Posted by Hardin, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Oct 19, 2010 at 4:07 pm
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?
Posted by Old Ben, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2010 at 8:47 am
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.
Posted by Old Ben, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2010 at 11:15 am
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.
Posted by SeeingClearly, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2010 at 6:36 am
"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.
Posted by Hardin, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2010 at 8:09 am
"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.
Posted by Old Ben, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2010 at 11:48 am
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.
Posted by Old Ben, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2010 at 2:22 pm
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.
Posted by Hardin, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Oct 22, 2010 at 2:47 pm
"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.
Posted by Hardin, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Oct 29, 2010 at 12:36 pm
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.
Posted by Young Ben, a resident of another community, on Oct 29, 2010 at 1:07 pm
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.