Apparently people are having complicated and heated discussions regarding how much marijuana a medical marijuana patient should be allowed to possess.
I find it difficult to get very interested in that debate, although I understand that it’s important for the patients.
Here’s what I do think, however.
- Law enforcement does not have a dog in this race. The patient can have a valid opinion. So can the doctor. But not the cop.
- It seems to me that the amount that a patient is allowed to have should be at least the amount that the patient needs. Since that varies for each patient, there should be no set limit.
- If you really have to set a limit, then I’d decide it based on safety and place it just under the amount that would cause a fatal overdose*. That way, you wouldn’t have to worry about anyone getting hurt.
Best wishes for Ted Kennedy and his family.
In response to recent questions from The Chronicle about medical marijuana, Obama’s campaign – the only one of the three contenders to reply – endorsed a hands-off federal policy.
“Voters and legislators in the states – from California to Nevada to Maine – have decided to provide their residents suffering from chronic diseases and serious illnesses like AIDS and cancer with medical marijuana to relieve their pain and suffering,” said campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt.
“Obama supports the rights of states and local governments to make this choice – though he believes medical marijuana should be subject to (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) regulation like other drugs,” LaBolt said. He said the FDA should consider how marijuana is regulated under federal law, while leaving states free to chart their own course
LaBolt also said Obama would end U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana suppliers in states with their own laws.
I’m copying this entire article from ABC News. It’s too important not to.
Bush Aware of Advisers’ Interrogation Talks
President Says He Knew His Senior Advisers Discussed Tough Interrogation Methods
By JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG, HOWARD L. ROSENBERG and ARIANE de VOGUE
April 11, 2008
President Bush says he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details about how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency, according to an exclusive interview with ABC News Friday.
“Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people.” Bush told ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. “And yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.”
As first reported by ABC News Wednesday, the most senior Bush administration officials repeatedly discussed and approved specific details of exactly how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the CIA.
The high-level discussions about these “enhanced interrogation techniques” were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed — down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.
These top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects — whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding, sources told ABC news.
Chris Bowers @ OpenLeft:
Ever since the Blue Majority page was launched nearly one year ago, we at Blue Majority knew that we would add the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to the page. In my opinion, Barack Obama has now emerged as the presumptive nominee. With a pledged delegate lead of 162, a popular vote lead of more than 800,000, barring a spectacular collapse and / or a highly unlikely thwarting of the popular vote, Barack Obama will become the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. When he reaches 2,024 delegates, which at this point requires only 42.7% of the remaining delegates to be decided, he will control both the credentials committee and the majority of the non-disputed delegates at the floor of the convention. At that point, the only way that Barack Obama loses the nomination is if he decides that Hillary Clinton should be the nominee instead. In other words, Barack Obama has become the presumptive Democratic nominee, and it is time to start supporting him.
Importantly, my rationale for endorsing Barack Obama goes beyond his status as the overwhelming favorite to win the nomination. As a progressive, there are two key ideological markers that I believe make Barack Obama a better choice than Hillary Clinton: the Iraq war and the DLC. First, Barack Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq from the start, and rejected the neoconservative principle of pre-emptive warfare as one of his main reasons for opposing the war. Being able to identify the invasion of Iraq as a colossal mistake makes Barack Obama far more qualified to lead our country than candidates who both were, and still are, unable to recognize why the war was such a bad idea. Comparing Obama’s and Clinton’s statements on the death of 4,000 American soldiers in Iraq, it seems clear that Hillary Clinton still believes in the neoconservative vision for Iraq, while Barack Obama does not. The second ideological marker is the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization formed to push the Democratic Party and the national political debate to the right on a variety of issues. While Hillary Clinton is a member of the DLC’s leadership, Barack Obama has repeated refuses to be associated with the group.
Abstract: We found marijuana addicts showed a varied profile of dangerous and potentially lethal withdrawal symptoms. 82% of them went from being psychologically healthy to showing clear clinical signs of anxiety, depression, post traumatic stress, or obsessive compulsive disorder. These varied psychological withdrawal effects were less responsive to conventional treatment. Patients whose marijuana addiction was concurrent with cancer additionally suffered nausea, vomiting, an increase in pain sensitivity, increased growth rates of tumors and increased morbidity. Marijuana addicted AIDS patients showed a severe reaction that included nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, wasting, and an inability to comply with medication regimes, which was worse than heroin withdrawal. In addition, marijuana withdrawal caused more subtle effects on music perception and brain function, with many of the musicians and music lovers moving from various abstract, creative genres, to smooth jazz and pop-country, and a decreased tendency to notice and ability to play polyrhythmic music. These withdrawal effects clearly and conclusively show the dangers of marijuana, and demonstrate a particular concern for marijuana in cancer and AIDS patients.
My friend Taylor says we should switch to methanol as an intermediate step to the hydrogen economy, he points out that our cars could easily be made to run on methanol with little modification and the distribution system would be little different from ethanol, but we wouldn’t be burning our food.
Monkeyfister has a great post, and everyone should read it. He writes:
We told you– You can have food, or you can have ethanol… you cannot have both.
BUT– you can grow Hemp and Cannabis on marginal soil, where nothing but weeds will grow. Not only will it provide industrial and edible oils, it will provide paper, clothing, organic fertilizer, medicinal pain killer/appetite stimulator, and/or much, much more. Hemp and Cannabis will help to not only resurrect exhausted soils, but also provide desperately needed Tax Revenue. Re-Legalization will also destroy the Black Market for Cannabis.
Ethanol is great for Local, Rural economies with surplus bio-mass to spare. It can’t be scaled-up to National use without starving millions of people. It is good that we’re waking up to that. Perhaps that multi-year mandated Law, and the HUGE Government contracts it generated, could be justified by Re-Legalization of Hemp and Cannabis. I see nothing but win, win, win, win there. Gov’t revenue wins, Farmers win, those suffering with cancer or other illnesses win, the soil wins, the economy wins, trees win, the People win… What’s not to love about that?
The man has a point, there. And I think cannabis hemp makes an excellent renewable feedstock for methanol production, as well.
If you are feeling severely depressed, consider a dose of Aurum metallicum, 30C.
1a. (naked assertion) Waves are beneath atoms, beneath even quarks, waves are continuous, immaterial energy, observable through the movement of matter, the pattern of energy transfer between quanta.
2. Agitating and vibrating dissolved particles in fluid transfers energy to waves.