Post a New Topic
Original post made
on Oct 19, 2010
This is what happens when you allow alcohol dispensaries in your town.
[Post removed. Stay on topic.]
Somebody should look into the comparative rate of violent crime associated with alcohol dispensaries as compared with cannabis dispensaries.
I don't understand the logic here. If its acknowledged that alcohol can and is abused, even with the controls we place on it, how does this make the case that we should treat medicinal marijuana the same?
No one is making the case that alcohol is medicine, so why the apples to oranges comparison?
Rationalizing? Most definitely.
And now this guy can get a dry place to sleep and some decent food before he's back out lurking among us.
It is obvious that alcohol has medicinal properties: the most recent studies indicate that even heavy drinkers tend to outlive nondrinkers. While there haven't been any formal studies, a wealth of anecdotal evidence abounds indicating that consumers of alcohol are in every way a greater menace to society than consumers of cannabis. To preserve the safety and security of our streets, Mountain View should declare a moratorium on alcohol sales until the subject has been reviewed. We have to protect the children.
There are very few controls on alcohol - except after the damage has been done.
We can likely find dozens of stories like this related to alcohol, many involving violence and lost lives.
There's a verifiable body count w/ alcohol, not so w/ pot.
Where are the outcries to eliminate the alcohol dispensaries in MV?
Just to cite one example, the Monte Carlo on Castro St. has probably generated more mayhem than all of the cannabis dispensaries in the Bay Area put together. How many times have the MVPD had to deal with patrons of that place?
Let's have a dry town. Drink responsibly: drink at home.
Won't SOMEBODY think of the children!!!
"It is obvious that alcohol has medicinal properties: the most recent studies indicate that even heavy drinkers tend to outlive nondrinkers..."
You're still comparing apples and oranges.
To break this down clearly:
1. If marijuana is to be used as a medicine, then it should be treated like all other drug-based medicines, by prescription, from a pharmacy.
2. If marijuana is to be used for recreational purposes, then change the laws, State and Federal to allow for legal use.
Where your rationalizing becomes nonsensical is when you try to advocate for medicinal use of marijuana by comparing it to recreational use of alcohol.
The only individuals I know that rationalize alcohol to be for medicinal purposes are the town drunks, while swigging from tall-boys of Colt-45.
If one were to make parallels with medicinal marijuana, the question becomes whether the proponents of medicinal marijuana are using the same type of "logic".
How does cannabis become a "drug-based medicine" on your planet, Hardin? Feeling a little irony-challenged, are we? Tylenol is medicine, and you can buy it at any convenience store.
"Tylenol is medicine, and you can buy it at any convenience store."
So now you're switching to comparing with Tylenol...
...You're still comparing apples and oranges.
As defined in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug. That is:
1. The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
Tylenol is a Schedule 5 drug. That is:
1. The drug or other substance a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
2. The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3. Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
Making the comparison you have between Tylenol and Marijuana makes about as much sense as arguing that a firecracker and a hand grenade are the same.
You can question the appropriateness of having Marijuana classified as a Schedule 1 drug, but until proof is provided and the Law is changed, your comparison is flawed and wanting.
The Schedule 1 criteria fits alcohol like a glove. On the other hand, cannabis fits none of the criteria. I'd like some fries with that hypocrisy...
"The Schedule 1 criteria fits alcohol like a glove. On the other hand, cannabis fits none of the criteria. I'd like some fries with that hypocrisy..."
Its certainly your right to have an opinion.
"Making the comparison you have between Tylenol and Marijuana makes about as much sense as arguing that a firecracker and a hand grenade are the same."
Absolutely. In fact if you check the lethal dosage of each you'll see that tylenol can pretty easily kill you, cannabis cannot. I know first hand, of a person who died from the liver damage because taking too much tylenol. Cannabis is much much safer that tylenol, especially if you eat it. It will be hard to find a drug as physically benign as pot to do an apples to apples comparison, but the social hypocrisy of allowing anyone to buy tylenol but not allowing them to buy pot is glaring.
"In fact if you check the lethal dosage of each you'll see that tylenol can pretty easily kill you, cannabis cannot."
Apples and oranges...but let's suspend belief in facts for the moment and assume a comparison between Marijuana and Tylenol is legitimate:
There are SEVERAL conditions that determine a drug's status according to the Controlled Substances Act: Potential for abuse, accepted medical use in the US, and potential for physical or psychological dependency (addiction). Under these metrics, Marijuana is the hand grenade, and Tylenol the firecracker. The one metric you mentioned, toxicity, is not even considered a factor for determining the Schedule rating for a drug.
So you still haven't justified why Marijuana shouldn't be considered a Schedule 1 drug with all the controls attached to it, vs. Tylenol.
Well, for starters, cannabis isn't a drug.
The term "marijuana" was put to use by Hearst and the DuPonts in their campaign to demonize hemp, a competitor to Hearst's logging interests and DuPont's synthetic fibers. The idea was to implant in the public mind an association with non-whites, i.e. Mexicans and African-Americans.
If cannabis is a drug, so are wheat, corn, basil, parsley, sage, rosemary, and thyme. You are drinking DEA Kool-Aid, Hardin. "It has no medical use because we say it has no medical use. There have been no clinical trials because we will not allow clinical trials." It's a bogus tautology.
The "War On Drugs" is nothing but a cash cow for tax parasites. If the government cared about public health, we'd have a single-payer health care system like the civilized industrial nations do. If they cared about free markets, they'd legalize ALL "recreational" drugs, like Portugal did nine years ago. Obviously all they care about is lining their own pockets.
"The term "marijuana" was put to use by Hearst and the DuPonts in their campaign to demonize hemp, a competitor to Hearst's logging interests and DuPont's synthetic fibers. The idea was to implant in the public mind an association with non-whites, i.e. Mexicans and African-Americans."
Uh oh, here come the government/special interest conspiracies now...
Marijuana, Mary Jane, Cannabis, Hemp, my friend "Bill", it really doesn't matter what you call it because it still is what it is in the eyes of the law: a Schedule 1 drug.
What I see happening on this issue is an attempt to skirt existing laws by calling "Bill", medicine, and then resisting the efforts to control this "medicine" like we do all other drug based medicines.
Let's remember, there are 2 primary reasons why medicines are controlled:
1. FIRST to protect patients from overdose and side effects, AND
2. SECOND, to prevent abuse and misuse of a medicine for purposes other than for alleviating the intended malady.
The arguments I see stressed for "Bill" is that its not toxic, but its conveniently ignored how abuse and misuse of this "medicine" will occur (Percocet anyone?), and what ramifications that has on patients AND on the community, if proper controls aren't in place.
I don't advocate banning of "Bill" for medicinal use (Though I haven't seen definite studies on its efficacy). I do think treating it like we do all other drug based medicines is the better way for ensuring safe use, AND to prevent abuse.
Oh come now, Hardin: we all know that "conspiracy" is synonymous with "hallucination" in America. Remember the Maine!
Marijuana contains the drug THC.
The major psychoactive chemical compound in cannabis is tetrahydrocannabinol (commonly abbreviated as THC).
Dangers of marijuana, habitually addicted, cancer and other incidents related to the use of it. You die as a result of the drug use.
Just like alcohol, most do not die from overdose but the effects after the use of it.
So while we suffer from trying to stop the alcohol abuse why allow another unregulated drug into society. If it has some medical use make it a prescribed drug and stop this unregulated selling.
That's interesting, "dr joe."
Name one person who has died from "the effects after the use of it." Name one.
"Name one person who has died from "the effects after the use of it." Name one."
You're still focusing on toxicity, and ignoring abuse.
Instead of demanding proof of toxicity, you should be providing proof that it won't ever be abused or misused.
That's a ridiculous standard that nothing can pass, Hardin. Everything can be "abused." I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than that.
Its no less ridiculous than stipulating that acute toxicity of a substance should be the sole determining factor in establishing the controls for its use and distribution. And that doesn't even consider the chronic effects of marijuana use or effects caused by the preferred method of delivery into the body (smoking it).
You still have not provided a justifiable reason why medicinal marijuana should not be treated like all other drug-based, high potential for abuse, medications: by a pharmacy, with a prescription, under a doctor's care.
A dry town old Ben? Really? Do you think that is a majority opinion and would be the will of the voters? Have you thought about moving to a good and decent dry county in the bible belt?
You might recall the history and crime that prohibition fueled. Not to say that MV would become 1920's Chicago but it would be difficult to stem the flow of that wicked liquor into one town. It would also severely hurt many establishments, hotels, venues, etc. besides the Monte Carlo that you so despise. There will always be a few bad apples in a bushel of fun.
Wow, this news has been stuck on page one for quite some time. Can we move on from this story so Mountain View does not become synonymous with hurled shopping carts? Welcome to Mountain View.... Bam!
Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Post a comment
Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.
Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?
- Bailey Park
- Blossom Valley
- Castro City
- Cuesta Park
- Jackson Park
- Monta Loma
- North Bayshore
- North Whisman
- Old Mountain View
- Rengstorff Park
- Rex Manor
- Shoreline West
- St. Francis Acres
- Stierlin Estates
- Sylvan Park
- The Crossings
- Waverly Park
- Whisman Station
- another community
Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.
Local picks on 2015 Michelin Bib Gourmand list
By Elena Kadvany | 8 comments | 3,570 views
Home & Real Estate
Shop Mountain View
Send News Tips
Circulation & Delivery
Palo Alto Online
© 2014 Mountain View Online
All rights reserved.