L.A. Times Columnists: Duuuuuuuuuuude, I Bought Some Pot, Dude
Nice catch by Sara Libby, who notes that three separate L.A. Times columnists have purchased medical marijuana over the past 18 months. First it was Sandy Banks (here and here):
[W]hy did I feel vaguely criminal as I stuffed my cannabis card — resembling a tiny passport, embossed with a marijuana leaf — in my wallet?
Because I’m from a generation in which marijuana was plainly illegal and thus the province of the young — clandestinely purchased with a wad of singles, smoked with a rowdy crowd of buddies, accompanied by laughter and loud music.
And because I’ve heard from friends — and my own teenage daughters — that getting a cannabis card at 18 has become a rite of passage in some quarters.
Why bother trying to find a dope dealer when you can shop for weed at a place as familiar as a mini-mart?
and then classic narcissist Joel Stein:
[T]he doctor wore a Hawaiian shirt.
He took my blood pressure and asked what I was suffering from. “Anxiety,” I said. And then “occasional insomnia.” And even though he seemed to be moving on, I blurted something about headaches. The only malady that would have made me more similar to every human being throughout history would have been “these painful little pieces of skin that peel up next to my fingernails.”
And now Steve Lopez:
The doctor told me there were many options for treating back pain, and I told him I didn’t want to risk surgery or take conventional painkillers. He wanted to know how I’m affected when back pain keeps me awake.
I’m fuzzy and have trouble focusing the next day, I told him.
He seemed to be looking for a different answer. If I’m a writer, he said, did that mean I had trouble doing my job?
Definitely, doctor.
I stood to show him where my back hurts. He asked me to bend down, and I demonstrated that I couldn’t touch my toes, but I don’t think he could see that. He hadn’t moved from his seat.
I pointed again to my lower back and asked if there were a disc that low.
He said he knew nothing about back problems.
“I’m a gynecologist,” he said.
I see.
Lopez, like Banks before him, is apparently going to milk this for at least two columns. Stein apparently only got one. But then, Banks said she flushed her marijuana down the toilet; as far as we know, Stein smoked his. And you know how pot robs people of their initiative.
Libby says it may also be affecting the editors’ memory:
So what gives? Is the Times really this hard up for story ideas that they need multiple columnists writing about their adventures getting pot? If so, they might be better off hiring a group of randomly picked teenagers from my hometown – I’m sure they’d charge much less. Or perhaps it’s the editors who are doing most of the smoking, and simply can’t remember that they’ve run the same piece over and over again.
Harsh, dude.
Take a look at the graphic just below this story and you will see the source of the pain they were trying to relieve with the pot. Unfortunately, the secondary effects of smoking pot will just steepen the slope of the circulation curve.
Bye !
Mike K (2cf494) — 10/29/2009 @ 7:16 amA marijuana card? Aw, fer crying out loud! Hippies are not what they used to be. They’ve sold out to the establishment. Next thing we know, they’ll be using deodorants and toothpaste.
nk (df76d4) — 10/29/2009 @ 7:23 amP.S. And I cannot wait for the first product liability/med mal lawsuit from the guy who was “mis-prescribed” and/or got “some bad stuff”.
nk (df76d4) — 10/29/2009 @ 7:25 amMike K,
Are we sure the pot smoking started only after the plummeting circulation?
Karl (6aa6ff) — 10/29/2009 @ 7:38 amImages of the advertizing bliz on lessor cable stations boggles the mind
Pot Docs competing for patients
And they thought we need REAL reform in Healthcare
EricPWJohnson (d9ce25) — 10/29/2009 @ 7:39 amSo, basically anybody in CA can get a pot card now? All they have to do is find a Dr. Feelgood to sign off on it? Do employers still do drug tests out there, and are card-bearing “patients” exempt?
gp (72be5d) — 10/29/2009 @ 7:43 amI know the police and prosecutors around here take a dim view of doctors who make a living prescribing to drug-seeking patients. They also take a dim view of patients trying to trick doctors into prescribing drugs they don’t need. Of course Tennessee may be different from California.
brobin (c07c20) — 10/29/2009 @ 7:53 amThe minute I can legally push drugs on Stoners is going to be the start of something very profitable.
Hopefully, I can increase dosage during election day so they can’t even function.
HeavenSent (01a566) — 10/29/2009 @ 7:55 amYes they can! Our financially troubled semi-rural area has at least two MD’s who openly advertise their “specialty”…prescribing “medical” marijuana. Many local small-box businesses failing, but there are at least a dozen busy shops which sell pot and the associated paraphernalia; curious that their customers seldom appear ill when they show up on their choppers or upscale SUV’s.
Old Coot (166f79) — 10/29/2009 @ 7:59 amHow about counterfeit pot cards? Do the dispensaries verify the card against a database, or do they just look at the card?
gp (72be5d) — 10/29/2009 @ 8:32 amI have an idea. Why not get all the Democrats so stoned on pot that they can’t bring up any of their america hating socialist agenda?
PCD (1d8b6d) — 10/29/2009 @ 8:48 amAnd here I thought they’d been smoking crack.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 10/29/2009 @ 8:54 amHere in Colorado, the local leftist weekly, Westword, used to get a large fraction of its revenue from poorly-disguised prostitute advertisements. It has shifted dramatically, from my own non-scientific survey of the ad pages, to “medical” marijuana shops.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/29/2009 @ 8:57 amWhy go to all that trouble when you can easily get the real thing for less than $100.00.
Old Coot (166f79) — 10/29/2009 @ 9:03 amBTW, here is a list of conditions that justify medical marijuana:
* Alzheimer’s Disease
* Anorexia
* Anxiety
* AIDS/HIV
* Arthritis
* Asthma
* Auto Accident
* Cancer
* Chronic nausea
* ESRD/Dialysis patients
* Depression
* Glaucoma
* Epilepsy
* Insomnia
* Migraine headaches
* Multiple Sclerosis
* Muscle spasms
* Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
* Psoriasis
* Seizures
* Sports injury
* Stress
* Tourette’s
I kind of favor the last one, but psoriasis might be a good second choice.
Note: as a libertarian type, I think legalizing marijuana is probably better than not, but this medial marijuana farce is embarrassing BS and should be repealed.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 10/29/2009 @ 9:06 amThey’ll let these pot docs issue their pot docs without a worry, but just don’t even think of trying to get a doctor to prescribe vicodin or oxycontin.
Because those two are bad.
Really bad.
Dr. K (eca563) — 10/29/2009 @ 9:22 am4 years ago when I was going through chemo-therapy for lung cancer (yes, I’m still cancer free) I would have given an arm and a leg for some “medicinal” weed for the nausea. On the other hand, I tried it in grad school and didn’t like it then.
GM Roper (85dcd7) — 10/29/2009 @ 9:37 amThe contention that medical marijuana has anything to do with medicine is laughable. The people who argue for it by dragging out cancer victims are disgusting. End the charade.
MayBee (34a54a) — 10/29/2009 @ 9:39 am17 & 18 make interesting book ends with nothing in between
quasimodo (4af144) — 10/29/2009 @ 9:56 amI am a cancer survivor, and anyone who says that cancer patients are engaging in some kind of “charade” over pot usage should be taken outside and beaten with sticks, preferably very large ones. Don’t you dare judge those who’ve gone through the agonizing after – effects of chemo, particularly when you have no idea what it’s like. I tried it and though it didn’t work for me, I’ve seen beneficial effects on other cancer patients. So please take your high – handed moralizing and stick it far up your arsehole – if you’re interested in discussing the other medical ailments that proponents are stating, I have no idea, but stay out of the cancer wing.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/29/2009 @ 10:09 am“but this medial marijuana farce is embarrassing BS and should be repealed.”
Heh. Go halfway toward legalizing with some sham use or other, then decide it’s ludicrous and go all the way.
Well played.
cassandra in MT (5a5d33) — 10/29/2009 @ 10:12 amwell, a nicer way to put it is that they are doing the print version of the acorn sting videos. of course an actual video showing what a joke all this is would have been helpful too, but as mockable as the actual execution is, they are still performing a public service.
A.W. (b1db52) — 10/29/2009 @ 10:13 amCancer victims aren’t the ones engaging in the charade. Those who are behind the current medical marijuana system in California are hiding behind cancer patients to create a charade of their own.
MayBee (34a54a) — 10/29/2009 @ 10:42 amHEY! When Banks wrote her piece, the folks who were editors then were no longer employed when Stein wrote his. The staff was also new – and much smaller – by the time Lopez wrote his. And today virtually no one is responsible for anything like proofing a Lopez column.
Besides, no one in the building day-to-day has the stones to spike a Lopez column. We all KNOW about to spot his next heart-rending tale to ride and beat until the horse has been dead for years! Don’t stop the genius!
Buster (8752a4) — 10/29/2009 @ 10:50 amWell, yeah, it’s a farce. But, with all due respect to the opinions of our host, it’s a government-created farce. In the rush to make sure that folks who really do have a serious need for the stuff — and there are such — the CA lege created a situation where somebody who knows the right magic words to use to the right sort of doctor can get something like a prescription.
And that’s a good thing.
If the cost of getting easy access to the stuff for people who need it — and there are such — is letting some other people get a bit high at home without fear of arrest and prosecution for getting the stuff to there after a quick trip to the “recommender’s” office and another one to the dealer, that’s a small price to pay.
And, just maybe, it’s a step toward getting rid of the huge drug war industry, on both sides.
Joel Rosenberg (ab94ff) — 10/29/2009 @ 11:15 amI thought the use of inhaled marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma had been mostly debunked. I think one study said you had to smoke it every three hours for it to be effective. You’d be a much more productive person if you just went blind.
At any rate, glaucoma patients in California have had legal access to marijuana for 30 years. You’d think glaucoma would be pretty well wiped out, but it seems to be spreading like wildfire.
Glen Wishard (02562c) — 10/29/2009 @ 11:18 amThose who are behind the current medical marijuana system in California are hiding behind cancer patients to create a charade of their own.
I don’t believe that all of them are engaging in dishonest practices here, but you’re right about some of the others. Evidence is obvious that there are way too many “medical dispensaries” in LA, and that the current law is being abused by those seeking to merely profit from their trade, rather than what the law specified, which was non – profit usage only. They have to re – write the laws ASAP, or else throw the whole thing out and start over (or not)
My apologies if I overreacted here, but I take issue with those who state unequivocally that marijuana (but not the pill form) has absolutely no benefit to cancer patients. I now realize that you weren’t suggesting that in your earlier post.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/29/2009 @ 11:23 amOne big flaw is you only need to be 18 to get medical marijuana, but you have to be 21 to drink. So what are they pushing young adults into?
MayBee (34a54a) — 10/29/2009 @ 11:27 amIf the cost of getting easy access to the stuff for people who need it — and there are such — is letting some other people get a bit high at home without fear of arrest and prosecution
============
Joel- there is no requirement you use the marijuana at home.
At a wooded area by my house, carloads of kids were parking to smoke pot on school nights. In the morning, you could find their coke-can bongs and the discarded marijuana prescription bottles. Two years ago, a carload of kids skidded out of control on PCH, killing the driver and injuring others. In the wreckage were bottles of alcohol and medical marijuana prescription bottles.
I just think if that’s what we’re making legal, we should admit it.
MayBee (34a54a) — 10/29/2009 @ 11:30 amOnly about 5% have a legit medical need among the medicinal “patients”, at least in the SF bay area…the others were illegal resellers or straight potheads.
Andrew2 (92ffbe) — 10/29/2009 @ 11:39 amThat from a guy I spoke with a few years back who was involved high up in the supply/dispensary racket.
Legalize it or don’t legalize it, just stop with the current scam.
I’d rather they de – criminalize the possession of small amounts at first. The number of first – time drug offenders in many of our jails is ridiculous, and contributes greatly to the current overcrowding problem in many states. Legalization is a huge step that carries too many risks to just open the doors immediately without a lot more discussion.
My main problem is the reality that so many addicting drugs are already legal by prescription, and that the number of abusers of those drugs are exploding these days. Vicodin, Percoset and the like have street values worth a hell of a lot more than marijuana, yet they’re incredibly easy to obtain them via prescription from your friendly neighborhood doctor. Whom primarily benefits from the current situation? The hypocricy of the issue is really overwhelming.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/29/2009 @ 12:00 pmThis country is going to pot.
Corwin (ea9428) — 10/29/2009 @ 12:18 pmAs our little country with startling rapidity becomes increasingly fascist and impoverished and dispirited the abusing of drugs illegal or otherwise will become of greater importance to the mental health of our little country’s youth all of which must contend with dissolute and dirty socialist non-futures. Whatever we can do now to make the transition easier for them would probably be a kindness.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 10/29/2009 @ 12:22 pmI’m a farmboy. And my parents had a farm in the best growing of “hemp” part on the mountainside. They used the hemp to make rope. The root is also good for poultices.
nk (df76d4) — 10/29/2009 @ 1:48 pmI know that these days smoking is a sin, but when I was a boy smoking weeds and cornsilks was just a phase boys went through and cigarettes when they went into the Army.
nk (df76d4) — 10/29/2009 @ 1:51 pmI see that “Stress” is listed as a condition:
How about a single-malt Scotch plan? You know, for medicinal purposes.
Techie (482700) — 10/29/2009 @ 2:07 pmOkay, i am sorry, but i have never been impressed with the case for med marijuana. “it helps me gain weight?” Really? try a cheeseburger instead.
Or its not bad for you. really? yeah, sure, i am sure its not turning your lungs black.
But most fundamentally there is this. Even Thomas Jefferson, generally the hero of libertarians, saw that government had a right to develop an intelligent and educated electorate. we spend thousands of dollars every year trying to do so. we recognize that an ignorant electorate is actually harmful to the body politic.
So having spent all that money on your intellect, why should you be able to flush it down the toilet? The proof it warps minds is that even if pot was harmless, legalizing it would be one of the least of our concerns. and yet to the pothead nothing could be more important. it is asserted that as voters car makers only care about cars, oil men only care about oil, and so on, at the expense of the greater good. but no interest has a more single minded focus on what is an unimportant issue than the pothead lobby, demonstrating just how much it warps your thinking.
And that is assuming it is harmless, and indeed, that is not just a line of bull fed to you by capitalists who sell you that crap. i find it amazing that the same people who don’t believe anything told to them by our “corporate masters” are so quick to believe an idiot drug dealer assuring them that pot never hurt anyone. give me a break.
And mind you i am not against capitalism. I would paraphase the adage that capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others. but let’s recognize the essential truth that if a guy is trying to sell you something, whether it is a car, a house, or pot, they aren’t going to give you a fair and balanced presentation.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 10/29/2009 @ 2:25 pmI vote we err on the side of freedom actually.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 10/29/2009 @ 2:55 pmI heard someone say they told the DR that they were suffering anxiety because they were out of weed… point being, the threshold is pretty low and I doubt more than a scant few get rejected.
My town has a lot of dispensaries and for some reason there is still crime surrounding legalized pot.
SteveG (97b6b9) — 10/29/2009 @ 2:55 pmI’m also mystified as to how the cash gets accounted for towards taxes. Somehow some dispensaries claim they are not making any money but then get robbed for six figures of cash.
In my experience (there’s three within four blocks of my office) the industry attracts the finest people
Auto Accidents are on the list? What if there is no injury sustained? Is there a specific criteria to meet in an accident to get your prescription?
On a side note, last weekend and we walked from my daughter’s home in L.A., down to Sunset Blvd and went right by the pot dispensary. It was an obscure little building, windows covered, painted an awful shade of purple and green with a tiny lettered sign on the door, “The Natural Root”. It didn’t appear to be busy but perhaps everyone got their goods before the weekend…
Dana (e9ba20) — 10/29/2009 @ 5:06 pmComment by happyfeet — 10/29/2009 @ 12:22 pm
AD - RtR/OS! (c561b5) — 10/29/2009 @ 5:10 pmOne of the damning indices of the Soviet Union was the rate of alcholism throughout what passed for society.
And, of course, now that we have a “Pay Czar”, how soon will we also say:
We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us!
Pot robs people of their initiative? Wow – so the LAT reporters – tantamount to robbing the broke?
Californio (08da63) — 10/29/2009 @ 5:45 pmWhose idea was it to ban pot anyway?
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 10/29/2009 @ 5:50 pmOne of the damning indices of our once-great little country is we put a Chicago street trash pothead in our White House what immediately raped our little treasury for trillions if you count the interest what we’ll have to repay.
happyfeet (f62c43) — 10/29/2009 @ 5:56 pmhappy….how true!…and, how sad!
AD - RtR/OS! (c561b5) — 10/29/2009 @ 6:08 pmWhose idea was it to ban pot anyway?
The government, of course – I believe it was banned during the 50’s, after it had been legal for many decades at that point. If you want to watch a real howler, watch the film the gov’t made about the evils of marijuana, called “Reefer Madness.” Truly hysterical.
“it helps me gain weight?” Really? try a cheeseburger instead.
What you don’t get is that some seriously ill people lose their appetite, and using pot usually gives them the urge to eat again. Pot’s been used to great effect in particular for folks suffering from Wasting Disease. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
Or its not bad for you. really? yeah, sure, i am sure its not turning your lungs black.
OK, let’s see some of the studies supporting your research. Of course if you abuse it, your lungs will eventually suffer greatly – and if you abuse booze, your liver eventually stops functioning. And if you abuse prescription drugs, other nasty things will also happen to your body’s integrity.
Your point (if there is one)?
Dmac (a964d5) — 10/29/2009 @ 6:14 pmI don’t know if it’s correct but this article says the sale of marijuana was first restricted in 1937:
DRJ (dff2ca) — 10/29/2009 @ 6:22 pmI stand corrected, DRJ – but that movie is still hysterical.
Dmac (a964d5) — 10/29/2009 @ 6:39 pmI’ve got nothing against medical marijuana, but how it is done today is filled with fraud and abuse
SteveG (97b6b9) — 10/29/2009 @ 6:41 pmdmac, if you’re claiming pot is not more damaging to your body than cigarettes, then you’re making an extreme claim and the burden is really on you I think.
Pot causes cancer and ruins your lungs, in addition to the effects of a hallucinogen, including the broadly suspected link to schizophrenia. I personally can tell someone has smoked a lot of pot very easily. That’s just an anectdote, but it’s pretty obvious that pot is quite bad for people.
I think that’s not a reason for the government to ban it. It should be a felony to sell it to kids, but I think adults should be free to abuse that drug if they think it’s worth the risk and cost.
What is not OK, to me, is people insisting pot is healthy. Let people make informed decisions. Don’t pretend pot should be assumed safe… why would we assume that when we all know it’s probably not? That’s the opposite of personal responsibility… ultimately an argument for banning the drug. If pot is going to be foisted as safe, then it’s not fair to dumbasses to let them buy it. If it’s known for what it is, then it’s completely fair for every adult to have a choice.
that’s my opinion on the matter, anyway.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 10/29/2009 @ 6:44 pmI remember that movie, Dmac, and I bet you’re right that it played a significant role in criminalizing marijuana use.
DRJ (dff2ca) — 10/29/2009 @ 6:45 pmWe had to watch Reefer Madness in High School… we thought it was a comedy
SteveG (97b6b9) — 10/29/2009 @ 6:48 pmSo, you have no less than three columnists in the LA Times writing fey columns about their care-free acquisition of an illicit substance.
When you have major-paper columnists making wink-wink jokes about how easy it is to score a toke under the medical marijuana laws, you’ve pretty much undercut parental authority and control.
The current population of California is about 37 million. I suspect that among those millions are a whole bunch of parents who would prefer not to have their children smoke marijuana.
If I were a parent in California, I would not appreciate these sophomoric writings. And one wonders why the Times’ circulation is going down?
I was a kid in the late ’60s and early ’70s. I grew up in the late ’70s and early ’80s, so I think I have a bit of credibility with this. And, believe or not, I’m not opposed to legalizing marijuana. At least it would keep a whole bunch of morons away from the polls and public office.
People grow up and put away childish things, except for the damn hippies I’ve had to put up with all my life. And by damn hippies, I mean the generation right before mine.
It’s all fun and games until someone puts his or her eye out, or invests in a bong.
Ag80 (815bcd) — 10/29/2009 @ 8:53 pmThe articles, especially the one by Lopez show what a joke medical marijuana is.
Stan Switek (d9d8ce) — 10/29/2009 @ 9:31 pmPerhaps a crazy coalition of stoners, gays and gun-nuts could agree that freedom is great. Let individuals decide for themselves about smoking pot (at home, not operating heavy machinery, etc), getting married to someone of the same gender (“let them be miserable like the rest of us..” Howard Stern), or owning assault weapons (again, no felons, mentally ill, etc.).
Californio (c0d766) — 10/29/2009 @ 10:38 pmThe liberal version of libertarianism: Anything you want to do, anytime you want to do it; no problem.
That’s a great philosophy . . . for hermits.
Icy Texan (a6752a) — 10/29/2009 @ 10:44 pmDmac
> The government, of course
In other words, we the people.
> What you don’t get is that some seriously ill people lose their appetite
You don’t have to have an appetite to eat. Force it down. I mean seriously when I take medicine, I don’t crave it the way I might a cheeseburger. Indeed often the medicine is noxious to the taste.
Really this explanation is so feeble I cannot help but be convinced that this is really about the attitude of “F— it, I have cancer, so I might as well get high.” I could be wrong on that, but regardless it seems obvious that the arguments for “medical necessity” seems to miss what the term “necessity” means.
> Of course if you abuse it, your lungs will eventually suffer greatly
Yeah, that is called conceding my point. Indeed, if all of those pharmacists obeyed the rule “first do no harm” then they would never prescribe pot unless you at least had a real medical condition.
> Your point (if there is one)?
Um, that pot rots your brain, mainly, and that our interest in an intelligent and educated electorate justifies the ban.
Icy Texan
> The liberal version of libertarianism: Anything you want to do, anytime you want to do it; no problem.
Except liberals don’t believe in that. Try offering your workers less than minimum wage, to name a tiny example. Or for that matter, imagine you want to give $10,000 to a candidate’s political campaign. Or you want to make a diatribe disguised as a documentary aimed at a specific politician (at least if the politician is a democrat). And now they want to take over your entire health care. Liberals are generally pretty anti-freedom expect on a few issues like gay sex, abortion and pot. Some might consider at least two on that list that a screwed up set of priorities, but oh well…
A.W. (e7d72e) — 10/30/2009 @ 5:59 amA.W., we’re not going to discuss this issue in the future, since you’ve offered nothing in the way of factual evidence to justify your wide – ranging and specious claims. But please feel free to bloviate away and hope to God that you don’t suffer the effects of illnesses that you actually think that you “can just force the stuff down” your throat. That’s got to be the most ignorant comment yet you’ve said on this thread, but don’t let that stop you from beclowning yourself further.
And if you’re so sure about your assertions, then ask the host of this site to release my e – mail address, then we’ll get together and do a conference call with my oncologist at Northwestern Medical Center here in Chicago, and you can tell her all about your awesome findings about the evil weed that’s been growing all across this country in a natural state for over a hundred years.
How about it, sweetheart?
Dmac (a964d5) — 10/30/2009 @ 6:48 amReally this explanation is so feeble I cannot help but be convinced that this is really about the attitude of “F— it, I have cancer, so I might as well get high.” I could be wrong on that, but regardless it seems obvious that the arguments for “medical necessity” seems to miss what the term “necessity” means.
Yes, you’re wrong on that.
My husband was diagnosed with stage IV kidney cancer at age 48. two years ago. His only symptom was losing a bit of weight that we’d thought was due to new job stress, more running around, that sort of thing. Instead we were told he had a huge tumor, and that it had spread.
He had a nephrectomy at UCLA, with chemo at Cedars. Chemo and the other new drugs have a lot of side effects, including making the taste of many foods unappealing to say the least, and of course a general, severe loss of appetite-although he did eat as much as he could bring himself to. The problem with cancer is that just eating a cheesburger isn’t going to do it–you have to force yourself to eat 4x what you normally would, as the invading and spreading cancer literally “eats” the enrgy/calories that otherwise would nourish your body(at least that’s how the Dr. put it to us).
To try and jumpstart his appetite further, our Cedars-Sinai Dr.prescribed big phrma-produced pills with THC(pot’s active ingredient) which he then also told us were so weak that (after shutting the door to his office)he strongly advised us to find “some real pot” anywhere we could. We did, and it did help.
By the way, you don’t have to smoke it-there are marijuana-containing drinks, candy, cookies and more at the various shops-in fact, the food items are stronger and last longer in the system than the leaf-smoke variety. As for doing damage via smoking pot, the amount of smoking required to get the munchies (which si the point) is so minimal-a hit or two-that there’s ZERO chance of “doing serious damage” to the lungs from smoking pot-not to mention that for dying or very ill cancer patients that’s the least of their worries.
Like Dmac said, just continue your outrage if that’s what you feel you need to do, but leave the mention of cancer or other critically ill patients OUT of your argument. You-fortunatly for you-have not the slightest idea what you’re talking about.
By the way I don’t smoke pot myself and didn’t so much as try my husband’s; it holds no attraction for me now at all, though I did smoke it occasionally in my early 20s. I enjoyed it, then got bored with it–funnily enough as a result of meeting my husband, in fact. We were together 24 years until his death in our home, 15 months after his diagnosis. There was no marker or reason the doctors could think of for him to have develped kidney cancer,especially at such an early age. Just one of those things.
Ms. Moto (f07e33) — 10/30/2009 @ 1:36 pmPersonally I haven’t seen the world end or any other disasters happen in our fair city, which is odd considering the supposed plague of millions of these pot shops all over L.A. Perhaps it’s because it really isn’t that dire of a substance. I’m one of those who’d much rather deal with a pothead than an alcoholic any day, as I’ve heard more than one patrolman assert.
I’m sorry for your husband’s death, Ms. Moto. That must have been a very difficult 15 months.
DRJ (dff2ca) — 10/30/2009 @ 1:44 pmA fourth LA Times columnist, David Lazarus, tackles medical marijuana, while acting stoned. Click here for the video.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (0ea407) — 11/20/2009 @ 7:21 am[…] paper’s columnists so awful? Maybe it had something to do with the fact that so many of them used their positions as columnists to obtain medical marijuana — under the pretext of writing about it (or doing stupid and pointless videos about […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Patterico’s Los Angeles Dog Trainer Year in Review 2009 (e4ab32) — 1/1/2010 @ 11:12 am