The issue of the legalization of marijuana generally buzzes in people's ears, present in the media but recently not rising to the forefront. This is especially the case from a national perspective, recently from which the the economy, foreign policy and now health care reform are in the hot seat.
This article, from yesterday's edition of the San Mateo Daily Journal, is a reminder that particularly in California many advocates' focus has not strayed from marijuana's social and economic role for the next decade.
As is often the case with legal weed, though, a ton of emphasis is placed on precautions to make the operation of the "collective" subtle. This is important for those who are mainly concerned about making medical use of the plant possible, as they know that the more grand the operation of collectives like this one is, the more likely a strong push-back will come soon from the other side.
What do you think? Will collectives like the one in SSF survive? Are they directly concerned with medical marijuana?... or do they reflect a more general trend of public opinion toward more individual choice and freedom?
War for Ukraine Day 786: The Butcher’s Bill for Chernihiv
51 minutes ago
7 comments:
Another one of these topics?
This has to be the fifth or sixth one. Anyways, refer back to the other posts on pot for people's opinions.
I'm sure you'll find the answers to your question somewhere there.
Hey Kevin, thanks for your feedback, but I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree. This post is not addressing whether marijuana should be a choice (Liza's "Herb"), the science behind weed (Mark's "THC Gene found in Cannabis Plant") or just the debate of legalization (Ilan's "Don't Throw Me in Jail, Just Tax My High"). It's talking about medical marijuana collectives, which are a nod at not letting the controversy over generalization penalize those with diseases who would actually benefit from having legal access, such as those with glaucoma.
The fact that a collective is opening in South San Francisco is significant, and based on the activity on these previous posts, it would be fair to deduce that people are passionate about marijuana legalization, they might want to continue discussing it, especially from a new angle of analysisi.
So, much respect to your dedication to this blog so far--but if you're going to be as active as you've been, you're probably going to have to get used to seeing some similar posts. The thing about current events is that they tend to stay current.
Well I bealive that some people really do want to help others out there with glocoma and people who have terminal cancer. But there are still others out there who see this as a loop hole and just use this to there advantage as a "recreational drug". Okland has similar aspects but probly not for the same reasions.
sorry *Oakland
I think that there is great potential in the manipulation of genes to produce desired substances that would make the growth of the entire marijuana plant unnecessary. One could simply produce the necessary substance or part or whatever. I think that because of the tangibility of such technology, legalizing the whole plant in any way sounds like excuses, but correct me if I'm wrong.
Amanda--It is true, you do hear a lot of stories about medical marijuana in the hands of people using it recreationally. This of course could be exaggerated in general but either way it seems to hurt advocacy for its medicinal purposes.
William--that's really interesting! I haven't heard of those initiatives. Are groups currently working on creating transgenic species? If so, do they exist in North America? Also... I think it's worth noting the time when you posted, haha.
"As is often the case with legal weed, though, a ton of emphasis is placed on precautions to make the operation of the "collective" subtle."
I don't think it is possible to make collectives like these subtle. This sure won't escape the attention of people who are looking hard for ways to obtain pot for recreational use.
"Are they directly concerned with medical marijuana?"
From the tone of the article, yes. But only fools are completely certain about this.
Post a Comment