Two pot stops tops: City leaders consider new rules for medicin...

[Xanthippe]

TrollOnARoll wrote:

<quoted text>
No one is bothering to answer your question because your question is irrelevant to amy sensible discussion of Marijuana.
...and it beats your kid turning out to be a binge drinking alcoholic.
They might even get a life all their own instead of their parent's materialistic loser lifestyle.

I am pretty sure that no one _can_ answer my question.

You think that kids smoking pot is irrelevant to any sensible discussion of marijuana? That it's just fine and dandy?

Pot advocates are their own worst enemy.

[DBS]

TrollOnARoll wrote:

They might even get a life all their own instead of their parent's materialistic loser lifestyle.

Now THAT'S hilarious!!!!

I just gotta laugh when some lowlife tries to trash the achievers of the world.

Only in Santa Cruz.

[welcome to Santa Cruz]

55yo patient wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't have to buy a card - that is how the perfectly youngsters get cards - they buy them.
Go to your family physician and get a note - that's all you need.
Of course Greenway does indeed charge too much and lied when applying for the permit - they said they would lower costs as they grew - lie - they increased the price even for stem and seed laden "Old School"
I've been playing Jannie Cannabis Seed myself - legalize it already!

Not that I'm any one, but gee, might this be the problem with the "medical" system - the dispensaries selling cards to perfectly healthy teens? I mean check and checkmate here folks, you have dispensaries not following the law, you have problems. If you have dispensaries not following the law, the feds will come in.

You want more, hold yourselfs and your suppliers to a level of responsibility in there some where. Oh, sorry, pot, responsibility....my bad. You folks don't have to be responsible. I forgot.

[Parks and Rec]

Xanthippe wrote:

<quoted text>
I posted links to the reports that show that kids smoke pot at a much higher rate in Santa Cruz than state averages. Look at my previous posts in this thread, or do the work yourself and google Healthy Kids Survey and find the answers yourself.
What is your explanation as to why this is so? I've asked this question a few times now, and nobody seems to want to give any sort of answer.
Reasonable answers only, please. You seem to be trying to weasel out of giving one.
I think it has a great deal to do with the local toleration of pot. The Sentinel editorial stated that they think it does not - yet the editorial failed to produce a single reason why the Santa Cruz rate is much higher than the state rate.

You are still comparing ONE city to a state average. I can easily find another city that is higher than the state average (that's the point of an average, some are higher, some are lower...), just as I can find many that are lower. You are comparing ONE city to the state average and concluding that it is higher because of the tolerance of cannabis w/out taking any other variables into account such as gang activity, community service, parent involvement, schools, other drug use or any number of uncontrolled variables.

Not to mention that you base your conclusion on community 'tolerance' which is immeasurable. How tolerant is too tolerant? What defines tolerance? Who is doing the tolerating? How does the tolerance allow kids more access?

[Parks and Rec]

welcome to Santa Cruz wrote:

<quoted text>
Not that I'm any one, but gee, might this be the problem with the "medical" system - the dispensaries selling cards to perfectly healthy teens? I mean check and checkmate here folks, you have dispensaries not following the law, you have problems. If you have dispensaries not following the law, the feds will come in.
You want more, hold yourselfs and your suppliers to a level of responsibility in there some where. Oh, sorry, pot, responsibility....my bad. You folks don't have to be responsible. I forgot.

Dispensaries don't sell cards to teens (17-). If you have a problem w/ how doctors give out their recommendations then I suggest you take it up w/ them, but I do have a question for you. Do you care this much when they want to give 12 yr olds aderal, xanax, or any number of mood altering drugs? Maybe, and it's just a thought, we should let doctors prescribe what they believe will help the patient the best and let the professionals do the decision making. Maybe w/out people shouting half truths from the rooftop in order to step into that decision making process.

[chronic not crack]

Unfortunately, a lot of the doctors and researchers who study, market and prescribe drugs have serious conflicts-of-interest related to their financial investments / royalties linked to those drug patents.

Thus, consider pain medications. Cannabis is safe, effective, with minimal side effects, but not as powerful as heroin - which, to be honest, most pain patients don't need (some do).

Vioxx and Celebrex, on the other hand, were a new class of patented heavily promoted pain medications - with the unfortunate side effects of heart damage and kidney failure.

Similar issues apply to the anti-depressants, like Paxil and Prozac, which have been linked to suicidal behavior, as well as agressive behavior - many of th famous school shooters were on - or had just gone off - anti-depressants, such as Cho in Virgina and the Columbine shooters.

Cannabis is a safer and superior medication for pain and depression, but many corporate doctors will only prescribe drugs produced by the Big Pharma sponsors - unfortunately, due to their various financial arrangements, many doctors push drugs that may not be the best ones for their patients.

[chronic not crack]

Give it up Xanthippie, your "provacative questions" have been shown to be B.S. by numerous commentators. Go have a martini and a cigarette, and try to relax.

[palmspringsbum]

chronic not crack wrote:

Unfortunately, a lot of the doctors and researchers who study, market and prescribe drugs have serious conflicts-of-interest related to their financial investments / royalties linked to those drug patents.

Thus, consider pain medications. Cannabis is safe, effective, with minimal side effects, but not as powerful as heroin - which, to be honest, most pain patients don't need (some do).

Vioxx and Celebrex, on the other hand, were a new class of patented heavily promoted pain medications - with the unfortunate side effects of heart damage and kidney failure.

Similar issues apply to the anti-depressants, like Paxil and Prozac, which have been linked to suicidal behavior, as well as agressive behavior - many of th famous school shooters were on - or had just gone off - anti-depressants, such as Cho in Virgina and the Columbine shooters.

Cannabis is a safer and superior medication for pain and depression, but many corporate doctors will only prescribe drugs produced by the Big Pharma sponsors - unfortunately, due to their various financial arrangements, many doctors push drugs that may not be the best ones for their patients.

And then there was Fen-phen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fen-phen

[palmspringsbum]

The PBS Fen-phen page: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows...

[Xanthippe]

Parks and Rec wrote:

<quoted text>
You are still comparing ONE city to a state average. I can easily find another city that is higher than the state average (that's the point of an average, some are higher, some are lower...), just as I can find many that are lower. You are comparing ONE city to the state average and concluding that it is higher because of the tolerance of cannabis w/out taking any other variables into account such as gang activity, community service, parent involvement, schools, other drug use or any number of uncontrolled variables.
Not to mention that you base your conclusion on community 'tolerance' which is immeasurable. How tolerant is too tolerant? What defines tolerance? Who is doing the tolerating? How does the tolerance allow kids more access?

I am comparing MY city to a state average, and wondering what is the difference between Santa Cruz and the state average city.

I'd be interested in seeing if any city in California has a higher rate of pot smoking by kids than Santa Cruz, but only because I think it's abnormally high here, and I believe it's because the local population tolerates pot smoking too much - to the point people advocate that it's dandy for kids to smoke pot. That is MY opinion.

If you don't like my interpretation, what's yours?

See, this is the problem I have with the Sentinel editorial as well. The Sentinel editorial states that they don't think tolerance of pot is the reason that kids smoke pot at a much higher rate in Santa Cruz, but they don't state why they believe kids smoke pot at a much higher rate in Santa Cruz.

I'm asking for answers. You still haven't given one but you're awfully busy tearing down mine with straw man arguments.

[Xanthippe]

chronic not crack wrote:

Give it up Xanthippie, your "provacative questions" have been shown to be B.S. by numerous commentators. Go have a martini and a cigarette, and try to relax.

My question remains, nobody has attempted to answer it except Trollonaroll who sort of did, but mostly showed himself to be no friend to the marijuana movement with his outlandish statements.

See, this is why people don't take a lot of potheads seriously; many don't act like serious people.

You apparently cannot advance a good reason why kids in Santa Cruz smoke pot at a much higher rate than the state average either. I'm all ears, if you can.

The fact is that I am for legalizing, taxing and regulating pot, although honestly I will say that this sort of response by pot advocates makes me wonder if I should reconsider my position. I am completely against kids smoking pot, however, and I'd like to think others are as well. Unfortunately, I'm getting the feeling that folks in Santa Cruz don't really care about whether kids smoke pot or not - hey maybe that's why they do.

[Parks and Rec]

Xanthippe wrote:

<quoted text>
I am comparing MY city to a state average, and wondering what is the difference between Santa Cruz and the state average city.
I'd be interested in seeing if any city in California has a higher rate of pot smoking by kids than Santa Cruz, but only because I think it's abnormally high here, and I believe it's because the local population tolerates pot smoking too much - to the point people advocate that it's dandy for kids to smoke pot. That is MY opinion.
If you don't like my interpretation, what's yours?
See, this is the problem I have with the Sentinel editorial as well. The Sentinel editorial states that they don't think tolerance of pot is the reason that kids smoke pot at a much higher rate in Santa Cruz, but they don't state why they believe kids smoke pot at a much higher rate in Santa Cruz.
I'm asking for answers. You still haven't given one but you're awfully busy tearing down mine with straw man arguments.

I don't pretend to have the answers. I leave that up to the people that have a necessity to be right all the time. I'm not right all the time.

Maybe, just maybe, they don't know the reason either and aren't trying to project their beliefs onto their readers. It could be gang activity, bad parenting, bad teaching, intolerant a$$hole neighbors, poor community education, economic issues and many many other things, heck it could even be too much 'tolerance'.

However, you still fail to define what tolerance is. What is too tolerant? Is any tolerance too much?

I don't have an interpretation of what is happening in that one city compared to the state, but I do know what an average is and that comparing a single city to a HUGE state average to try to deduce something is very silly.

[loweroceanlocal]

55yo patient wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't have to buy a card - that is how the perfectly youngsters get cards - they buy them.
Go to your family physician and get a note - that's all you need.
Of course Greenway does indeed charge too much and lied when applying for the permit - they said they would lower costs as they grew - lie - they increased the price even for stem and seed laden "Old School"
I've been playing Jannie Cannabis Seed myself - legalize it already!

that would be nice, if it worked, but my doctor is afraid of losing her licence, and will not write me a recommendation, even though she encourages my cannabis use, i still have to go to a card mill, because of the fear of feds by doctors.

[Becky Johnson]

XANTHIPPE WRITES: "I'd be interested in seeing if any city in California has a higher rate of pot smoking by kids than Santa Cruz, but only because I think it's abnormally high here, and I believe it's because the local population tolerates pot smoking too much - to the point people advocate that it's dandy for kids to smoke pot. That is MY opinion."

BECKY: Still using the word "kids" to describe teens who smoke pot? Why is that XAN? Do you WANT people to get outraged over children using drugs? Isn't that your point? I've told you that there is no data for children under age 12 smoking marijuana. Does it ever happen? Yes. Is it a significant problem? NO!! It is statistically insignificant. The VAST MAJORITY of people first try marijuana in their TEEN years. The same years that they start experimenting with tobacco and alcohol.

Why do our teens smoke pot at a higher rate than the State average? Santa Cruz had the 2nd highest percentage of votes for Prop 215, so the parents in Santa Cruz generally don't have an automatic repulsion towards the use of pot. We are a MUCH MORE educated county (40.7% of adults have a Bachelors degree) than the State Average (29.6%). Could it be our teens are smarter than the State Average?

XAN, I tend to disagree with the SENTINEL editorial. I think that the teens use pot more here because their parents are more educated and don't believe all the anti-drug propaganda that's been spewed for decades now.

http://www.cpec.ca.gov/FiscalData/CACountyEco...

[DBS]

Becky Johnson wrote:

XANTHIPPE WRITES: "I'd be interested in seeing if any city in California has a higher rate of pot smoking by kids than Santa Cruz, but only because I think it's abnormally high here, and I believe it's because the local population tolerates pot smoking too much - to the point people advocate that it's dandy for kids to smoke pot. That is MY opinion."
BECKY: Still using the word "kids" to describe teens who smoke pot? Why is that XAN? Do you WANT people to get outraged over children using drugs? Isn't that your point? I've told you that there is no data for children under age 12 smoking marijuana. Does it ever happen? Yes. Is it a significant problem? NO!! It is statistically insignificant. The VAST MAJORITY of people first try marijuana in their TEEN years. The same years that they start experimenting with tobacco and alcohol.
Why do our teens smoke pot at a higher rate than the State average? Santa Cruz had the 2nd highest percentage of votes for Prop 215, so the parents in Santa Cruz generally don't have an automatic repulsion towards the use of pot. We are a MUCH MORE educated county (40.7% of adults have a Bachelors degree) than the State Average (29.6%). Could it be our teens are smarter than the State Average?
XAN, I tend to disagree with the SENTINEL editorial. I think that the teens use pot more here because their parents are more educated and don't believe all the anti-drug propaganda that's been spewed for decades now.
http://www.cpec.ca.gov/FiscalData/CACountyEco...

Just look at how "successful" smoking pot has made YOU!!!!!

If you had saved all of the money you've spent on dope and chiffon pies, I bet it would be enough for getting your employment credentials current.

But who made THAT choice??????

[Parks and Rec]

loweroceanlocal wrote:

<quoted text>
that would be nice, if it worked, but my doctor is afraid of losing her licence, and will not write me a recommendation, even though she encourages my cannabis use, i still have to go to a card mill, because of the fear of feds by doctors.

And yet those same people that want prohibition tell you that govt run healthcare will allow govt to step in and make decisions between you and your doctor. Seems to me that this is what is happening now.

[Parks and Rec]

DBS wrote:

<quoted text>
Just look at how "successful" smoking pot has made YOU!!!!!
If you had saved all of the money you've spent on dope and chiffon pies, I bet it would be enough for getting your employment credentials current.
But who made THAT choice??????

And back to name calling, stereotypes, and general rude behavior coming out of the prohibitionist corner. Fun times...

[Teens are Kids]

Why the fascination with Xans use of the word kids vs. teens?

By any legal definition our nation has, a teen is a kid. Can't vote, different arrest and sentencing laws, etc, etc....

[Parks and Rec]

Teens are Kids wrote:

Why the fascination with Xans use of the word kids vs. teens?
By any legal definition our nation has, a teen is a kid. Can't vote, different arrest and sentencing laws, etc, etc....

A teen is a kid, but a kid is not always a teen. Semantics and language precision.

[Becky Johnson]

TEENS ARE KIDS WRITES: "Why the fascination with Xans use of the word kids vs. teens? By any legal definition our nation has, a teen is a kid. Can't vote, different arrest and sentencing laws, etc, etc...."

BECKY: Because everyone knows teens smoke pot. That doesn't even sound shocking. But CHILDREN? We are very protective of our children as a society. When we say "children" it spurs our protective instincts. XANTHIPPE does this on purpose for the propaganda effect. Someone offering DRUGS to our CHILDREN???? That triggers outrage! The facts show that youth under age 12 have little or no experience with marijuana. I don't think they even have the receptors in their brains developed enough to even get "high" should they try it. It's simply a problem we don't have and don't need to spend any time solving.

XANTHIPPE, despite her claim that she is pro-legalization, her heart lies with the prohibitionist mentality that fears "drug users" are out there driving cars, flying airplanes, and "destroying their brains" with pot. She has bought every lie told about cannabis: that is causes cancer, memory loss, that it is addictive, that it causes motor-function disturbances, that it makes people lazy, etc. She also has a very low opinion of those who use or have used pot. Presumably this includes Barack Obama, Carl Sagan, Tony Bennett, and Michael Phelps.