Up in Smoke
Support for Pot Prop. 19 Grows as Public’s Backing for Legalization Climbs Higher
Thursday, September 30, 2010
In the haze of memory, aging liberal boomers may recall California in the 1960s as a permissive playground of public forbearance and freedom to consume mass quantities of marijuana.
In fact, new data show the Summer of Love era was marked by widespread disapproval and intolerant public attitudes about the use of pot — in sharp contrast to more laissez-faire views of voters across the state today. As Californians prepare to cast ballots on Proposition 19, which would effectively legalize possession of small quantities of marijuana for personal use, a Field Poll report on four decades of research shows that nearly four times as many voters now support such a move as did in 1969.
Capitol Letters
The study comes as Field, which represents the gold standard of public opinion surveys in California, reports that a significant plurality of voters now supports Prop. 19, which also proposes taxation of the production, sales, and distribution of pot. After trailing three months ago, proponents of the measure have pushed ahead of those who oppose it, as awareness of the measure has increased across the state.
Overall, 74 percent of those surveyed favor the state’s policy on medical marijuana.
By 49 percent, likely voters now say they expect to vote yes on the measure (and 42 percent say they’ll vote no), a major, 11-point swing in favor of it compared to a poll taken in July, when the initiative trailed by four points. Significantly, 84 percent of the likely electorate now says they have heard about Prop. 19, far more than any of the other eight propositions on the ballot.
As a political matter, however, there are big fault lines between key groups of voters:
▶ Democrats, by 60 percent in favor to 28 percent against, and nonpartisan independents, by 62 to 33 percent, overwhelmingly back Prop. 19, with the balance of voters in each case still undecided. Republicans, however, oppose it even more strongly, 66 to 27 percent, with just 7 percent of GOP voters still undecided.
▶ Voters in California’s coastal counties, who tend to be more liberal, favor legalization, 54 to 38 percent, while inland counties and the Central Valley, areas that represent the political base of state conservatives, oppose the initiative by a nearly identical margin, as 52 percent say they plan to vote no and 37 percent told poll takers they expect to vote yes.
▶ Men back Prop. 19 by a strong majority, 54 to 38 percent, while women say they are against it, by a slight plurality of 46 to 44 percent, with the rest still undecided. The measure also leads among voters of every age group, except those 65 and older (36 to 53 percent).
Historically, California ballot measures that do not lead in early polling, along with those that fall short of majority approval in such preelection surveys, routinely lose, largely because voters who do not focus on initiatives until late in the process overwhelmingly vote no on them. While favorable opinion about Prop. 19 still falls slightly short of a majority, the fact that it has become considerably more popular as voters have learned more about it is an important development for sponsors and foes alike.
Because of California’s reputation as the birthplace of political trends that spread eastward, passage of Prop. 19 would doubtless become a major national story. However, it would not be entirely unexpected, given the latest compilation of long-term trends in the changing attitudes about marijuana among state voters, which the Field Poll began tracking more than 40 years ago:
▶ In 1969, only 13 percent of Californians favored legalization, while a total of 75 percent supported either strict enforcement of existing laws or passage of new and tougher legislation.
▶ By 1983, support for legalization had more than doubled, but even at that, only 30 percent favored the change, compared to 56 percent who still backed tough enforcement of then-current laws or even stricter sanctions against the drug.
▶ Today, 50 percent of voters say they favor legalization of marijuana, while 33 percent want greater law enforcement efforts against it, a huge swing of 79 percent in the direction of liberalized public policies on the issue.
This shift in attitudes now also translates into broad support for California’s medical marijuana law, despite high-profile controversies about how it should be applied and enforced, in Santa Barbara and around the state. Overall, 74 percent of those surveyed favor the state’s policy on medical marijuana — which itself is defined by a 1996 ballot initiative — including large majorities among all partisan political groups and within every demographic category.
The complete Field Poll research on long-range trends about pot is here (tinyurl.com/2cdg24g) and the most recent polling on Proposition 19 is here (tinyurl.com/22of73c).
Comments
Jesus said to treat other people the way we would want to be treated. I know I wouldn’t want my college kid to go to jail with the sexual predators, or my parents to have their house stolen by the police, if they used a little marijuana.
Let’s change the world. Let’s get registered and vote.
Citizens and college students in California can register at
w w w . sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vr.htm .
(just fill out the form and mail it in).
And you can request a ballot by mail at
w w w . sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_m.htm .
In other states, Google your state name and the phrase, voter registration. Print off the form and mail it in (or drive it down to City Hall).
Five minutes. Register to vote. Change the world. Right now.
Pass it on
Conservative_Christian (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2010 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"I know I wouldn’t want my college kid to go to jail with the sexual predators, or my parents to have their house stolen by the police, if they used a little marijuana."
Oh jeez save it the over exagerations. Please cite a story where someone, anyone went to jail for a little marijuana or lost their house for that matter. I'm sick of the left wing lying to get their agenda passed at any cost.
LIES!!!!! LIES!!!!! LIES!!!!! at any cost huh buddy?
InTheKnow (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2010 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here are some studies the Feds wish they'd never done:
01) MARIJUANA USE HAS NO EFFECT ON MORTALITY:
A massive study of California HMO members funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found marijuana use caused no significant increase in mortality. Tobacco use was associated with increased risk of death. Sidney, S et al. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health
. Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002.
02) HEAVY MARIJUANA USE AS A YOUNG ADULT WON'T RUIN YOUR LIFE:
Veterans Affairs scientists looked at whether heavy marijuana use as a young adult caused long-term problems later, studying identical twins in which one twin had been a heavy marijuana user for a year or longer but had stopped at least one month before the study, while the second twin had used marijuana no more than five times ever. Marijuana use had no significant impact on physical or mental health care utilization, health-related quality of life, or current socio-demographic characteristics. Eisen SE et al. Does Marijuana Use Have Residual Adverse Effects on Self-Reported Health Measures, Socio-Demographics or Quality of Life? A Monozygotic Co-Twin Control Study in Men. Addiction. Vol. 97 No. 9. p.1083-1086. Sept.
1997
03) THE "GATEWAY EFFECT" MAY BE A MIRAGE:
Marijuana is often called a "gateway drug" by supporters of prohibition, who point to statistical "associations" indicating that persons who use marijuana are more likely to eventually try hard drugs than those who never use marijuana - implying that marijuana use somehow causes hard drug use. But a model developed by RAND Corp. researcher Andrew Morral demonstrates that these associations can be explained "without requiring a gateway effect." More likely, this federally funded study suggests, some people simply have an underlying propensity to try drugs, and start with what's most readily available. Morral AR, McCaffrey D and Paddock S. Reassessing the Marijuana Gateway Effect. Addiction. December 2002. p. 1493-1504.
04) PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK (PART I):
The White House had the National Research Council examine the data being gathered about drug use and the effects of U.S. drug policies. NRC concluded, "the nation possesses little information about the effectiveness of current drug policy, especially of drug law enforcement." And what data exist show "little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use." In other words, there is no proof that prohibition - the cornerstone of U.S. drug policy for a century - reduces drug use. National Research Council. Informing America's Policy on Illegal Drugs: What We Don't Know Keeps Hurting Us. National Academy Press, 2001. p. 193.
malcolmkyle (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2010 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here are some more studies the Feds wish they'd never done:
05) PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK (PART II):
DOES PROHIBITION CAUSE THE "GATEWAY EFFECT"?): U.S. and Dutch researchers, supported in part by NIDA, compared marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical use remains illegal, to Amsterdam, where adults may possess and purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses. Looking at such parameters as frequency and quantity of use and age at onset of use, they found the following: Cannabis (Marijuana) use in San Francisco was 3 times the prevalence found in the Amsterdam sample. And lifetime use of hard drugs was significantly lower in Amsterdam, with its "tolerant" marijuana policies. For example, lifetime crack cocaine use was 4.5 times higher in San Francisco than Amsterdam. Reinarman, C, Cohen, PDA, and Kaal, HL. The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy: Cannabis in Amsterdam and San Francisco. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 94, No. 5. May 2004. p. 836-842.
06) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART I):
Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice's lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.
07) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART II):
In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, "in a dose-dependent manner" (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, "Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer," AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997.
08) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART III):
Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn't also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.
malcolmkyle (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2010 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How about another two studies the Feds wish they'd never done:
09) OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART IV):
Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased Lung Cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006.
10) MARIJUANA DOES HAVE MEDICAL VALUE:
In response to passage of California's medical marijuana law, the White House had the Institute of Medicine (IOM) review the data on marijuana's medical benefits and risks. The IOM concluded, "Nausea, appetite loss, pain and anxiety are all afflictions of wasting, and all can be mitigated by marijuana." While noting potential risks of smoking, the report added, "we acknowledge that there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting." The government's refusal to acknowledge this finding caused co-author John A. Benson to tell the New York Times that the government "loves to ignore our report … they would rather it never happened." Joy, JE, Watson, SJ, and Benson, JA. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy Press. 1999. p. 159. See also, Harris, G. FDA Dismisses Medical Benefit From Marijuana. New York Times. Apr. 21, 2006
malcolmkyle (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2010 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Partnership for a Drug Free America
Sources of Funding from 1988-91
Extracted from Federal Tax Returns
(figures are approximate)
Pharmaceutical Firms
J. Seward Johnson, Sr. Charitable Trusts --- $1.1 million
Du Pont --- 125,000
Proctor and Gamble Fund --- 120,000
Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation --- 115,000
Johnson & Johnson --- 100,000
Merck Foundation --- 85,000
Hoffman-LaRoche --- 75,000
Tobacco and Liquor Firms
Phillip Morris --- 125,000
Anheuser-Busch --- 100,000
RJ Reynolds --- 100,000
American Brands --- 100,000
Advocating a continued increase in mayhem & tyranny solely for the purpose of financial gain, like the 'Partnership for a Drug Free America', the prison guard's union, the DEA, or the alcohol industry, is both despicable and unconscionable.
http://www.drugwarrant.com/2010/09/al...
malcolmkyle (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2010 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@ InTheKnow
According to the FBI, over 700,000 people were arrested for simple possession of marijuana in 2007
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/arres...
Most of those people probably didn't spend a lot of time in jail but if they were arrested then they probably did spend some time in a cell and no doubt many of them spent or are spending significant time in jail.
There is no doubt that marijuana is significantly less dangerous than alcohol. Given the fact that people do use intoxicants, doesn't it make sense that they should be legally able to choose a less dangersous option than alcohol?
AlansK (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2010 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Many people, including scientists, believe that Marinol/dronabinol lacks the beneficial properties of marijuana/cannabis, which contains more than 60 cannabinoids, including cannabidiol (CBD), thought to be the major anticonvulsant that helps multiple sclerosis patients, and cannabichromene (CBC), an anti-inflammatory which may contribute to the pain-killing effect of cannabis.
It takes over one hour for Marinol to reach full effect, compared to minutes for smoked or vaporized cannabis. Patients accustomed to inhaling just enough cannabis smoke to manage symptoms have complained of too-intense intoxication from Marinol's predetermined dosages. It’s also difficult to keep a pill down when one is nauseated. Many have also said that Marinol even produces a far more acute psychedelic effect than cannabis.
Cannabis vs Marinol http://tiny.cc/alxy0
Marinol (Dronabinol) = 1344 USD per month
Marijuana = free if you grow your own outdoors.
If you support prohibition you've helped put previously unknown and contaminated drugs on the streets.
If you support prohibition you've helped to escalate Murder, Theft, Muggings and Burglaries.
If you support prohibition you've helped escalate the number of people on welfare who can't find employment due to their felony status.
If you support prohibition you've helped evolve local gangs into transnational enterprises with intricate power structures that reach into every corner of society, controlling vast swaths of territory with significant social and military resources at their disposal.
Prohibition is nothing less than a grotesque dystopian nightmare. We have to regulate, and we have to do it now!
malcolmkyle (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2010 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here are some facts concerning the situation in Holland:
”Cannabis coffee shops" are not only restricted to the Capital of Holland, Amsterdam. They can be found in more than 50 cities and towns across the country. At present, only the retail sale of five grams is tolerated, so production remains criminalized. The mayors of a majority of the cities with coffeeshops have long urged the national government to also decriminalize the supply side.
A poll taken earlier this year indicated that some 50% of the Dutch population thinks cannabis should be fully legalized while only 25% wanted a complete ban. Even though 62% of the voters said they had never taken cannabis. An earlier poll also indicated 80% opposing coffee shop closures.
http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives...
While it is true that lifetime and “past-month” use rates did increase back in the seventies and eighties, the critics shamefully fail to report that there were comparable and larger increases in cannabis use in most, if not all, neighboring countries which continued complete prohibition.
According to the World Health Organization only 19.8 percent of the Dutch have used marijuana, less than half the U.S. figure.
In Holland 9.7% of young adults (aged 15–24) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level in Italy (10.9%) and Germany (9.9%) and less than in the UK (15.8%) and Spain (16.4%). Few transcend to becoming problem drug users (0.44%), well below the average (0.52%) of the compared countries.
The WHO survey of 17 countries finds that the United States has the highest usage rates for nearly all illegal substances.
In the U.S. 42.4 percent admitted having used marijuana. The only other nation that came close was New Zealand, another bastion of get-tough policies, at 41.9 percent. No one else was even close. The results for cocaine use were similar, with the U.S. again leading the world by a large margin.
Even more striking is what the researchers found when they asked young adults when they had started using marijuana. Again, the U.S. led the world, with 20.2 percent trying marijuana by age 15. No other country was even close, and in Holland, just 7 percent used marijuana by 15 -- roughly one-third of the U.S. figure.
thttp://www.alternet.org/drugs/90295/
In 1998, the US Drug Czar General Barry McCaffrey claimed that the U.S. had less than half the murder rate of the Netherlands. “That’s drugs,” he explained. The Dutch Central Bureau for Statistics immediately issued a special press release explaining that the actual Dutch murder rate is 1.8 per 100,000 people, or less than one-quarter the U.S. murder rate.
Here’s a very recent article by a psychiatrist from Amsterdam, exposing "Drug Czar misinformation"
http://tinyurl.com/247a8mp
malcolmkyle (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2010 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Now let's look at a comparative analysis of the levels of cannabis use in two cities: Amsterdam and San Francisco, which was published in the American Journal of Public Health May 2004,
The San Francisco prevalence survey showed that 39.2% of the population had used cannabis. This is 3 times the prevalence found in the Amsterdam sample
Source: Craig Reinarman, Peter D.A. Cohen and Hendrien L. Kaal, "The Limited Relevance of Drug Policy"
http://www.mapinc.org/lib/limited.pdf
Moreover, 51% of people who had smoked cannabis in San Francisco reported that they were offered heroin, cocaine or amphetamine the last time they purchased cannabis. In contrast, only 15% of Amsterdam residents who had ingested marijuana reported the same conditions. Prohibition is the ‘Gateway Policy’ that forces cannabis seekers to buy from criminals who gladly expose them to harder drugs.
The indicators of death, disease and corruption are even much better in the Netherlands than in Sweden for instance, a country praised by UNODC for its “successful” drug policy."
Here's Antonio Maria Costa doing his level best to avoid discussing the success of Dutch drug policy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lExNjE...
The Netherlands also provides heroin on prescription under tight regulation to about 1500 long-term heroin addicts for whom methadone maintenance treatment has failed.
The Dutch justice ministry announced, last year, the closure of eight prisons and cut 1,200 jobs in the prison system. A decline in crime has left many cells empty. There's simply not enough criminals
http://www.nrc.nl/international/artic...
malcolmkyle (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2010 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Smoke is smoke. For non-smokers, second hand cigarette, cigar and pipe smoke are obnoxious; pot smoke is equally offensive. Whatever the outcome of this vote, I wish smokers would realize that their fumes aren't confined to their noses and lungs, and that their right to pollute their own lungs doesn't extend to imposing it on others who have to share the same air. Having a right doesn't make it right.
Whether it's tobacco or pot, keep it in the car, in the home, or in the clinic - even then assuming there are no kids present. One person's pleasure is another's toxic cloud. It's often stomach-turning to walk the State Street corridor past several coffee shops where smokers congregate outside; and unfortunately the city didn't have the gumption to ban smoking on beaches and in parks as so many California cities have. Smoking is a nasty, invasive, unhealthy habit, whatever dried leaves the wrapper contains. Please don't lose sight of this in the drone about civil liberties.
anemonefish (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2010 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Anemonefish," could you please add flatulence to your flummery against noxious fumery?
binky (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2010 at 10:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Binky, are you resorting to the "Blazing Saddles" defense? While eating beans is a free choice, too, there's scant evidence that the byproducts do much permanent harm to bystanders - it actually offers a little comic release. Not so for smoking; that kills people and raises health care costs. Wasn't the argument about toxicity and negative effects of second-hand smoke settled years ago, or is the tobacco lobby working to legalize pot since they've got the packaging and distribution down already?
anemonefish (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2010 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Anemonefish,
No cannabis smoking is allowed in public. But you are allowed to bake tasty brownies and cookies :-) Seriously take a few seconds to look at the actual text of the proposition. I think you will be suprised at how much sense it makes.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php...
PabloKoh (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2010 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks, PabloKoh,
While I think the prohibition approach is unrealistic and has done great harm by incarcerating foolishly and wastefully, I don't see how Prop 19, as written, does much other than open a dozen cans of worms. State versus Federal law? Interstate commerce? Different rules in different jurisdictions - one rule for Goleta, one for Santa Barbara, and another for IV and the county? OK to smoke tobacco but not cannabis? Who's the official nose? Who draws the "blue line" for that?
We've already got lots of places in California with high tolerance ranging to de facto legalization. A piecemeal approach strikes me as very problematic. It's got to be consistent in a commuting state. To me, the big issue all along has been the commercial trafficers - the dealers, cartels and armed thugs who grow in the national forests and sell in bulk. Maybe legalizing will help that, and maybe it will just legitimize the mob.
anemonefish (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2010 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
PabloKoh's link appears to be broken. Here's another try:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php...)
I wonder how the Mexican drug cartels will react to Prop 19 if it passes?
Would they try to become regulated cultivators/distributors under the new law? Or would the price of legal Marijuana be high enough where the cartels could still sustain an underground/black market? I'd be interested in any links to an analysis.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2010 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I was thinking along anemonefish's lines as well. Generally speaking, I think there are advantages to uniformity in law when relate to widespread issues. It may not be enough of a disadvantage to make me vote against Prop 19, but its definitely a reason for pause. On the other hand, sometimes change has to come incrementally and this may be such a situation.
BTW, to anemoefish's point about second-hand smoke, I don't have a problem with pot per se, but during the allergy season when my respiratory tract gets all haywire, any kind of second-hand smoke is really killer and can induce asthma. So I sympathize with those with either chronic or seasonal respiratory problems who would hope that pot smoking could be limited to certain places - I think that's written into Prop 19.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2010 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BioTrackTHC thats all i have to say.
Dennis (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2010 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When heading to the polls to vote for Prop 19, please remember to vote NO on Measure T as well. Even if Prop 19 passes, sales won't be legal off the bat and seriously ill patients will still be without safe access to medicine. Visit www.NoOnMeasureT.com for more information!
NoOnT (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2010 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"In the haze of memory, aging liberal boomers may recall California in the 1960s as a permissive playground of public forbearance and freedom to consume mass quantities of marijuana."
And their parents will recall that marijuana was legal until 1937 and that the world didn't go to hell in a handbasket because it was legal.
Will the Drug Warriors please address this fact?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
September 30, 2010 at 6:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The OP in this commentary was signed as "Conservative_Christian" Next, InTheKnow, replied to that post with, "I'm sick of the LEFT wing lying to get their agenda passed at any cost." (my caps)!!
Hey, InTheKnow, this thread is a covert reading comprehension test. You failed.
SezMe (anonymous profile)
October 1, 2010 at 2:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Vote YES, re-legalize it, tax and regulate the schiss out of it. The ridiculous "war on drugs" was over before it ever got started. Just like prohibition. People want their misery fix, so let them have it and make them pay for it.
Treating the symptom is always easier than facing the underlying issues at play in a brain that wants something, anything, other than what it has been given naturally. We're all about easier, aren't we?
Attention all "escape junkies"---the line forms at the voting booth.
Draxor (anonymous profile)
October 1, 2010 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The system they are looking into or uses advanced privacy and as a patient my privacy should be respected. I've researched BioTrackTHC.com and if I understand it no personal patient information ever leaves the pharmacy. Only my finger scan and the amount of cannabis I buy. This is the program that all of us should support if they going to use a tracking at all! I beg all pain patients to do your own research as Ive done! THEY will pass a tracking system. Please don't sit back and do nothing!! A video system or radio tracking program will cost the pharmacy $40,000 and US the patients will pay the price tag!! I support the BioTrackTHC is FREE ~ ZERO Do your own research!
expensiveguy (anonymous profile)
October 2, 2010 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Looks like the LA Times has come out against Prop 19:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/l...
I'm wondering if this initiative is really as flawed as they say? Anybody look at the details? Would Prop 19 really allow workers to be high on the job, etc. as the editorial claims?
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
October 4, 2010 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@SezME did it ever occur to you that a person can use what ever they want as a screen name? Considering the OP recently registered his screen name and all three of his posts are on the topic of mraijuana and are pro-marijuana I would have to say he supports marijuana, a traditional postion of the left wing. Opps I guess you fail the simple investigation test and the "jeez! really I can call myself whatever I want test"... Opps someone's ignorance is sure showing! LOL
@AlanK In CA people get cited for marijuana, nobody goes to jail unless you have a butt load of pot, over an ounce, which is a lot of weed. It is called a non-bookable crime. The cops can't book you into jail for having weed, period! So this crap lies I always hear about a poor little grandma being sent to prision because she had a rolled joint to help with her cancer is just straight BS. The kids in IV don't even go to jail. People get a ticket, that is it. The original post is a LIE
InTheKnow (anonymous profile)
October 6, 2010 at 5:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)