Medicinal Puff the Magic Dragon

A mellow place for Bobcats to discuss topics free of political posturing

Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat

Post Reply
User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23938
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Medicinal Puff the Magic Dragon

Post by SonomaCat » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:03 pm

I saw last night that it passed in MT by a wide margin. Did that hold up through the final tally? The commentators were suggesting that it was pretty vaguely worded, and unless the legislature steps in and really ratchets it down with some strict definitions, could be one of the more lenient marijuana laws in the country. What's the talk on the ground up there? Did Montana just go from one of the most puritanical states in terms of drugs to being little Amsterdam (even outside of Amsterdam, MT), or do you think that this will be legislated into something pretty tight so that very few people will actually use it?

Down here, people certainly take liberties with pot use under the "medical marijuana" umbrella. I have heard of a guy who even has a website that he sells it from. He's a registered nurse, and that seems to protect him in large part from convictions. That, and San Francisco is quite willing to look the other way on laws that don't make any sense to begin with.
Last edited by SonomaCat on Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.



User avatar
El_Gato
Member # Retired
Posts: 2926
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: Kalispell

Post by El_Gato » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:14 pm

"Are you a pothead, Fokker?"

All I know is that I've already called Helena to get my license as a distributor. I even plan on turning my garage into a "clinic" if necessary!

I'm stunned not that this passed, but by the margin. I know the PRO-WEED ad campaign had something to do with it. They trotted out all these sick-looking people talking about how ganjah(sp?) was the only way they survived their treatment.

My neighbor said she was going to get a prescription for her kids' health. I stated I didn't know any of them were sick. She said they weren't, but without her weed, she might kill the the little ******! LOL


Grizzlies: 2-5 when it matters most

User avatar
'93HonoluluCat
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Honolulu, HI

Post by '93HonoluluCat » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:06 pm

BAC and El Gato, thank you for showing me exactly why we shouldn't create loopholes in our federal law, and keep marijuana illegal.

I'd like to find a county by county results map. I would guess that Missoula, Gallatin and Flathead counties were the main counties in favor of legalizing medicinal marijuana--they're also some of the largest counties, population-wise, so I would be suspect of some of the other counties' support of the ballot measure.

I really hope the controls work, because the last thing Montana needs is to be like Missoula--completely covered in marijuana smoke.

What is more interesting for me to note is that not only did Montana legalize medicinal marijuana--typically an act of a liberal electorate--but they also defended traditional marriage by the same large margin at marijuana--typically an act of a conservative electorate.



User avatar
kmax
Site Admin
Posts: 8689
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:23 pm
Location: Belgrade, MT
Contact:

Post by kmax » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:18 pm

93HonoluluCat,

Here is a county by county breakdown of the voting on all the ballot issues:

http://network.ap.org/dynamic/files/ele ... N=POLITICS

Looks there was only a handful of smaller counties that actually ended up with a majority against the initiative and none of them were overly strong majorities.


“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.” -- Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon

User avatar
El_Gato
Member # Retired
Posts: 2926
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: Kalispell

Post by El_Gato » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:25 pm

Could it be there are more Californians here than we thought? lol

Seriously, Honolulu, if you're going to try to figure out the schizoid nature of Montana voters, you may end up in an institution yourself. We elect W by a wide margin, and by a similar margin install a liberal in the Governor's mansion.

My very simple thought on why Mr. Schweitzer won? Judy Martz. If historians ever bother to compile a list of the worst/most ineffective governors/administrations in US history, there is NO doubt in my mind that Judy would rank in the Top Ten.

It seemed her motto may have been "So many blunders, so little time..."


Grizzlies: 2-5 when it matters most

User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23938
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:41 pm

'93HonoluluCat wrote:BAC and El Gato, thank you for showing me exactly why we shouldn't create loopholes in our federal law, and keep marijuana illegal.

I'd like to find a county by county results map. I would guess that Missoula, Gallatin and Flathead counties were the main counties in favor of legalizing medicinal marijuana--they're also some of the largest counties, population-wise, so I would be suspect of some of the other counties' support of the ballot measure.

I really hope the controls work, because the last thing Montana needs is to be like Missoula--completely covered in marijuana smoke.

What is more interesting for me to note is that not only did Montana legalize medicinal marijuana--typically an act of a liberal electorate--but they also defended traditional marriage by the same large margin at marijuana--typically an act of a conservative electorate.


Or we should completely decriminalize the stuff and treat it the same way we do its more dangerous cousin, alcohol. As a small government person, that seems to be the better way to go. Fewer people in jails, more happy people, and fewer hangovers.

I agree on the seeming contradiction in the voting trends: granting of more freedoms on one hand, and codifying discrimination based on religious dogma on the other.

As an aside, are the current anti-gay marriage laws of the present going to look to the people of 2044 as silly and embarrassing as we view the anti-interracial marriage laws of the 1950's? The arguments used to justify both are startlingly similar, although everyone now realizes that it was truly racism, and not any rationale thought, that created the 1950's laws. It will take awhile before everyone comes to a similar realization about the current laws.



User avatar
BozoneCat
Member # Retired
Posts: 2707
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:15 pm
Location: Boise, ID

Post by BozoneCat » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:44 pm

Brown ran an absolutely horrible, horrible campaign. I am surprised to see that he spent over $200 - he was practically invisible all throughout the campaign. Then on the other hand you have Schweitzer, the quintessential baby hugger - you couldn't turn over in your bed without seeing his ads plastered all over your other pillow! Schweitzer also benefitted from the incompetence of Judy Martz, and Montanans' disallusionment with the ever-shrinking economy in this state... of course, then they go vote to uphold the ban on cyanide mining, which would have provided a big boost to the economy. I think that in general, Montanans showed that they are pretty disgusted with the way things have been going over the last 20 years, and they figure what the hell, let's give a Democrat a shot and see what he can do. If he does poorly, he will lose his re-election bid in 4 years by a landslide though.


GO CATS GO!!!

Image
Image

User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23938
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Wed Nov 03, 2004 3:57 pm

BozoneCat wrote:Brown ran an absolutely horrible, horrible campaign. I am surprised to see that he spent over $200 - he was practically invisible all throughout the campaign. Then on the other hand you have Schweitzer, the quintessential baby hugger - you couldn't turn over in your bed without seeing his ads plastered all over your other pillow! Schweitzer also benefitted from the incompetence of Judy Martz, and Montanans' disallusionment with the ever-shrinking economy in this state... of course, then they go vote to uphold the ban on cyanide mining, which would have provided a big boost to the economy. I think that in general, Montanans showed that they are pretty disgusted with the way things have been going over the last 20 years, and they figure what the hell, let's give a Democrat a shot and see what he can do. If he does poorly, he will lose his re-election bid in 4 years by a landslide though.


I admit that I'm not really up on this topic to the extent I should be (although I know the Shammel family that was featured in all of the anti-cyanide ads), but is cyanide leach mining only used for gold mining? In other words, is it only used for the mining of metals that have no real use?

I'm not anti-mining per se, as there are certain things that we really do need to mine, but gold always seemed like a silly one. It does have some industrial uses, but for the most part, it seems like a vanity metal. If you've ever seen the Little Rockies or the Mocassin Mountains near Hilger, you know that they basically tear down the mountain forever in order to extract some shiny rock. Sure, the locals get some new pickups out of it for a few years (and often opt to not go to college in order to work the mines, and regret it later in life), until the mine shuts down, but it's not exactly something that is going to give the state a sustainable source of jobs for any length of time. Gold has a history of creating booms, leaving ghost towns, and making people rich who live far away from the mine (or move away as soon as the mine goes bust). There are thousands or examples of that all across the west, most notably in the San Francisco area. All the money ended up in SF, and all of the land where the gold came from was really mucked up for a long time.

I suppose gold mining has to happen, but I'd just as soon see it happen in someplace that's already ugly, like Nevada. Maybe the state of Montana could provide incentives for development companies to locate in Montana, and then the Montanans could exploit the resources of Nevada, so the money ends up in Montana in the end.



User avatar
'93HonoluluCat
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Honolulu, HI

Post by '93HonoluluCat » Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:58 pm

I will be the first to admit it is hard to follow a political race from 3000 miles away, despite my best attempts to the contrary.

However, I agree with El Gato that it appears to me the election of Schweitzer was an anti-Martz vote. When I was fortunate enough to be stationed at Malmstrom during his first run against Martz (2000) I thought his campaign was too focused on one issue to gain broad support. His stance and campaign tactics and strategy may have changed--but if he ran similarly to his 2000 campaign, I would again classify this as a anti-Martz campaign.

As staunch a conservative as I am--and I know that fact surprises a lot of you that read my blatherings on this board :D --even I thought Martz was lame.

KMax--thanks for the link to the Billings Gazette "by county" link. It shows what I had thought. As far as the marijuana vote goes, Missoula and the increasingly liberal Gallatin counties were two of the most adamantly "for" the initiative, and two of the most tight results with regard to the marriage initiative.



User avatar
DCC2MSU
Honorable Mention All-BobcatNation
Posts: 797
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 12:35 am
Location: Denver, CO

Post by DCC2MSU » Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:40 pm

I would have to agree with the whole Anti-Martz idea. I always felt she was elected on Raciot's (sp?) name the first time, and never did anything to prove otherwise in my opinion. The one thing I remember her doing was bucking Raciot on the tobacco lawsuit money immediately. I don't recall whatever happened with that issue. Was that the money being brought up again recently? Is the previous Schweitzer campaign you are referring to against Burns? He didn't run for governor in 2000. Was that when he started the Canadian prescriptions push?



User avatar
BozoneCat
Member # Retired
Posts: 2707
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:15 pm
Location: Boise, ID

Post by BozoneCat » Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:58 pm

I've never understood Dems' position on bashing Republicans for outsourcing jobs, yet promoting going to Canada to get our prescription drugs. I understand that drugs are expensive for everyone, but if we start going elsewhere to buy our drugs, those horrible evil pharmaceutical companies that invest huge amounts of money into research and development of new drugs (often with little success) will be left without the money to fund new research. I foresee this becoming a huge issue in the near future, and I wish people would take it upon themselves to actually find some information before voting solely with their pockets. At the same time, I hope pharmaceutical companies will learn something from all this and go back to focusing on helping sick people as opposed to making ridiculous amounts of money.
Last edited by BozoneCat on Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.


GO CATS GO!!!

Image
Image

User avatar
rtb
Moderator
Posts: 8021
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:15 pm
Location: Bend, OR
Contact:

Post by rtb » Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:21 pm

BozoneCat wrote:I've never understood Dems' position on bashing Republicans for outsourcing jobs, yet promoting going to Canada to get our prescription drugs. I understand that drugs are expensive for everyone, but if we start going elsewhere to buy our drugs, those horrible evil pharmaceutical companies that invest huge amounts of money into research and development of new drugs (often with little success) will be left without the money to fund new research. I foresee this becoming a huge issue in the near future, and I wish people would take it upon themselves to actually find some information before voting solely with their pockets. At the same time, I hope pharmaceutical companies will learn something from all this and go back to focusing on helping sick people as opposed to making ridiculous amounts of money.


Very well said!! The cost of developing new drugs is crazy and if the government is going to reduce profits then drug companies will stop trying to innovate. On the other hand do we need to see ads for all these drugs? They spend so much money advertising drugs for what? If I need something the doc will probably prescribe it. Hopefully we can find some middle ground on this issue and encourage innovation and control costs to some degree.



User avatar
'93HonoluluCat
BobcatNation Team Captain
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 3:12 am
Location: Honolulu, HI

Post by '93HonoluluCat » Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:39 pm

DCC2MSU wrote:
Is the previous Schweitzer campaign you are referring to against Burns? He didn't run for governor in 2000. Was that when he started the Canadian prescriptions push?

DCC--thanks for the correction. That's the race I had meant.



User avatar
BozoneCat
Member # Retired
Posts: 2707
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:15 pm
Location: Boise, ID

Post by BozoneCat » Thu Nov 04, 2004 1:51 am

rtb wrote:
BozoneCat wrote:I've never understood Dems' position on bashing Republicans for outsourcing jobs, yet promoting going to Canada to get our prescription drugs. I understand that drugs are expensive for everyone, but if we start going elsewhere to buy our drugs, those horrible evil pharmaceutical companies that invest huge amounts of money into research and development of new drugs (often with little success) will be left without the money to fund new research. I foresee this becoming a huge issue in the near future, and I wish people would take it upon themselves to actually find some information before voting solely with their pockets. At the same time, I hope pharmaceutical companies will learn something from all this and go back to focusing on helping sick people as opposed to making ridiculous amounts of money.


Very well said!! The cost of developing new drugs is crazy and if the government is going to reduce profits then drug companies will stop trying to innovate. On the other hand do we need to see ads for all these drugs? They spend so much money advertising drugs for what? If I need something the doc will probably prescribe it. Hopefully we can find some middle ground on this issue and encourage innovation and control costs to some degree.


Unfortunately, you wouldn't believe the extent to which patients dictate their care to their physicians. All the ads you see on TV and in magazines ends up as a net profit to the tune of hundreds of millions for the pharmaceutical companies. People see these ads, look at a smiling post-coital Jim Bob, then go and specifically request Drug X from their doctor. As long as there is no obvious health risk, doctors will usually prescribe the drug - and their pockets are lined because Jim Bob had to pay for a doctor's visit/consult which only cost the doc 10 minutes of his time, if that. In the case of drugs such as say, Claritin (pre-OTC) or Nexium, patients feel more comfortable being prescribed a drug that has name-recognition to them, as opposed to drugs they may not have heard of but essentially have the same effect in treating allergies and acid reflux. The more a drug can put their name out there and make it more familiar to the consumer, the more that drug will end up being prescribed.

On top of that, you have all these drug reps going out and promoting their drugs to doctors, and the doctors are given "presents" from the pharmaceutical companies based on the amount of prescriptions they write. The amount of money spent by the drug companies to promote their drugs is mind-boggling.

After all this is said and done, you then have to look at things from the drug companies' point of view. They spend hundreds of millions on R & D every year on developing drugs that more often than not never see the market. Then, drug companies have only a ten-year period in which they can sell a new drug before the patent runs out and the market can be flooded with generics. You can understand why a company would want to make enormous sums of money as quickly as possible - they may not be able to make it down the road, at least not on the same scale.

Thankfully, this country has far and away the best health care anywhere on the planet. Uneducated people may think a country such as Canada has it great - "free" health care for all... what they don't see is the tremendous lack of healthy competition and lack accountability. I read an article not too long ago that showed the average wait for a dental cleaning was somewhere around a YEAR! I could make a couple calls and get in to see a dentist this week. There are a lot of serious and legitimate problems with the health care industry in America, and I strongly believe that reforming the way the entire system works is essential if we are to continue the legacy of being the best in the world.


GO CATS GO!!!

Image
Image

hokeyfine
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1120
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:18 am

Post by hokeyfine » Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:12 am

montana is a bizarre state. we pass morality amendments, gay marriage ban, and legalize pot smoking!!!!



Post Reply