Alaska Nurse-Politician Perpetuates Slanted Weed Info.

[moose eater]

I told folks before legalization succeeded here at the State level that the prohibitionists who'd dedicated their lives to repression of others, would not simply pack their bags and go home if we won. That like with the 1975 Ravin Decision, we'd be trying to hold our gained ground for a long time to come, and would quite possibly watch the goal posts shift again and again.

Whether that will be to the same degrees we witnessed after 1975, up through 2001, is yet to be seen. But that it was coming in one size, shape, or form...

I strongly suspect that such a partisan person as Ms. Geissel, with her credentials, writing pieces like this before an election re. a Governor's race, is no coincidence or accident. I'd wager that there've been a number of back-room/closed-door meetings, strategizing how to reverse this thing, in the State of Alaska. Could probably fairly accurately guess as to a number of the players who would be present at such meetings.

For years, there's been a sort of lethargy in the activists and folks invested in this issue where a win resulted in an undeserved sense of finality to the struggle. Premature celebrations, imo.

Fanatics for prohibition don't rest, and therefore, neither can we. Another perpetual struggle brought by persons bent on control and delusions of one boogeyman or another.

Dr. Strangelove meets Anslinger.

The very fact that such folks can win elections should concern us all.

 

[moose eater]

If anyone with a social sciences or medical background and better (higher speed) internet connection than I have, is interested in assisting in compiling vetted, peer-reviewed studies that refute Ms. Geissels implied or direct statements/claims, please PM me.

A formal complaint to her licensing board will require a substantial amount of credible information/research to be cited, to establish with scant doubt that she is putting the proverbial 'cart before the horse' for political biases &/or purposes, and thus, abusing her privilege & status as a licensed nurse practitioner, in light of her requirements re. her license.

And yes, Gypsy, I meant to reply to your pharmaceuticals comment. I have an older Physicians' Desk Reference that sits atop my book shelf above my computer. Rarely get it out unless needing to do specific research on older drugs that may be required for local ills, etc. But some of the newer pharmacopeia on the very frequent television advertisements in the U.S. (many here don't realize that in some countries, Big Pharma isn't permitted to ply their trade on t.v.) typically carry a listing of side-effects that are morbidly hilarious.

They now make drugs to address the side-effects of other drugs. And sometimes the side-effects of many of their newer potions are 2-3 times the length (or more) of the supposed benefits listed, and the supposed benefits are often targeting conditions that are relatively normal or typical of age, etc.

The Pharmaceutical industry runs one of the highest-paid lobbying efforts in D.C., often doing research for their new patents on federal grant money, then, after constructing what ever potions they decide to conjure, they apply a 10,000, 20,000, 100,000 (pick a number) % mark-up on the drugs in question.

If I screwed folks who backed me financially like that, I'd probably be MIA in a shallow grave some place. And rightfully so. Here we just accept it as common business practices. ;^>)