http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Minnesota_TV_Ad_Backs_Medical_Marijuana_Use_16401.html

Quote :

"A new TV ad, featuring a woman suffering from extreme back pain, is the first in a new series meant to urge Governor Tim Pawlently not to veto a bill in order to protect suffering Minnesotans from arrest for using medical marijuana under a doctor’s recommendation. The ad will begin running on broadcast and cable station throughout Minnesota later this week. It is the story of Lynn Rubenstein Nicholson of Minneapolis who suffers intractable pain after enduring 10 surgeries following a back injury. "Really, the only thing that gave me relief was marijuana. It's not ok to break the law...” Nicholson says in the ad of her struggle to find relief from the constant pain that keeps her bedridden most of the time. “I am tired of being a criminal. Please Gov. Pawlently, do not veto the medical marijuana bill.” The bill succeeded to pass in the Senate last year and the House Ways and Means Committee, 13-4, April 9 and is heading to the House floor for a vote soon, but Gov. Tim Pawlently has threatened to veto it if it passes. “The governor has threatened a veto after hearing from certain aspects of the law enforcement community. Hopefully, before he finalizes his decision, he will also consider the opinions of the hundreds of doctors, thousands of nurses, multitude of medical associations, the vast majority of Minnesotans and suffering patients like Lynn, who all support this bill,” said Neal Levine, director of state campaigns for the Marijuana Policy Project, according to the Minnesota Public Radio. The Minnesota House is considering a proposal that would allow people with cancer, glaucoma, AIDS, hepatitis C, Tourette syndrome, other chronic or debilitating diseases or intractable pain the possibility of obtaining and using marijuana without being subjects to arrest. Medical use of marijuana is currently legal in twelve states: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. Illinois and New York are also considering marijuana bills. "

I didnt know that 12 states had the bill now. I thought only HI, CA and OR had it.
This is the first i have heard of a TV ad backing something like this. Someone go and find the video.

4/15/2008 12:29:00 PM

4/15/2008 12:59:21 PM

Quote :

"The governor has threatened a veto after hearing from certain aspects of the law enforcement community."

what a tool

I hope he comes to his senses

"hhmmmm... who should I listen to? police cronies that don't want to lose their job?

or doctors, nurses, medical associations, the vast majority of Minnesotans and suffering patients?"

4/15/2008 1:03:24 PM

i'd support medicinal marijuana usage if i thought the vast majority would actually use it for medicinal purposes

without turning this into a "quagmire02's a tool because he doesn't smoke pot and is a condescending prick to those who do" thread (which it will inevitably turn into anyway), i really see no reason why pot should be illegal for medicinal use

but anyone who thinks that it would continue like that is deluding themselves...it's not exactly difficult to get prescription drugs now, so why would pot be any different? for those people who are concerned about an increase in non-medicinal marijuana use (whether you think it's wrong/right), you can't argue that it isn't a VALID concern (in that it is entirely possible that non-medicinal usage would increase), even if you think they're stupid for having it

[Edited on April 15, 2008 at 1:28 PM. Reason : nm, this is the lounge...it might retain some intelligent conversation and valid points]

4/15/2008 1:27:20 PM

thank god there is an article for once that rationally portrays marijuana; not the DEA propraganda where some dude kills someone while driving down the road high or the 17 year old big brother leaves his 5 year little brother at the play ground after dark because he was busy getting stoned. btw the later example could be swapped out with video games, getting drunk, seeing girlfriend, etc.

4/15/2008 2:59:38 PM

^^Yes, I can argue that.

Everybody else already smokes pot so unless you yourself take up smoking doobies, there is no way non-medicinal marijuana usage can increase.

You're the last one remaining. Congratulations.

And, by the way, you suck.

"I'm sorry, folks, you're all going to have to suffer without medicinal marijuana because this douchebag quagmire on the internet is worried some other folks might start smoking weed without a prescription."

4/15/2008 3:13:34 PM

who cares if people smoke in first place. people already get drunk or get sedated via prescription benz's

4/15/2008 3:22:08 PM

Quote :

"Everybody else already smokes pot so unless you yourself take up smoking doobies, there is no way non-medicinal marijuana usage can increase. You're the last one remaining. Congratulations. And, by the way, you suck. "I'm sorry, folks, you're all going to have to suffer without medicinal marijuana because this douchebag quagmire on the internet is worried some other folks might start smoking weed without a prescription.""

ahahahahahahahahahhahaha lmfao

4/15/2008 3:25:00 PM

Quote :

"thank god there is an article for once that rationally portrays marijuana; not the DEA propraganda where some dude kills someone while driving down the road high or the 17 year old big brother leaves his 5 year little brother at the play ground after dark because he was busy getting stoned. btw the later example could be swapped out with video games, getting drunk, seeing girlfriend, etc."

i agree with you 100%...if they really wanted to argue the point, they should bring up the research that "proves" that smoking weed is bad for your health (and yes, i put proves in quotations because i can prove it's bad, and you can prove it isn't, and really, since neither of us is conducting the scientific studies in controlled environments, your opinion is just as baseless as mine...unless you're going to count first-hand experiences, which is just as stupid as saying car wrecks don't kill people because you've never been killed in one)

Quote :

"Everybody else already smokes pot so unless you yourself take up smoking doobies, there is no way non-medicinal marijuana usage can increase. You're the last one remaining. Congratulations. And, by the way, you suck. "I'm sorry, folks, you're all going to have to suffer without medicinal marijuana because this douchebag quagmire on the internet is worried some other folks might start smoking weed without a prescription.""

i don't get it...at first glance, i'd assume you were kidding, at least mocking me for my choices...but then i realized who posted, and i'm not too sure you're really not this stupid

at the very least, you'd HAVE to be kidding to think that non-medicinal marijuana use would stay exactly the same if it were more readily available...but then, i can't put such bad logic past you

[Edited on April 15, 2008 at 4:00 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2008 3:57:25 PM

I really enjoyed the south park episode where the town goes into a propraganda campaign on how pot supports terrorism and is evil. The boys then go on an adventure and discover its all bullshit. This is when stan's dad goes into his monologue/moral lesson on how they really don't want him to smoke just because it takes away motivation to do more productive things with his freetime like practicing sports, creating art, etc.

4/15/2008 4:34:41 PM

^^I never said it would stay the same.

The point is that it doesn't matter whether or not non-medicinal marijuana use would go up. It's wrong to deny people comfort and relief because some other people might be more likely to get stoned without a prescription.

4/15/2008 4:43:30 PM

^ the thing is, I AGREE WITH YOU...NOWHERE in my post did i say that it should be vetoed...rather, i stated that it IS a valid concern

drugs that are already very strictly controlled still end up being used in ways they're not intended, and pot would end up the same way...the funny thing is, as much as i (personally) think that pot users are pathetic people who need to learn to enjoy life instead of pissing it away on drugs, i'm in favor of legalization, for both medicinal and recreational use...it's just that i think that current legislation, as it stands right now, is so poorly equipped to handle it that it's asking for a train wreck

[Edited on April 15, 2008 at 4:49 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2008 4:45:24 PM

^It's not a valid concern though. Of all the prescription drugs that are used illegally, marijuana would be the one where its illegal use is not a valid concern.

And could you explain what you mean by "train wreck?"

4/15/2008 4:52:45 PM

Quote :

"It's not a valid concern though. Of all the prescription drugs that are used illegally, marijuana would be the one where its illegal use is not a valid concern."

i don't understand where you're coming from...how can the increase of availability of mind-altering substances in a society where they're not allowed (and therefore in a society that's not prepared to deal with it) NOT be a concern AT ALL? i'm not implying that the apocalypse would come - just that increased availability would mean increased usage and unless you're convinced that all users are responsible adults with common sense (a serious mistake), you've got to at least ALLOW for the possibility of increased problems

Quote :

"And could you explain what you mean by "train wreck?""

even people who drink before they're 21 tend to get pretty trashed on their 21st...now imagine what would happen if all of these people, who have been sneaking around the law, have their 21st birthday at the same time...you really don't see a potential issue with an explosion of stoners if they made it legal one day without any ability to regulate? OF COURSE it would EVENTUALLY even out as people grow up (i daresay that as people get older and more mature, they smoke less pot because they realize there's more to life, but what would i know?)...eventually marijuana could be handled more easily, but you can't seriously believe everything would just be normal and peachy the day that pot becomes something you can pick up at food lion?

[Edited on April 15, 2008 at 4:59 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2008 4:57:23 PM

Quote :

"you're convinced that all users are responsible adults with common sense (a serious mistake), "

and you're obviously convinced that nobody that uses pot can be a responsible adult with common sense (a serious mistake)

[Edited on April 15, 2008 at 5:03 PM. Reason : typo]

4/15/2008 5:03:19 PM

Quote :

"and you're obviously convinced that nobody that uses pot can be a responsible adult with common sense (a serious mistake)"

i'm sorry...where did i state that? please, by all means, point it out

4/15/2008 5:05:45 PM

somewhat implied...

Quote :

"i (personally) think that pot users are pathetic people who need to learn to enjoy life instead of pissing it away on drugs"

not everyone that uses pot does it every day.. or does it enough to affect their everyday life..

[Edited on April 15, 2008 at 5:07 PM. Reason : ..]

4/15/2008 5:06:45 PM

^ *sigh*...it's people like you that there's no point in talking to...yes, i make no secret of the fact that i think it's truly pathetic to waste your time doing something like smoking weed...but i apply that same rule to myself and include things like alcohol...you might be able to call me a prude, but you can't call me a hypocrite

i didn't say people can't smoke weed responsibly...i know people who don't do it daily, and when they do it, they're safe and responsible about it (just like people SHOULD be about alcohol)...but acting like marijuana users will automatically be more responsible than those who drink alcohol (which is EXACTLY what BridgetSPK implied by saying that the increased availability is not a valid concern) is downright STUPID...just because SOME (i won't say most and i won't say only a few, because i don't know) pot users are responsible in their actions does not mean that there won't be some that are irresponsible, just like those who use alcohol...do you disagree? really?

4/15/2008 5:18:35 PM

Quote :

"quagmire02: i don't understand where you're coming from...how can the increase of availability of mind-altering substances in a society where they're not allowed (and therefore in a society that's not prepared to deal with it) NOT be a concern AT ALL? i'm not implying that the apocalypse would come - just that increased availability would mean increased usage and unless you're convinced that all users are responsible adults with common sense (a serious mistake), you've got to at least ALLOW for the possibility of increased problems"

Dude, pot is already very, very available. Medicinal marijuana laws increase its availability by a tad so usage might increase by a tad so "problems" might increase by a tad. Yes, ten extra people will be renting Half Baked...you'll have to wait a bit longer for it to come in the mail from Netflix.

Quote :

"quagmire02: even people who drink before they're 21 tend to get pretty trashed on their 21st...now imagine what would happen if all of these people, who have been sneaking around the law, have their 21st birthday at the same time...you really don't see a potential issue with an explosion of stoners if they made it legal one day without any ability to regulate? OF COURSE it would EVENTUALLY even out as people grow up (i daresay that as people get older and more mature, they smoke less pot because they realize there's more to life, but what would i know?)...eventually marijuana could be handled more easily, but you can't seriously believe everything would just be normal and peachy the day that pot becomes something you can pick up at food lion?"

Who says legalizing it wouldn't come with regulation? The government would regulate and tax that shit to the max.

And, no, I'm not worried about a stoner explosion. At this very moment, thousands of 14 year-olds are trying pot for the first time before mom and dad get home from work. Don't be afraid. Everything's gonna be okay just like it's been okay for the past forty years.

4/15/2008 5:25:09 PM

^^ no, when you put it that way, i have to agree..

i know some people that partake.. some do it responsibly, some have graduate degrees, some are business owners..

on the flip side, i know a few that are that loser that is 30 and still lives at home with mom and dad, doesnt have a job, and smokes their life away...

[Edited on April 15, 2008 at 5:25 PM. Reason : ^^]

4/15/2008 5:25:36 PM

4/15/2008 5:29:51 PM

Quote :

"Dude, pot is already very, very available. Medicinal marijuana laws increase its availability by a tad so usage might increase by a tad so "problems" might increase by a tad. Yes, ten extra people will be renting Half Baked...you'll have to wait a bit longer for it to come in the mail from Netflix."

that's your opinion, and i have mine...but since you have absolutely jack shit in the way of a basis, and i, at least, have a basic understanding (which you obviously lack) of human nature, i'm going to go ahead and assume that irresponsible people, when given increased means by which to be irresponsible, will increase in their irresponsibility...please try to pull your head out of your ass long enough to understand that i am NOT (and have not been) saying that all users will start driving stoned and killed 5-year-olds on bikes...but you'd have to be truly stupid not to think that there'd be in increase of incidents (not necessarily killed children, but incidents as a whole)

Quote :

"Who says legalizing it wouldn't come with regulation? The government would regulate and tax that shit to the max. And, no, I'm not worried about a stoner explosion. At this very moment, thousands of 14 year-olds are trying pot for the first time before mom and dad get home from work. Don't be afraid. Everything's gonna be okay just like it's been okay for the past forty years."

which is why i specifically made that a point...that appropriate legislation would have to come with legalization, but that as it stands right now, in minnesota (you know, the topic of this thread), there is no legislation to deal with increased marijuana usage, even if they legalized it for medicinal use...so you'd have an increase (well, you think that not a single person would ever possibly smoke if it became more available, but i'm going to assume that at least one other person would) in usage, without the legislation to govern it (because, of course, they'd still be getting it illegally, just more easily than they can already)

who said i'm WORRIED about a stoner explosion? you're fooling yourself if you think i lose sleep over it...people have been using pot for various purposes for well over the 40 years you seem to think is the only time in history it's been used...but do you really disagree with my 21st birthday analogy? REALLY? all these people who have had to buy it relatively behind the law, who truly enjoy pot, are just going to keep going as if it's no big deal? that you won't see ANY increase in usage? i guess i can't argue with naïveté and/or a lack of education or common sense

Quote :

"no, when you put it that way, i have to agree.. i know some people that partake.. some do it responsibly, some have graduate degrees, some are business owners.. on the flip side, i know a few that are that loser that is 30 and still lives at home with mom and dad, doesnt have a job, and smokes their life away..."

exactly my point...a kid i went to high school with smoked CONSTANTLY...he made dean's list in nuclear engineering every semester (in fact, he claimed it really helped him focus)...but then you've got the other people (not everyone, but a significant portion, i would say) who really are just loser stoners...and, while i agree that people who are high are less dangerous than those who are drunk, losing control of yourself (specifically your ability to make coherent or rational decisions) is asking for trouble IF they aren't doing it responsibly...that's all that i'm saying...the risk of increasing availability needs to be considered and dealt with as part of the overall decision, not that because there's risk it should be vetoed

[Edited on April 15, 2008 at 5:41 PM. Reason : .]

4/15/2008 5:39:39 PM

First off, you're talking about two things interchangeably--medical marijuana and the legalization of marijuana. You're going to have to be more precise if you want to communicate effectively.

Also, don't insult me. A simple "you suck" or "fuck you" is acceptable, but don't lace your posts with insults. It's distracting.

Quote :

"quagmire02: that's your opinion, and i have mine...but since you have absolutely jack shit in the way of a basis, and i, at least, have a basic understanding (which you obviously lack) of human nature, i'm going to go ahead and assume that irresponsible people, when given increased means by which to be irresponsible, will increase in their irresponsibility..."

I understand human nature. I also smoked marijuana heavily for a number of years.

Now, you're the one arguing that medicinal marijuana will lead to an increased amount irresponsibility. I'm going to need a little more than "I'm quagmire and I understand human nature" to agree with you on that one. You haven't even proven that the allowance for medicinal marijuana increases the availability of marijuana. It's already wildly available! If it increases at all, it's by an insignificant amount.

Quote :

"quagmire02: please try to pull your head out of your ass long enough to understand that i am NOT (and have not been) saying that all users will start driving stoned and killed 5-year-olds on bikes...but you'd have to be truly stupid not to think that there'd be in increase of incidents (not necessarily killed children, but incidents as a whole)"

I never said you thought marijuana users would start running over children on bikes. But you used the words "explosion of stoners." Come on, dude...you act like you don't really care about the issue but then you come with such rhetorical language...

EXPLOSION

OF

STONERS

Quote :

"quagmire02: which is why i specifically made that a point...that appropriate legislation would have to come with legalization, but that as it stands right now, in minnesota (you know, the topic of this thread), there is no legislation to deal with increased marijuana usage, even if they legalized it for medicinal use...so you'd have an increase (well, you think that not a single person would ever possibly smoke if it became more available, but i'm going to assume that at least one other person would) in usage, without the legislation to govern it (because, of course, they'd still be getting it illegally, just more easily than they can already)"

They do have legislation in place to deal with increased marijuana usage--that would be the existing laws on the books. Do you want an extra law against it or something? What exactly is your point here?

Quote :

"quagmire02: who said i'm WORRIED about a stoner explosion? you're fooling yourself if you think i lose sleep over it...people have been using pot for various purposes for well over the 40 years you seem to think is the only time in history it's been used..."

I realize it's been used a lot longer than that. I was referencing the time period in American history that it's been used widely across the board.

Quote :

"quagmire02: but do you really disagree with my 21st birthday analogy? REALLY? all these people who have had to buy it relatively behind the law, who truly enjoy pot, are just going to keep going as if it's no big deal? that you won't see ANY increase in usage? i guess i can't argue with naïveté and/or a lack of education or common sense"

I really can't tell what you're talking about. Are you saying that people are going to go on marijuana binges to celebrate the birthday on which they can legally use marijuana? And then get in their cars and cause traffic accidents? Because studies have repeatedly shown that car accidents are not affected by widespread marijuana use. Have you actually read anything legitimate about this topic?

[Edited on April 15, 2008 at 6:20 PM. Reason : ssss]

4/15/2008 6:18:50 PM