prepared pursuant to section 24-37.5-403 (2) (d) or 24-37.5-404.5 (2) (d); OR
(XIII) STATE AND LOCAL APPLICATIONS AND LICENSES FOR AN OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION OPERATION AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 12-43.3-403, C.R.S., AND THE LOCATION OF THE OPTIONAL PREMISES CULTIVATION OPERATION. (emphasis theirs)
Even if a cultivation operation waved their rights to privacy the city would still have to keep their locations confidential as per State Law. The poster's last comment about allowing law enforcement access is moot because that have access under part 14 of 12-43.3-310
That alone tells me that it ain't probably "good" for you.
You need to inhale a little deeper and hold it in a while. Then you'll see that it really IS good for you...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
So... where is a link to the map?
This is more toward Cryptome.org territory as its was accidentally posted as part of a memo then publicly stated for withdrawal by the city government for secrecy reasons.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0VB_QrXYauUJ:www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D12380%26Itemid%3D22+http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D12380%26Itemid%3D22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
The map was included in the PDF for Jan 14 weekly updates to the city council
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/City%20Council/WIPS/2010/Jan_14_WIP/Medical_Marijuana_WIP.pdf
The memo has not even a classification nor mark stating it is secret, confidential, restricted, eye only ,etc yet will be withdrawn because it is "Secret."
The memo is _Still_ reachable as of Jan 9... the fast wheels of city government
Though not really relavant to this story, cannabis does cause schizophreniform disorder in people with two common allelic variants in the gene for catechol-O-methyltransferase (esp one of these variants).
See Caspi, A. et al. Moderation of the effect of adolescent-onset cannabis use on adult psychosis by a functional polymorphism in the catechol-O-methyltransferase gene: longitudinal evidence of a gene X environment interaction. Biol. Psychiatry 57, 1117–1127 (2005) (longitudinal study)
If you become physically addicted to any of the substances, does continuing to consume them still constitute a "choice" as an adult?
Do you really believe you can answer that question "yes" or "no" from your comfy armchair?
To quote:
"People who do drugs are not *criminals*. They might be *sick*, but I don't think jail is gonna heal 'em. Yep, thank God they caught me. What was I doin' ruinin' my life with that marijuana? I wanna thank Bubba, my rehabilitator back there. I would not want to come out of jail wanting to do less drugs, I would wanna come out mainlining heroin into my fucking eyeball. I don't know the case yet that jail healed anybody. K? K, America? Wake up from you rlaw enforcement fucking fantasy, and shut up. It ain't gonna work, K? It's not gonna work. So let's move on to a plan that *might* work. Isn't that simple? Feels good, too, don't it?"
In sake of not being partially off-topic, my two cents boils down to *safe* integration of medical marijuana into our society. Are the local cops willing and able to legally protect these cultivators if said address(es) are made public? Are the cultivators able to protect themselves legally if necessary? Should a single marijuana plant be grounds for public announcement if said grower is unable to protect themselves from what could potentially be life or death situations?
I do not pretend to know the answers to these questions, nor do I wish to live in a fantasy land that cannabis cultivators are in a fair or safe world today when it is *still* federally illegal to possess such, even though, in my opinion, it is unconstitutional for such to be enacted by the federal government and not on a case by case basis via state level. Let the states decide as it were meant to be in the first place. Either way, we *must not* continue ignoring these issues as we have been and enact policies that show compassion towards fellow human beings.
Drugs nor people are inheritedly safe even when proper moderation and education is exercised. We must accept this but also accept that drugs have been and will continue to be in our society for the foreseeable future to come. The drug policies today are not keeping us safe from drugs whatsoever. Is safety not what matters to us? We cannot stop the universe from turning just as we cannot stop chemical reactions from occuring.
Believe it or not, but sometimes the usage of a drug does indeed outweigh the costs of not doing so for an individual and all others concerned. The federal nor sometimes state governments can decide this for us. We must integrate the decision making process peacably and compassionately; sharing roles between the patients, physicians and pharmacists on a local level.
"Primarily for the reason that nothing else can really come close for pain management."
I see my published story about sea slug toxins having better than opiate medical effects has gone in one ear of slashdot and out the other.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I came into this story just to see all the pro-marijuana conspiracy theories posted by the pothead slashdotters... I wasn't disappointed, surprise surprise.
Sorry, Pal, Australia's research doesn't count for shit.
The bias in more than half of Australia's 'studies' is too apparent to even allow the slightest bit of credibility.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Constant smoking of ANYTHING, cannabis, nicotine, opium, etc, will eventually trigger emphysema, bronchitis, or pneumonia
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
"Researchers don’t know when symptoms emerged or how much marijuana study participants used over their lives, McGrath said. Those in the study were interviewed at the ages of 14 and 21, so the symptoms emerged between those two study periods, he said."
I'd like to read the study. Could you provide a link to an actual study instead of a sensational news fluff piece?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Dustin's not here, man."
Actually, to make comparisons with percentages you have to have "common denominators". Multiply 322 by 4 to get 1288, which is close enough to 1272. Therefore, multiply 12 by 4 to get 48, which is 24 times larger than 2, or 2400%.
The big problem with the study is that the data was supplied by the subjects, not by collected measurements, making the data anecdotal. And, too many variables were uncontrolled.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Look up "Rick Simpson" on YouTube
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Diamorphine is the generic term used in UK hospitals, where it is still commonly used as a fast acting and powerful painkiller.
Besides, they used Australians, and we all know the lot of them are mad as a hatter.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
A 300 pound hooker doesn't sound like such a great plan.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Does one tenuous correlation to a very small increase in a very small risk really justify jailing thousands of otherwise mild mannered and productive people?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
So, in prohibitionist America, not only can people wind up in psych wards because they use recreational drugs, but we also wind up with a larger prison population than China by arresting millions of drug users who do not wind up in the hospital as a result. Sorry, but I do not really follow your logic here; I would rather live in a country where people were free to put themselves in a psychiatric hospital by abusing drugs than one in which people who are perfectly sane are sent to prison for the crime of possessing drugs.
Palm trees and 8
Havnt had time to watch much yet, but def interesting. Thanks.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Perhaps you could get 3x 100 pound hookers.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
That's awesome that they've finally decided to study it. I mean... at least 10K years of cultivation and use of cannibis, it's about time they took a look at what it is and what it does. Compare to a drug like Depakote, which I believe was first synthesized in the 1980's as an anticonvulsant... but the maker studied it and realized it's a decent mood stabelizer too... so... less than 30 years on the planet and we know far more about Depakote. (FYI my entire post is sarcasm... we know far more about cannibis and it's effects than any drug invented, tested, approved and marketed in the last 100 years.... because those drugs have only been around less than a century... ).
The Admin and the Engineer
There have also been numerous busts of people selling fentanyl 'lolly pops' and oxycontin pills. Shall we declare those 'not medicine'?
Given the extreme costs of medication in the U.S. I applaud any move to a non-traditional formulation that saves massive amounts of money.
However, I do agree that legalization is appropriate. Prohibition seems to be causing more harm than good.
Lung cancer is not the sole smoking-related disease. In fact, it's not even the most prevalent; that honor goes to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
And, yes, there are plenty of studies showing a positive correlation between marijuana use and COPD.
My blog
Smoking anything will cause that. The primary cause COPD is the smoke it self. Any study suggesting correlation with smoking weed, opposed to smoking anything, to COPD is candidate for ig nobel. Fortunately, there are healty way to consume marijuana. It can be eaten or drink as herbal infusion.
While the same is true for tobacco, it tast awful and i doubt that chewing tobacco will ever return.
AC's would be at the top of my list.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
You don't need a common denominator when comparing percentages. 48 is still 3.7% of 1288.
Yes. It still is a choice. It might not be an EASY choice, but it still is a choice. People do get clean, people quit physically addictive behaviors all the time, thus it isn't inevitable. If you can quit, then it still is a choice. Choices don't have to be easy to be valid choices.
The real question is "what is addictive but not physically addictive". You brain is physical, and all addiction is the interplay of various chemicals in the brain. Venturing down the slippery slope why draw the line of heavily regulating things like heroin, when we could also ban (and imprison) people who gamble or play World of Warcarft (or who collect porcelain squirrels, for that matter)?
If I wish to hurt myself, I think it should be my right to do so, as long as no one else gets hurt. In a sane world we would have banned alcohol long ago, it is a far worse, physically, mentally, and socially, than marijuana. Hell, I haven't seen any studies actually stating that marijuana is physically addictive (in the same manner as heroin or other opiates), whereas alcohol actually is.
I don't even smoke pot. Well... I do, roughly once a year, in very small quantities. I don't, personally, enjoy it that much.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
fail math is fail
404: sig not found.
Wait, what?
You're scaling the 322 people by four, to make it comparable to the 1272 people.
Then you're using that scaling factor (4) to multiply the 12 people (out of 322) up to 48 people (out of 1288).
Then you're comparing the 48 people (out of 1288) with the 2 from "2% of 1272 people".
I don't know much about statistics, but I know that "people" and "percent" are different units.
If jumping off a cliff shatters both your legs, does not having legs still constitute a "choice" as an adult?
404: sig not found.
That would be surrendering in the war on drugs. Our egos are way to big for that.
-federal govt.
404: sig not found.
These smokers don't believe that they are doing enough harm to have the government interfere. And I think that most juries would agree with that point of view. If juries were working correctly, by only punishing when they are convinced that the defendant did something wrong, not simply the defendant breaking the law. I think we would have a system that would have more sanity.
Prohibition has always worked out so well, I'm sure that it *must* be the right answer.
Prohibition (drugs/alcohol/prostitution/gambling) is the right answer if your in organized crime, otherwise your left with protection rackets and robbery style work. These make people upset in 99.9% of all transactions.
I'd love to live in your world, where people always make the decisions they wished they had.
The correlation between marijuana use and psychosis seems to be true, but whether it constitutes a causal relationship (marijuana->psychosis) has been subject to much controversy.
It could also be that people with higher risk of psychosis are attracted to marijuana because of it's anti-anxiety effects. After all, (some types of) psychotics can be just a more extreme version of your everyday neurotic. And neurotics are more subject to anxiety (in fact, some interpretations of neurosis see anxiety as the central disruptive force in a neurotic personality.. I'm thinking of Karen Horney and her "basic anxiety").
The danish can:
Amsterdam is NOT in denmark.
Causation/Correlation.
This could also be interpreted as pre-psychotic/latent-psychotic teens are twice as likely to abuse or experiment with marijuana than non-psychotic teens.
My bad, I was orignally gonna post a different article. The article I found came from the daily fail, so I didnt really want to post it. I changed articles w/o changing the title.
Here was the article I had originally planned to post.
http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/daily-mail-london-england-the/mi_8002/is_2010_August_16/disabled-visit-amsterdam-prostitute-taxpayer/ai_n54807855/
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
What a business is engaged in is a matter of public record. Do we really want gov't involved in hiding what various businesses are doing?
I'd love to live in your world, where people always make the decisions they wished they had.
I didn't mean to sound callous.
But it is a choice. When I was young I was engaged in the drug culture somewhat deeply, and many of my friends were as well. Most of us managed to pull through and develop into normal adults, while a small handful of use are still suffering, or locked in prison (or dead). Addiction isn't something that can never be escaped, it just is hard to beat but entirely possible. Yes, I have some regrets from that period of time, but I still managed to pull through, as did most of the people I know from then. It was tough, it was nasty, but it was possible.
Living in Arizona, the drug of choice here were methamphetamines, and those who didn't manage to get clean by the late 90s, had the heroin fad to contend with. I would never advocate legalizing those drugs, while I am a fan of legalizing marijuana and some varieties of hallucinogens (basically drugs that aren't terribly addictive, or have dire social consequences). I would, on the other hand, decriminalize the possession of small quantities of drugs. Turning people who make some bad decisions into criminals isn't a very good thing either. I would use the money that we save in legal costs and jailing for treatment programs, and better, honest, drug education, plus going after the actual supply chain and not just small time users.
I don't see any logic in our current drug policy.
We're better off treating users, and helping them, than locking them in jail like some flavor of violent criminal.
It still is a choice, though.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Medical Marijuana is a scam. "Medicine" doesn't come in "joints".
By "joints" you mean of course drug "cigarettes".
Oddly enough belladonna cigarettes are an effective treatment for acute asthma - and although they are largely superseded by longer lasting drugs in inhalers, belladonna cigarettes are still in use.
So, yes, drugs do come in cigarettes if that is an effective means of administration. Most medical marijuana users prefer to use vaporizers that, and inhalers, produce a nearly pure aerosol of the medication.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Until the governments of the united states hold a truth and reconcilliation comission to deal with the opression of pot heads, I don't see why pot heads should forgive them for 70 years of oppression.
What, they change a few laws and pot heads are supposed to just forgive, forget, and fall in line? Why the hell is that exactly?
I say, until they stop talking about allowing medical use, and start talking about reparations and expunging criminal records, then we have nothing to talk about with them.
Stay underground and.... overgrow the nation!
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
And I feel the same way about people who support the law.
Screw your government and your laws, I see no reason why we should forgive the law for oppression.
If you are stupid enough to support laws that serve as little more than an excuse to take your rights to privacy away, then guess what, you have exactly what you asked for.
Until people like you are ready to talk about the restitution that you owe to pot heads for 70 years of oppression, then I see no reason that we should forgive you either.
Not my government, just the occupation force that I live under.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Should TOTALLY change business title! "It's like, whoa, good stuff. Mannn."
Seriously though since when does personal privacy laws apply to businesses?
A: They don't.
Issued solved.
If you are using your personal information in the context of running a business, then it no longer constitutes as personal information, and as such is not subject to privacy legislation. Isn't Kathy a lawyer or something? Maybe doing too much marijuana advising....
Did you even read that article?
The researchers included 3,801 young adults who were born in Brisbane from 1981 to 1984. At the 21-year follow up, the participants, whose average age was about 20, were asked about marijuana use. The researchers also measured whether those in the study had psychotic symptoms. Of the 1,272 participants who had never used marijuana, 26 or 2 percent were diagnosed with psychosis. Of the 322 people who had used marijuana for six or more years, 12 or 3.7 percent were diagnosed with the illness. Overall, 65 people were diagnosed with psychosis, according to the study.
Now, already this looks very insignificant, being a difference in percentage of 1.7 and only based on 12 cases. But play around with the numbers a bit. You'll find that of the whole sample, 1.7% were diagnosed with psychosis. Of the 2529 who had used marijuana before, 39 were diagnosed, or 1.5%
Let me restate that information:
2.0% of participants who had never used marjiuana were diagnosed with psychosis as young adults.
1.5% of participants who had used marijuana were diagnosed with psychosis as young adults.
If you accept the 3.7% figure for those who used more than six years, (This was a 21 year follow up study, average age about 20, meaning they started using at latest aged 15. Drug use at such an early age indicates to me they could have had some mental health problems already. Correlation causation blah blah blah) you should also accept that those who had used marijuana for less than six years had an unusually low risk of psychosis, at just 1.2%
Tell me again how this proves your point?
I see the fnords!
Moreover, how many medications affect young adults differently than they affect adults? Improper administration of a powerfully chemical substance to an individual whose body is undergoing significant chemical changes may have long term adverse affects? News at 11 folks. Show me the study that says prolonged Marijuana use in adults (30 years+) for 6 years shows an identical increased risk.
I already did. The "leader" and "follower" are merely two patterns out of many possibilities, patterns that achieved dominance due the evolutionary selection process. But "dominance" does not mean "exclusivity". It is in fact the key aspect of evolution that the "search algorithm" probes the search space in a random manner and so in every population you will end up with a lot of variation, although more radical the difference from the "mean" parameters, rarer it is.
It is the basic mathematical property of the genetic search algorithm.
So there are many people that do not follow these two patterns. Some will be a detriment to the overall population and so the evolutionary process will actively select against them (in the long run). Some patterns are simply neutral and thus are ignored, as long as their frequency of occurrence is low enough.
Note that this analysis does not involve things like 'ethics' or 'morality', simply the properties of the evolutionary process as applied to herd or pack animals.
Then there's this one:
Doubt cast on cannabis, schizophrenia link