http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/ Fri, 03 Sep 2010 15:47:42 +0000 MyBB http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-288.html Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:33:27 -0400 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-288.html By Sharon Kirkey, Postmedia News

Briefly inhaling cannabis three times a day eases a kind of chronic pain that affects tens of thousands of Canadians -- without making them high -- Montreal researchers are reporting.

The new study, the first clinical trial in the world to allow patients to take marijuana home with them and "self-dose," found that for people with neuropathic pain -- a common and dreaded condition that causes electric, stabbing pain -- smoking cannabis reduced pain, improved mood and helped them sleep.

Three different potencies (2.5 per cent, six per cent and 9.4 per cent) of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, were tested against a placebo, or "dummy" pot in 21 patients with neuropathic pain, none of whom had responded to standard treatments.

Participants inhaled a single dose through a pipe three times daily for five days, followed by a nine-day "washout" period. They were instructed to inhale for five seconds while the cannabis was lit, hold the smoke in their lungs for 10 seconds, and then exhale.

Pain was measured on an 11- point scale ranging from "no pain" to "worst pain possible."

Patients reported less pain, better sleep and less anxiety when they were smoking the highest concentration of THC, compared with the placebo.

It wasn't a massive reduction in pain: The average daily pain intensity was 5.4 with 9.4 per cent THC, versus 6.1 with the placebo.

"But the patients that we were recruiting had to be patients that had tried and failed all other conventional treatments," said lead author Dr. Mark Ware, director of clinical research at the Alan Edwards Pain Management Unit at the McGill University Health Centre.

Neuropathic pain -- which is caused by damage to nerves -- affects as much as two per cent of the population.

The Montreal study involved patients with post-trauma or post-surgical pain -- radiating pain from prolapsed discs, for example, or burning pain from an incision.

"Through no fault of the surgeon's, it's impossible to do an operation without cutting through some nerves," Ware said.

"For some people, for some reason, even after the tissue has healed they have persistent pain at the site of the operation.

"All of these were very refractory, very difficult pain problems to resolve. Any improvement in pain was quite remarkable."

As many as 15 per cent of patients with chronic non-cancer pain and multiple sclerosis report using marijuana, and Ware said that when he asked his own pain patients, similar numbers reported using marijuana. "There clearly was an unmet need.

"We're not going to argue that smoked cannabis is the be-all and end-all of pain management," Ware said.

"It simply opens the door to the fact that cannabinoids may be an additional tool in the physician's tool box, along with other medications and other non-pharmacological approaches."

During the study, "psychoactive effects" were rare: After more than 1,000 different "administrations" of cannabis over the course of the study, people reported feeling "high" on only three occasions.

Ware said it's possible their plasma levels of THC didn't reach the levels found with recreational smokers. "Street users have access to cannabis that can be anywhere from 15 to 20 per cent THC."

An expert in pain relief at Oxford University said the study "adds to the trickle of evidence" that cannabis may help some patients struggling with chronic pain.

Dr. Henry McQuay lauded the Montreal team for even taking on the study, "given that the regulatory hurdles for their trial must have been a nightmare."

Those hurdles included getting through ethics approval; setting up a ventilated room where patients could use the drug under supervision for the first dose; finding a safe, legal supply of cannabis that had well-controlled levels of THC (cannabis was obtained from Prairie Plant Systems Inc. in Saskatoon) and finding a believable placebo.

Ware ended up importing a THC-extracted cannabis from the U.S. National Institute of Drug Abuse. It still looked like cannabis. It just had no THC in it.

"These weren't experienced cannabis users," he said. "They didn't have a lot of prior expectations to go on."

Side effects increased as the THC dose increased. The most common included headache, dry eyes, dizziness, numbness and cough.

Some of the patients continued to use cannabis after the study was over.

"When we started the study there was no evidence this was effective," Ware said.

Three other trials have since been completed, two that were restricted to neuropathic pain in patients with HIV.

"Now it's clear that smoked cannabis does have analgesic properties," Ware said. "The question now is, where do we go with that?"

His team is just concluding another study on the long-term safety issues.

"Chronic pain isn't a life-threatening disorder," he said. "If patients use cannabis, they may use it for many years. We want to know what the long-term safety issues are. Are there other ways of administering this drug that doesn't require smoking?"

Some prescription sprays and medications are now available that contain cannabinoids. Cannabinoids bind to receptors in the brain that play a role in modulating pain.

The study, which appears in the latest issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, comes as more than 5,000 health professionals from across Canada and the world gather in Montreal this week for the 13th World Congress on Pain.

As of Aug. 6, 4,903 people in Canada had authorization to possess dried marijuana for medical reasons under the federal government's medical marijuana access program.

Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/health/lower+...z0yF1dsgbe]]> By Sharon Kirkey, Postmedia News

Briefly inhaling cannabis three times a day eases a kind of chronic pain that affects tens of thousands of Canadians -- without making them high -- Montreal researchers are reporting.

The new study, the first clinical trial in the world to allow patients to take marijuana home with them and "self-dose," found that for people with neuropathic pain -- a common and dreaded condition that causes electric, stabbing pain -- smoking cannabis reduced pain, improved mood and helped them sleep.

Three different potencies (2.5 per cent, six per cent and 9.4 per cent) of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, were tested against a placebo, or "dummy" pot in 21 patients with neuropathic pain, none of whom had responded to standard treatments.

Participants inhaled a single dose through a pipe three times daily for five days, followed by a nine-day "washout" period. They were instructed to inhale for five seconds while the cannabis was lit, hold the smoke in their lungs for 10 seconds, and then exhale.

Pain was measured on an 11- point scale ranging from "no pain" to "worst pain possible."

Patients reported less pain, better sleep and less anxiety when they were smoking the highest concentration of THC, compared with the placebo.

It wasn't a massive reduction in pain: The average daily pain intensity was 5.4 with 9.4 per cent THC, versus 6.1 with the placebo.

"But the patients that we were recruiting had to be patients that had tried and failed all other conventional treatments," said lead author Dr. Mark Ware, director of clinical research at the Alan Edwards Pain Management Unit at the McGill University Health Centre.

Neuropathic pain -- which is caused by damage to nerves -- affects as much as two per cent of the population.

The Montreal study involved patients with post-trauma or post-surgical pain -- radiating pain from prolapsed discs, for example, or burning pain from an incision.

"Through no fault of the surgeon's, it's impossible to do an operation without cutting through some nerves," Ware said.

"For some people, for some reason, even after the tissue has healed they have persistent pain at the site of the operation.

"All of these were very refractory, very difficult pain problems to resolve. Any improvement in pain was quite remarkable."

As many as 15 per cent of patients with chronic non-cancer pain and multiple sclerosis report using marijuana, and Ware said that when he asked his own pain patients, similar numbers reported using marijuana. "There clearly was an unmet need.

"We're not going to argue that smoked cannabis is the be-all and end-all of pain management," Ware said.

"It simply opens the door to the fact that cannabinoids may be an additional tool in the physician's tool box, along with other medications and other non-pharmacological approaches."

During the study, "psychoactive effects" were rare: After more than 1,000 different "administrations" of cannabis over the course of the study, people reported feeling "high" on only three occasions.

Ware said it's possible their plasma levels of THC didn't reach the levels found with recreational smokers. "Street users have access to cannabis that can be anywhere from 15 to 20 per cent THC."

An expert in pain relief at Oxford University said the study "adds to the trickle of evidence" that cannabis may help some patients struggling with chronic pain.

Dr. Henry McQuay lauded the Montreal team for even taking on the study, "given that the regulatory hurdles for their trial must have been a nightmare."

Those hurdles included getting through ethics approval; setting up a ventilated room where patients could use the drug under supervision for the first dose; finding a safe, legal supply of cannabis that had well-controlled levels of THC (cannabis was obtained from Prairie Plant Systems Inc. in Saskatoon) and finding a believable placebo.

Ware ended up importing a THC-extracted cannabis from the U.S. National Institute of Drug Abuse. It still looked like cannabis. It just had no THC in it.

"These weren't experienced cannabis users," he said. "They didn't have a lot of prior expectations to go on."

Side effects increased as the THC dose increased. The most common included headache, dry eyes, dizziness, numbness and cough.

Some of the patients continued to use cannabis after the study was over.

"When we started the study there was no evidence this was effective," Ware said.

Three other trials have since been completed, two that were restricted to neuropathic pain in patients with HIV.

"Now it's clear that smoked cannabis does have analgesic properties," Ware said. "The question now is, where do we go with that?"

His team is just concluding another study on the long-term safety issues.

"Chronic pain isn't a life-threatening disorder," he said. "If patients use cannabis, they may use it for many years. We want to know what the long-term safety issues are. Are there other ways of administering this drug that doesn't require smoking?"

Some prescription sprays and medications are now available that contain cannabinoids. Cannabinoids bind to receptors in the brain that play a role in modulating pain.

The study, which appears in the latest issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, comes as more than 5,000 health professionals from across Canada and the world gather in Montreal this week for the 13th World Congress on Pain.

As of Aug. 6, 4,903 people in Canada had authorization to possess dried marijuana for medical reasons under the federal government's medical marijuana access program.

Read more: http://www.windsorstar.com/health/lower+...z0yF1dsgbe]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-287.html Mon, 30 Aug 2010 12:12:06 -0400 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-287.html I am determined to SOG the Afghani Bullrider. But I can't find seeds anywhere and I live in a state where there is no MM law. Does anyone happen to know the genetics? From what I understand there is Bullrider and Afghani Bullrider. I'm looking for Afghani Bullrider.
Thanks everyone!]]> I am determined to SOG the Afghani Bullrider. But I can't find seeds anywhere and I live in a state where there is no MM law. Does anyone happen to know the genetics? From what I understand there is Bullrider and Afghani Bullrider. I'm looking for Afghani Bullrider.
Thanks everyone!]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-286.html Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:34:46 -0400 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-286.html http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-284.html Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:39:12 -0400 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-284.html http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-283.html Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:08:17 -0400 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-283.html
Proponents of marijuana legalization, which is on the California ballot in 2010, have hit a Facebook wall in their effort to grow an online campaign to rethink the nation's pot laws. Facebook initially accepted ads from the group Just Say Now, running them from August 7 to August 16, generating 38 million impressions and helping the group's fan page grow to over 6,000 members. But then they were abruptly removed.

Andrew Noyes, a spokesman for Facebook, said that the problem was the pot leaf. "It would be fine to note that you were informed by Facebook that the image in question was no long[er] acceptable for use in Facebook ads. The image of a pot leaf is classified with all smoking products and therefore is not acceptable under our policies," he told the group in an email, which was provided to HuffPost.

Noyes is on vacation and didn't respond to an email. A request sent to Facebook's general press address generated an auto-reply indicating that the company receives many requests and intends to respond. [Scroll down for a Facebook statement.]

Facebook's ad rules, however, only ban promotion of "[t]obacco products," not smoking in general. Since the 1970s, shops selling marijuana paraphernalia have sought ways around the law by disingenuously claiming their products are "for tobacco use only." The Just Say Now campaign is arguing the exact opposite: No, really, it's for marijuana, not tobacco.

The censorship is a blow to the campaign, which is gathering signatures on college campuses calling for legalization and registering young people to vote. "It's like running a campaign and saying you can't show the candidate's face," said Michael Whitney of Firedoglake.com, a blog that is part of the Just Say Now coalition.

Conservative college students condemned the site's restrictions. "Our generation made Facebook successful because it was a community where we could be free and discuss issues like sensible drug policy. If Facebook censorship policies continue to reflect those of our government by suppressing freedom of speech then they won't have to wait until Election Day to be voted obsolete," Jordan Marks, the head of Young Americans for Freedom, told HuffPost in an email. YAF was founded in the 1960s and William Buckley's estate; Buckley was a longtime supporter of marijuana legalization. Marks is a member of the Just Say Now board.

Aaron Houston, the executive director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, said that Facebook was out of touch with its customers.

"Their business will suffer if they don't reverse this decision. We're way beyond reefer madness and censorship. Facebook should get with the times," he said.

While Facebook is banning the ad, a number of conservative and liberal blogs and news outlets have agreed to run it beginning on Tuesday. The Nation, The New Republic, Human Events, Red State, Antiwar, Reason, Drug War Rant, Stop The Drug War, Daily Paul, Lew Rockwell, The Young Turks, MyDD, AmericaBlog, Pam's House Blend and Raw Story are among them.

To protest Facebook's decision, Just Say Now is launching, naturally, a Facebook petition, cognizant that the social networking company often responds to user feedback. The group is also asking people to replace their profile picture with an image of a censored pot leaf.

"By censoring marijuana leaves, Facebook is banning political speech. This is unfair, and unacceptable," reads the petition. "Facebook should reverse its decision and allow the free discussion of U.S. drug policy that the country is ready for."

UPDATE: The Libertarian Party has had the same problem. Spokesman Kyle Hartz emailed HuffPost to say that after initially approving the ad, Facebook reversed its decision and censored the ad on July 23rd.

"Thanks for writing in to us," a Facebook representative wrote to the party. "I took a look at your account and noticed that the content advertised by this ad is prohibited. We reserve the right to determine what advertising we accept, and we may choose to not accept ads containing or relating to certain products or services. We do not allow ads for marijuana or political ads for the promotion of marijuana and will not allow the creation of any further Facebook Ads for this product. We appreciate your cooperation with this policy."

UPDATE II: Facebook spokesman Noyes says in a statement: "The image in question was no longer acceptable for use in Facebook ads. The image of a marijuana leaf is classified with all smoking products and therefore is not acceptable under our policies."

UPDATE III: Facebook objects to the pot leaf under medical circumstances, as well. As Washington, D.C.'s city council was debating how to write regulations to permit the cultivation and sale of medical marijuana, the District of Columbia Patients' Cooperative took out Facebook ads to encourage city residents to attend the hearings, the cooperative's Nikolas Schiller tells HuffPost. Facebook shut it down, though the hearings went on regardless. The ads contained a pot leaf and were, like the others, initially approved and later rejected.

"The aim of the District of Columbia Patients' Cooperative use of targeted Facebook ads was to engender community support for the DC medical cannabis law which had been placed on ice for 12 years by Congress," said Schiller. "We created the ads to target those on Facebook who are sympathetic to the subject and might be interested in coming to District Council hearings and meeting with elected officials. While we were able to organize through Facebook, our efforts were severely hampered by Facebook's continued rejection of our ads. The ads ran between between January and May 2010, with the final rejection on May 10th--the ad stated "Have you spoken to your doctor yet? You will soon be able to use medical marijuana with a recommendation from your doctor!" and contained a cannabis leaf with the DC flag superimposed over it."]]>
Proponents of marijuana legalization, which is on the California ballot in 2010, have hit a Facebook wall in their effort to grow an online campaign to rethink the nation's pot laws. Facebook initially accepted ads from the group Just Say Now, running them from August 7 to August 16, generating 38 million impressions and helping the group's fan page grow to over 6,000 members. But then they were abruptly removed.

Andrew Noyes, a spokesman for Facebook, said that the problem was the pot leaf. "It would be fine to note that you were informed by Facebook that the image in question was no long[er] acceptable for use in Facebook ads. The image of a pot leaf is classified with all smoking products and therefore is not acceptable under our policies," he told the group in an email, which was provided to HuffPost.

Noyes is on vacation and didn't respond to an email. A request sent to Facebook's general press address generated an auto-reply indicating that the company receives many requests and intends to respond. [Scroll down for a Facebook statement.]

Facebook's ad rules, however, only ban promotion of "[t]obacco products," not smoking in general. Since the 1970s, shops selling marijuana paraphernalia have sought ways around the law by disingenuously claiming their products are "for tobacco use only." The Just Say Now campaign is arguing the exact opposite: No, really, it's for marijuana, not tobacco.

The censorship is a blow to the campaign, which is gathering signatures on college campuses calling for legalization and registering young people to vote. "It's like running a campaign and saying you can't show the candidate's face," said Michael Whitney of Firedoglake.com, a blog that is part of the Just Say Now coalition.

Conservative college students condemned the site's restrictions. "Our generation made Facebook successful because it was a community where we could be free and discuss issues like sensible drug policy. If Facebook censorship policies continue to reflect those of our government by suppressing freedom of speech then they won't have to wait until Election Day to be voted obsolete," Jordan Marks, the head of Young Americans for Freedom, told HuffPost in an email. YAF was founded in the 1960s and William Buckley's estate; Buckley was a longtime supporter of marijuana legalization. Marks is a member of the Just Say Now board.

Aaron Houston, the executive director of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, said that Facebook was out of touch with its customers.

"Their business will suffer if they don't reverse this decision. We're way beyond reefer madness and censorship. Facebook should get with the times," he said.

While Facebook is banning the ad, a number of conservative and liberal blogs and news outlets have agreed to run it beginning on Tuesday. The Nation, The New Republic, Human Events, Red State, Antiwar, Reason, Drug War Rant, Stop The Drug War, Daily Paul, Lew Rockwell, The Young Turks, MyDD, AmericaBlog, Pam's House Blend and Raw Story are among them.

To protest Facebook's decision, Just Say Now is launching, naturally, a Facebook petition, cognizant that the social networking company often responds to user feedback. The group is also asking people to replace their profile picture with an image of a censored pot leaf.

"By censoring marijuana leaves, Facebook is banning political speech. This is unfair, and unacceptable," reads the petition. "Facebook should reverse its decision and allow the free discussion of U.S. drug policy that the country is ready for."

UPDATE: The Libertarian Party has had the same problem. Spokesman Kyle Hartz emailed HuffPost to say that after initially approving the ad, Facebook reversed its decision and censored the ad on July 23rd.

"Thanks for writing in to us," a Facebook representative wrote to the party. "I took a look at your account and noticed that the content advertised by this ad is prohibited. We reserve the right to determine what advertising we accept, and we may choose to not accept ads containing or relating to certain products or services. We do not allow ads for marijuana or political ads for the promotion of marijuana and will not allow the creation of any further Facebook Ads for this product. We appreciate your cooperation with this policy."

UPDATE II: Facebook spokesman Noyes says in a statement: "The image in question was no longer acceptable for use in Facebook ads. The image of a marijuana leaf is classified with all smoking products and therefore is not acceptable under our policies."

UPDATE III: Facebook objects to the pot leaf under medical circumstances, as well. As Washington, D.C.'s city council was debating how to write regulations to permit the cultivation and sale of medical marijuana, the District of Columbia Patients' Cooperative took out Facebook ads to encourage city residents to attend the hearings, the cooperative's Nikolas Schiller tells HuffPost. Facebook shut it down, though the hearings went on regardless. The ads contained a pot leaf and were, like the others, initially approved and later rejected.

"The aim of the District of Columbia Patients' Cooperative use of targeted Facebook ads was to engender community support for the DC medical cannabis law which had been placed on ice for 12 years by Congress," said Schiller. "We created the ads to target those on Facebook who are sympathetic to the subject and might be interested in coming to District Council hearings and meeting with elected officials. While we were able to organize through Facebook, our efforts were severely hampered by Facebook's continued rejection of our ads. The ads ran between between January and May 2010, with the final rejection on May 10th--the ad stated "Have you spoken to your doctor yet? You will soon be able to use medical marijuana with a recommendation from your doctor!" and contained a cannabis leaf with the DC flag superimposed over it."]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-282.html Sun, 22 Aug 2010 17:53:37 -0400 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-282.html http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-281.html Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:37:12 -0400 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-281.html
In its long-awaited ruling in Qualified Patients Association vs. the City of Anaheim , the California Court of Appeals ducked ruling on whether the City of Anaheim is precluded by state law from outlawing dispensaries.

Instead, it ruled that Anaheim could not use federal pre-emption as a grounds to ban medical marijuana dispensaries and remanded the case for further hearings by the lower court. The Appeals court struck down the lower court's ruling dismissing QPA's suit against Anaheim on the grounds that dispensaries are illegal under federal law.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/doc...040077.PDF

On a second issue, the court sided with the city of Anaheim in ruling that the QPA could not sue on the grounds that the city's ordinance violated the state Unruh Act in discriminating against them on the basis of a disability or medical condition. The court ruled that the Unruh Act did not apply

The court remanded the suit of Qualified Patients Association to the lower court, reinstating the plaintiffs' cause of action seeking declaratory judgment on whether Prop. 215 and SB 420 pre-empt the city's ordinance.

The bottom line is that it remains an open question as to whether local dispensary bans are illegal, but federal preemption is not a valid argument for declaring so.
- Dale Gieringer, Cal NORML]]>
In its long-awaited ruling in Qualified Patients Association vs. the City of Anaheim , the California Court of Appeals ducked ruling on whether the City of Anaheim is precluded by state law from outlawing dispensaries.

Instead, it ruled that Anaheim could not use federal pre-emption as a grounds to ban medical marijuana dispensaries and remanded the case for further hearings by the lower court. The Appeals court struck down the lower court's ruling dismissing QPA's suit against Anaheim on the grounds that dispensaries are illegal under federal law.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/doc...040077.PDF

On a second issue, the court sided with the city of Anaheim in ruling that the QPA could not sue on the grounds that the city's ordinance violated the state Unruh Act in discriminating against them on the basis of a disability or medical condition. The court ruled that the Unruh Act did not apply

The court remanded the suit of Qualified Patients Association to the lower court, reinstating the plaintiffs' cause of action seeking declaratory judgment on whether Prop. 215 and SB 420 pre-empt the city's ordinance.

The bottom line is that it remains an open question as to whether local dispensary bans are illegal, but federal preemption is not a valid argument for declaring so.
- Dale Gieringer, Cal NORML]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-280.html Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:13:50 -0400 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-280.html
About 60 individuals joined the online/telephone discussion to listen and ask questions about the societal consequences if voters pass Prop. 19 on the November ballot. Dana Sherne, an intern at SFGate.com, moderated the discussion.

McNamara is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Dunbar is a member of the California Police Chiefs Association. Each chief gave his views on five questions. Here's a summary:

Q. Will legalizing marijuana increase the number of people using marijuana?

McNamara: We aren't sure it will. But we know marijuana is making criminals out of 10 to 30 percent of the population because they use a substance we don't approve of.

Dunbar: The Rand study says it will increase marijuana users in California. The proposition doesn't legalize marijuana in California. It puts the onus on 478 cities and counties to legalize its use. Some counties and cities won't approve.

Q. Is increasing marijuana use a problem?

McNamara: Even if the proposition increases use, it will reduce the number of people arrested for marijuana possession.

Dunbar: In my experience, marijuana use leads to violence on the streets. I don't see that changing.

Q. Will legalization end the black market for pot and the violence it engenders?

McNamara: Yes. Alcohol was once under criminal prohibition for 13 years. We don't see the black market for alcohol operating today because sale and use is regulated. Legalization will take away a major source of funding for criminals.

Dunbar: There will be a black market for juveniles. I found marijuana was the deadliest drug because of the violence behind it.

Q. Will legalizing marijuana help address the injustice that, while studies show more whites use marijuana than other racial groups, more minorities are arrested and incarcerated for marijuana use?

McNamara: Yes, this will change because it would eliminate marijuana arrests, which disproportionately involve blacks and Hispanics.

Dunbar: I don't see this as a racial issue. To me, it is a people issue.

Q. If Prop. 19 passes, and less taxpayer money is spent on cannabis-related arrests, where will those funds go?

McNamara: Law enforcement, court and prison costs would be diminished. If we lower the crime rate, we can free up resources for what people really want - focus on property crimes and violence.

Dunbar: For the last several years, marijuana possession has become a low priority. We still take sales and cultivation seriously. There's not going to be extra money to do anything.

To listen to the entire discussion, go to sfgate.com/blogs/opinionshop.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...z0whvdhowC]]>
About 60 individuals joined the online/telephone discussion to listen and ask questions about the societal consequences if voters pass Prop. 19 on the November ballot. Dana Sherne, an intern at SFGate.com, moderated the discussion.

McNamara is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Dunbar is a member of the California Police Chiefs Association. Each chief gave his views on five questions. Here's a summary:

Q. Will legalizing marijuana increase the number of people using marijuana?

McNamara: We aren't sure it will. But we know marijuana is making criminals out of 10 to 30 percent of the population because they use a substance we don't approve of.

Dunbar: The Rand study says it will increase marijuana users in California. The proposition doesn't legalize marijuana in California. It puts the onus on 478 cities and counties to legalize its use. Some counties and cities won't approve.

Q. Is increasing marijuana use a problem?

McNamara: Even if the proposition increases use, it will reduce the number of people arrested for marijuana possession.

Dunbar: In my experience, marijuana use leads to violence on the streets. I don't see that changing.

Q. Will legalization end the black market for pot and the violence it engenders?

McNamara: Yes. Alcohol was once under criminal prohibition for 13 years. We don't see the black market for alcohol operating today because sale and use is regulated. Legalization will take away a major source of funding for criminals.

Dunbar: There will be a black market for juveniles. I found marijuana was the deadliest drug because of the violence behind it.

Q. Will legalizing marijuana help address the injustice that, while studies show more whites use marijuana than other racial groups, more minorities are arrested and incarcerated for marijuana use?

McNamara: Yes, this will change because it would eliminate marijuana arrests, which disproportionately involve blacks and Hispanics.

Dunbar: I don't see this as a racial issue. To me, it is a people issue.

Q. If Prop. 19 passes, and less taxpayer money is spent on cannabis-related arrests, where will those funds go?

McNamara: Law enforcement, court and prison costs would be diminished. If we lower the crime rate, we can free up resources for what people really want - focus on property crimes and violence.

Dunbar: For the last several years, marijuana possession has become a low priority. We still take sales and cultivation seriously. There's not going to be extra money to do anything.

To listen to the entire discussion, go to sfgate.com/blogs/opinionshop.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...z0whvdhowC]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-278.html Sun, 15 Aug 2010 12:35:52 -0400 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-278.html http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-277.html Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:14:10 -0400 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-277.html http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-276.html Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:20:15 -0400 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-276.html
Ran across the forum trying to find some information on a few strains and decided to sign up as everyone looked so friendly.

Smoked pot as a teenager, stopped for a long time and just started up again recently. So, yay regression!

Got back into it and had a "guy" giving me some "random" that he wasn't sure the name of, was pretty good though.

Moved on to getting from a few different people who could tell me the names, purple kush, og kush, pink kush (which sucked) and various other things like maple leaf indica, cherry hashplant, jack flash etc etc.

Even got some hash, pressed and bubble. Bubble gives me a crazy ass hangover though, but still good for the weekends

Found myself getting very sleepy on most of them, did some research and found strains heavier on the indica side probably not what I want and just received a bag of white widow and ak-47, so should be a good weekend for me, hopefully!

Anyway, hopefully not too much info that no one cares about.

---

Ohhh, just read the other intro threads, looks like I talk too much.

Anyway, I'm in BC.]]>
Ran across the forum trying to find some information on a few strains and decided to sign up as everyone looked so friendly.

Smoked pot as a teenager, stopped for a long time and just started up again recently. So, yay regression!

Got back into it and had a "guy" giving me some "random" that he wasn't sure the name of, was pretty good though.

Moved on to getting from a few different people who could tell me the names, purple kush, og kush, pink kush (which sucked) and various other things like maple leaf indica, cherry hashplant, jack flash etc etc.

Even got some hash, pressed and bubble. Bubble gives me a crazy ass hangover though, but still good for the weekends

Found myself getting very sleepy on most of them, did some research and found strains heavier on the indica side probably not what I want and just received a bag of white widow and ak-47, so should be a good weekend for me, hopefully!

Anyway, hopefully not too much info that no one cares about.

---

Ohhh, just read the other intro threads, looks like I talk too much.

Anyway, I'm in BC.]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-275.html Thu, 12 Aug 2010 12:15:33 -0400 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-275.html http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-274.html Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:18:19 -0400 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-274.html by Phillip Smith, August 11, 2010

A Sacramento Bee/Field Poll survey released over the weekend found support for legalizing marijuana in California at 51%. The poll was not measuring support for Proposition 19, the Tax and Regulate Cannabis marijuana legalization initiative, but instead asked respondents: "Which action best fits what you feel should be done about marijuana laws?"

Legalization got 51%, with 47% saying marijuana should be legalized and controlled like alcohol and another 4% saying marijuana should be legalized -- period. Thirteen percent wanted to keep current laws, but lessen the penalties (which pending decriminalization legislation would accomplish), while 19% wanted tough enforcement of existing laws and a hard-core 14% wanted even tougher pot laws.

Between those who want to legalize it and those who want to decriminalize it, the poll suggests nearly two-thirds of California voters favor relaxing the state's marijuana laws. Only about one-third support the status quo or hardening the state's approach to marijuana.

This Sacramento Bee/Field Poll is in line with recent robocall polls on Prop 19, which show the initiative at 50% in one poll, 52% in another. A Field Poll from early July had the initiative losing by a margin of 44%-48%. This is yet more evidence that the Prop 19 race will most likely be very tight indeed.

The poll also found that 47% of respondents had tried marijuana, but nearly half of those (23%) had not smoked in the last 15 years. Eight percent had toked up in the past year, with the San Francisco Bay area with the highest last year use rate (11.4%), followed by Los Angeles County (8.8%), Northern California (8.1%), interior Southern California (7.7%), the Central Valley (5.7%), and San Diego and Orange counties (4.8%).]]> by Phillip Smith, August 11, 2010

A Sacramento Bee/Field Poll survey released over the weekend found support for legalizing marijuana in California at 51%. The poll was not measuring support for Proposition 19, the Tax and Regulate Cannabis marijuana legalization initiative, but instead asked respondents: "Which action best fits what you feel should be done about marijuana laws?"

Legalization got 51%, with 47% saying marijuana should be legalized and controlled like alcohol and another 4% saying marijuana should be legalized -- period. Thirteen percent wanted to keep current laws, but lessen the penalties (which pending decriminalization legislation would accomplish), while 19% wanted tough enforcement of existing laws and a hard-core 14% wanted even tougher pot laws.

Between those who want to legalize it and those who want to decriminalize it, the poll suggests nearly two-thirds of California voters favor relaxing the state's marijuana laws. Only about one-third support the status quo or hardening the state's approach to marijuana.

This Sacramento Bee/Field Poll is in line with recent robocall polls on Prop 19, which show the initiative at 50% in one poll, 52% in another. A Field Poll from early July had the initiative losing by a margin of 44%-48%. This is yet more evidence that the Prop 19 race will most likely be very tight indeed.

The poll also found that 47% of respondents had tried marijuana, but nearly half of those (23%) had not smoked in the last 15 years. Eight percent had toked up in the past year, with the San Francisco Bay area with the highest last year use rate (11.4%), followed by Los Angeles County (8.8%), Northern California (8.1%), interior Southern California (7.7%), the Central Valley (5.7%), and San Diego and Orange counties (4.8%).]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-273.html Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:11:46 -0400 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-273.html By Dale Gieringer

Critics of this November's Proposition 19 initiative to legalize marijuana are raising concerns that it could lead to an epidemic of road accidents by pot-impaired drivers.

Because accidents, unlike other purported hazards of marijuana, pose a risk to non-users, such concerns deserve to be addressed seriously.

Fortunately, there exists extensive evidence showing that marijuana, unlike alcohol, does not pose a major highway safety hazard, and that liberal marijuana laws have no adverse impact on highway safety.

Studies on marijuana and driving safety are remarkably consistent, though greatly under-publicized because they fail to support the government's anti-pot line. Eleven different studies of more than 50,000 fatal accidents have found that drivers with marijuana-only in their system are on average no more likely to cause accidents than those with low, legal levels of alcohol below the threshold for DUI.

The major exception is when marijuana is combined with alcohol, which tends to be highly dangerous.

Several studies have failed to detect any increased accident risk from marijuana at all. The reason for pot's relative safety appears to be that it tends to make users drive more slowly, while alcohol makes them speed up.

Thus legalization could actually reduce accidents if more drivers used marijuana instead of alcohol, but it could also increase them if there were more combined use of the two.

So what will happen if California approves Proposition 19? Contrary to the claims of some opponents, Proposition 19 does not change current laws against driving under the influence. Nor would it bar testing of bus drivers or other safety-critical workers, as some have alleged; in fact, it explicitly protects the right of employers to address consumption that impairs job performance. Nor would it override federal drug-free work-force rules any more than did Proposition 215.

Nor would legalization necessarily dramatically increase the number of pot smokers. Studies have consistently failed to find any relationship between marijuana laws and usage rates. In the Netherlands, where marijuana is publicly available in coffee shops, usage is only half that in the United States. The Netherlands also boasts one of Europe's lowest road fatality rates, well below its neighbors.

Similarly, California, despite having the freest medical marijuana regime in the nation, ranks 18th among states in marijuana use and boasts a highway fatality rate well below the national average.

Proposition 19 critics cite a recent report by retired researcher Al Crancer warning that the percentage of fatal drivers with marijuana in their blood has increased in California since 2004. (This doesn't mean that marijuana necessarily caused the accidents, just that the drivers had used it in the past hours or days). Crancer spuriously blames this on the legalization of medical marijuana, but that happened in 1996, not 2004. Moreover, his data suggest similar trends in other states.

In fact, California ranks 14th in the nation in the rate of marijuana involvement in accidents, well behind states with tougher marijuana laws such as South Carolina, Indiana and Missouri. Crancer's data also show that two of the state's most pot-friendly counties, San Francisco and Santa Cruz, had zero pot-related road fatalities in 2008. All of this shows that liberal access to pot doesn't necessarily mean more DUIs.

Still, it seems reasonable to assume that legalization would increase the number of pot users. A Rand Corp. report on legalization envisions a possible doubling in usage in California – bringing us back to the same level as in the late 1970s, when marijuana use peaked.

You don't remember an epidemic of highway accidents back when pot was so popular? That's because it didn't happen. U.S. accident rates declined steadily throughout the 1960s and '70s, even while tens of millions of Americans were introduced to marijuana. Happily, accident rates have declined steadily since records were kept, thanks to improved technology, safer roads, better enforcement and public education.

Californians have little reason to fear an epidemic of auto accidents if Proposition 19 passes. New users would include many law-abiding persons who were previously deterred by its illegality and who would be more apt to respect DUI laws than today's scofflaw users. Other problems could be controlled by common-sense enforcement and regulations, such as discouraging combined sales of liquor and pot.

Long ago, the architect of marijuana prohibition, Federal Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner Harry Anslinger, warned that legalizing marijuana would mean "slaughter on the highways." Anslinger also warned that pot turned users into homicidal assassins, maniacs and addicts. Then as now, the public would be wise to disregard such reefer madness.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/08/2943086...z0wLzhg5uU]]> By Dale Gieringer

Critics of this November's Proposition 19 initiative to legalize marijuana are raising concerns that it could lead to an epidemic of road accidents by pot-impaired drivers.

Because accidents, unlike other purported hazards of marijuana, pose a risk to non-users, such concerns deserve to be addressed seriously.

Fortunately, there exists extensive evidence showing that marijuana, unlike alcohol, does not pose a major highway safety hazard, and that liberal marijuana laws have no adverse impact on highway safety.

Studies on marijuana and driving safety are remarkably consistent, though greatly under-publicized because they fail to support the government's anti-pot line. Eleven different studies of more than 50,000 fatal accidents have found that drivers with marijuana-only in their system are on average no more likely to cause accidents than those with low, legal levels of alcohol below the threshold for DUI.

The major exception is when marijuana is combined with alcohol, which tends to be highly dangerous.

Several studies have failed to detect any increased accident risk from marijuana at all. The reason for pot's relative safety appears to be that it tends to make users drive more slowly, while alcohol makes them speed up.

Thus legalization could actually reduce accidents if more drivers used marijuana instead of alcohol, but it could also increase them if there were more combined use of the two.

So what will happen if California approves Proposition 19? Contrary to the claims of some opponents, Proposition 19 does not change current laws against driving under the influence. Nor would it bar testing of bus drivers or other safety-critical workers, as some have alleged; in fact, it explicitly protects the right of employers to address consumption that impairs job performance. Nor would it override federal drug-free work-force rules any more than did Proposition 215.

Nor would legalization necessarily dramatically increase the number of pot smokers. Studies have consistently failed to find any relationship between marijuana laws and usage rates. In the Netherlands, where marijuana is publicly available in coffee shops, usage is only half that in the United States. The Netherlands also boasts one of Europe's lowest road fatality rates, well below its neighbors.

Similarly, California, despite having the freest medical marijuana regime in the nation, ranks 18th among states in marijuana use and boasts a highway fatality rate well below the national average.

Proposition 19 critics cite a recent report by retired researcher Al Crancer warning that the percentage of fatal drivers with marijuana in their blood has increased in California since 2004. (This doesn't mean that marijuana necessarily caused the accidents, just that the drivers had used it in the past hours or days). Crancer spuriously blames this on the legalization of medical marijuana, but that happened in 1996, not 2004. Moreover, his data suggest similar trends in other states.

In fact, California ranks 14th in the nation in the rate of marijuana involvement in accidents, well behind states with tougher marijuana laws such as South Carolina, Indiana and Missouri. Crancer's data also show that two of the state's most pot-friendly counties, San Francisco and Santa Cruz, had zero pot-related road fatalities in 2008. All of this shows that liberal access to pot doesn't necessarily mean more DUIs.

Still, it seems reasonable to assume that legalization would increase the number of pot users. A Rand Corp. report on legalization envisions a possible doubling in usage in California – bringing us back to the same level as in the late 1970s, when marijuana use peaked.

You don't remember an epidemic of highway accidents back when pot was so popular? That's because it didn't happen. U.S. accident rates declined steadily throughout the 1960s and '70s, even while tens of millions of Americans were introduced to marijuana. Happily, accident rates have declined steadily since records were kept, thanks to improved technology, safer roads, better enforcement and public education.

Californians have little reason to fear an epidemic of auto accidents if Proposition 19 passes. New users would include many law-abiding persons who were previously deterred by its illegality and who would be more apt to respect DUI laws than today's scofflaw users. Other problems could be controlled by common-sense enforcement and regulations, such as discouraging combined sales of liquor and pot.

Long ago, the architect of marijuana prohibition, Federal Bureau of Narcotics Commissioner Harry Anslinger, warned that legalizing marijuana would mean "slaughter on the highways." Anslinger also warned that pot turned users into homicidal assassins, maniacs and addicts. Then as now, the public would be wise to disregard such reefer madness.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/08/2943086...z0wLzhg5uU]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-272.html Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:54:59 -0400 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-272.html http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-271.html Sat, 24 Jul 2010 22:34:00 -0400 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-271.html http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-270.html Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:49:18 -0400 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-270.html
BMW: Brings Me Women.
FIAT: Failure in Italian Automotive Technology.
FORD: For Only Rough Drivers.
HYUNDAI: Hope You Understand Nothing's Drivable And Inexpensive....
VOLVO: Very Odd Looking Vehicular Object.
PORSCHE: Proof Of Rich Spoiled Children Having Everything.
OPEL: Old People Enjoying Life
TOYOTA: The One You Only Trust, Always.
GOLF/GTI: Girls Only Love Fun / Get Them Inside
HONDA: Hanged Over, Now Driving Away. BMW: Brings Me Women.]]>
BMW: Brings Me Women.
FIAT: Failure in Italian Automotive Technology.
FORD: For Only Rough Drivers.
HYUNDAI: Hope You Understand Nothing's Drivable And Inexpensive....
VOLVO: Very Odd Looking Vehicular Object.
PORSCHE: Proof Of Rich Spoiled Children Having Everything.
OPEL: Old People Enjoying Life
TOYOTA: The One You Only Trust, Always.
GOLF/GTI: Girls Only Love Fun / Get Them Inside
HONDA: Hanged Over, Now Driving Away. BMW: Brings Me Women.]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-269.html Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:48:42 -0400 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-269.html
1) Star Trek: The Next Generation
2) Hogan's Heroes*
3) Aaron Stone
4) The Clone Wars
5) Green Acres*
6) The Suite Life of Zack & Cody
7) Full House
8) FlashForward
9) The Monkees*
10) Battle of the Planets]]>
1) Star Trek: The Next Generation
2) Hogan's Heroes*
3) Aaron Stone
4) The Clone Wars
5) Green Acres*
6) The Suite Life of Zack & Cody
7) Full House
8) FlashForward
9) The Monkees*
10) Battle of the Planets]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-268.html Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:43:36 -0400 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-268.html
Why women can't put on mascara with their mouth closed?

Why don't you ever see the headline "Psychic Wins Lottery"?

Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?

Why is it that to stop Windows 98, you have to click on the "Start" button?

Why is lemon juice made with artificial flavor, and dishwashing liquid made with real
lemons?

Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour?

Why isn't there mouse-flavored cat food?

Why didn't Noah swat those two mosquitoes?

When dog food is new and improved tasting, who tests it?

You know that indestructible black box that is used on airplanes? Why don't they make the whole plane out of that stuff?

Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?

If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress? (What a silly question!)]]>
Why women can't put on mascara with their mouth closed?

Why don't you ever see the headline "Psychic Wins Lottery"?

Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?

Why is it that to stop Windows 98, you have to click on the "Start" button?

Why is lemon juice made with artificial flavor, and dishwashing liquid made with real
lemons?

Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour?

Why isn't there mouse-flavored cat food?

Why didn't Noah swat those two mosquitoes?

When dog food is new and improved tasting, who tests it?

You know that indestructible black box that is used on airplanes? Why don't they make the whole plane out of that stuff?

Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?

If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress? (What a silly question!)]]> http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-267.html Wed, 14 Jul 2010 21:38:29 -0400 http://www.kindgreenbuds.com/forums/thread-267.html
The Ventura City Council rejected the idea and instead extended an existing moratorium on such establishments pending the outcome of a November ballot initiative to legalize marijuana in California.

The vote was 5-2, with Deputy Mayor Mike Tracy and Councilman Jim Monahan opposing. They wanted a permanent ban on marijuana cooperatives.

The council, along with the city attorney and city manager, said approving medical marijuana cooperatives would open the floodgates for illegal resale of the drug, increase crime and become a costly financial burden on the city. It is nearly impossible, they said, to draw a distinction between a cooperative that sells to sick people and a for-profit business that sells marijuana to anybody.

“We simply are not capable without substantial fees to enter into the process of distinguishing legitimate medicinal marijuana cooperatives from the for-profit dispensaries,” said City Manager Rick Cole. “To take on a major groundbreaking initiative in this fiscal year is challenging.”

A slew of law enforcement officials spoke in opposition of allowing medical marijuana cooperatives. The establishments often act as fronts for illegal marijuana outfits where the drug is sold to people without medical needs, they said.

“Many storefront distribution centers simply serve as a cover for the sale of marijuana to healthy people,” said Greg Brose, chief deputy district attorney in Ventura County. “From the standpoint of drafting the ordinance it is difficult. From the standpoint of enforcing the ordinance, it is extremely difficult.”

Brose said he doesn’t know of a single successful medical marijuana cooperative anywhere.

Officials also said that marijuana cooperatives often become havens for crime. Several officials pointed to the city of Santa Barbara, which has approved three cooperatives within the city limits, as a model for what to avoid.

“Their narcotics division spends a majority of their time dealing with illegal dispensaries,” Ventura Police Chief Ken Corney told the council. He said one Santa Barbara dispensary has more than 13,000 clients.

Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara, also slammed Santa Barbara, saying the city had no quality controls on what was being purchased and warned the council not to follow its path.

“Ventura doesn’t want to be in the position of being a Mecca for marijuana dispensaries, as Santa Barbara is now,” Nava said.

But members of the public expressed a different opinion. They said it was immoral and heartless for the council to reject legal cooperatives. Not only do sick people need a legal place to purchase marijuana, but the city could benefit financially from taxing the drug.

A majority of Ventura voters embraced Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which permits patients to legally use medicinal marijuana in California.

“I do believe there is a way to do it legally and raise revenues for our city,” said resident Berta Steele. “I don’t think we will become the Mecca. I think we can control it. It’s an opportunity to explore the issue and make it work.”

But city officials said pursuing medical marijuana cooperatives was an idea full of pitfalls.

Cole called the proposal “extraordinarily thorny” and “land mine-ridden,” coming at a time of severe budget cuts.

“It’s not impossible, but I can’t imagine us doing it well,” Cole said.

Other members of the council were flat out against marijuana cooperatives, now or in the future.

“Selling marijuana in storefronts is not in the best interests of Ventura County residents,” said Councilwoman Christy Weir.

Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/13/v...z0ti8YpNnk
- vcstar.com]]>
The Ventura City Council rejected the idea and instead extended an existing moratorium on such establishments pending the outcome of a November ballot initiative to legalize marijuana in California.

The vote was 5-2, with Deputy Mayor Mike Tracy and Councilman Jim Monahan opposing. They wanted a permanent ban on marijuana cooperatives.

The council, along with the city attorney and city manager, said approving medical marijuana cooperatives would open the floodgates for illegal resale of the drug, increase crime and become a costly financial burden on the city. It is nearly impossible, they said, to draw a distinction between a cooperative that sells to sick people and a for-profit business that sells marijuana to anybody.

“We simply are not capable without substantial fees to enter into the process of distinguishing legitimate medicinal marijuana cooperatives from the for-profit dispensaries,” said City Manager Rick Cole. “To take on a major groundbreaking initiative in this fiscal year is challenging.”

A slew of law enforcement officials spoke in opposition of allowing medical marijuana cooperatives. The establishments often act as fronts for illegal marijuana outfits where the drug is sold to people without medical needs, they said.

“Many storefront distribution centers simply serve as a cover for the sale of marijuana to healthy people,” said Greg Brose, chief deputy district attorney in Ventura County. “From the standpoint of drafting the ordinance it is difficult. From the standpoint of enforcing the ordinance, it is extremely difficult.”

Brose said he doesn’t know of a single successful medical marijuana cooperative anywhere.

Officials also said that marijuana cooperatives often become havens for crime. Several officials pointed to the city of Santa Barbara, which has approved three cooperatives within the city limits, as a model for what to avoid.

“Their narcotics division spends a majority of their time dealing with illegal dispensaries,” Ventura Police Chief Ken Corney told the council. He said one Santa Barbara dispensary has more than 13,000 clients.

Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara, also slammed Santa Barbara, saying the city had no quality controls on what was being purchased and warned the council not to follow its path.

“Ventura doesn’t want to be in the position of being a Mecca for marijuana dispensaries, as Santa Barbara is now,” Nava said.

But members of the public expressed a different opinion. They said it was immoral and heartless for the council to reject legal cooperatives. Not only do sick people need a legal place to purchase marijuana, but the city could benefit financially from taxing the drug.

A majority of Ventura voters embraced Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which permits patients to legally use medicinal marijuana in California.

“I do believe there is a way to do it legally and raise revenues for our city,” said resident Berta Steele. “I don’t think we will become the Mecca. I think we can control it. It’s an opportunity to explore the issue and make it work.”

But city officials said pursuing medical marijuana cooperatives was an idea full of pitfalls.

Cole called the proposal “extraordinarily thorny” and “land mine-ridden,” coming at a time of severe budget cuts.

“It’s not impossible, but I can’t imagine us doing it well,” Cole said.

Other members of the council were flat out against marijuana cooperatives, now or in the future.

“Selling marijuana in storefronts is not in the best interests of Ventura County residents,” said Councilwoman Christy Weir.

Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/jul/13/v...z0ti8YpNnk
- vcstar.com]]>