Florida seeks to limit strength of smokable medical marijuana

[Malato]

I have several friends that moved to "The Villages" in FL. They say it is loaded with Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Fuck that shit. Give me open space, a clean woman that doesn't talk too much and has an income.

Lol what does this have to do with 10% limit on THC? Just wanting to diss us Floridians?

 

[dddaver]

It was on the news again last night. Apparently there is also a bill to allow veterans free mmj cards. $75. Big deal. Compared to the $300 doctor rec. and annual renewal fees along with that stupid 3 month doctor/patient relationship required, who cares?

 

[Jellyfish]

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]free mmj cards. $75.[/FONT]" Huh?

 

[Malato]

It was on the news again last night. Apparently there is also a bill to allow veterans free mmj cards. $75. Big deal. Compared to the $300 doctor rec. and annual renewal fees along with that stupid 3 month doctor/patient relationship required, who cares?

I think you dont have to do the 3 month patient/dr relationship anymore. Its 10 days pretty sure. Not sure when that rule changed but I know a few people who did it recently going to those billboard cannabis docs

 

[f-e]

Drs had no trouble prescribing (7) 30mg oxys/ day along with 10mg of barbiturates. Only concern there was how big pharma could prescribe more. Not really sure you, I or the government has the right to dictate what a patient needs. That is a conversation between doctors and patients

I'm not sure where you're from, but you seem to have a totally different hierarchy to what I'm used to. Here, the idea of a prescription being needed, is actually to control what people get.

That's not the patient deciding what they get. It's not the doctor either. The doctor is just following the packets directions like anyone else, and giving you an idea what might be suitable. Ultimately, the upper limit of this isn't the doctors decision though. They're just administration. Working within rules set for them. Which is exactly how they want it, for when they get sued.

What 'prescription' you can get is decided by people much higher up than patients or their doctors. It's the people you say it isn't. The one's shuffling through the results of much testing, to find the most they can tell a doctor they can give, without letting MJ get taken to court and loosing. If you want to blame somebody for this 10%, it's the people that published the study. The gov has given you all it can, while making sure YOU don't get sued. Because somebody will blame the meds, they always do. And any money awarded, is your tax dollar.


This all looks like a load of nonsense to me. Maybe I'm a lightweight, but I can get quite stoned on 20% green, If I take up the challenge. I mean really fucking stoned if I try. I'm quite sure I could get half as stoned on 10%. What ailment requires people to get more stoned than that? Convention says no THC at all is needed, because it's CBD that has medical uses. Nobody is trying to lower the CBD.


The real problem here, isn't that meds have been limited to 10%. It's that there is no recreational MJ. The other problem, is that people refuse to accept that meds are not for recreation.

 

[Malato]

I'm not sure where you're from, but you seem to have a totally different hierarchy to what I'm used to. Here, the idea of a prescription being needed, is actually to control what people get.

That's not the patient deciding what they get. It's not the doctor either. The doctor is just following the packets directions like anyone else, and giving you an idea what might be suitable. Ultimately, the upper limit of this isn't the doctors decision though. They're just administration. Working within rules set for them. Which is exactly how they want it, for when they get sued.

What 'prescription' you can get is decided by people much higher up than patients or their doctors. It's the people you say it isn't. The one's shuffling through the results of much testing, to find the most they can tell a doctor they can give, without letting MJ get taken to court and loosing. If you want to blame somebody for this 10%, it's the people that published the study. The gov has given you all it can, while making sure YOU don't get sued. Because somebody will blame the meds, they always do. And any money awarded, is your tax dollar.


This all looks like a load of nonsense to me. Maybe I'm a lightweight, but I can get quite stoned on 20% green, If I take up the challenge. I mean really fucking stoned if I try. I'm quite sure I could get half as stoned on 10%. What ailment requires people to get more stoned than that? Convention says no THC at all is needed, because it's CBD that has medical uses. Nobody is trying to lower the CBD.


The real problem here, isn't that meds have been limited to 10%. It's that there is no recreational MJ. The other problem, is that people refuse to accept that meds are not for recreation.

There's some good peer reviewed research on medical benefits of THC especially on cancer, and nausea. I believe it's a large part of lowering pressure for glaucoma as well. Medical should be held to higher standards then recreational in my opinion but it doesn't negate the necessity for high thc medical cannabis.

 

['Boogieman']

I'm not sure where you're from, but you seem to have a totally different hierarchy to what I'm used to. Here, the idea of a prescription being needed, is actually to control what people get.

That's not the patient deciding what they get. It's not the doctor either. The doctor is just following the packets directions like anyone else, and giving you an idea what might be suitable. Ultimately, the upper limit of this isn't the doctors decision though. They're just administration. Working within rules set for them. Which is exactly how they want it, for when they get sued.

What 'prescription' you can get is decided by people much higher up than patients or their doctors. It's the people you say it isn't. The one's shuffling through the results of much testing, to find the most they can tell a doctor they can give, without letting MJ get taken to court and loosing. If you want to blame somebody for this 10%, it's the people that published the study. The gov has given you all it can, while making sure YOU don't get sued. Because somebody will blame the meds, they always do. And any money awarded, is your tax dollar.


This all looks like a load of nonsense to me. Maybe I'm a lightweight, but I can get quite stoned on 20% green, If I take up the challenge. I mean really fucking stoned if I try. I'm quite sure I could get half as stoned on 10%. What ailment requires people to get more stoned than that? Convention says no THC at all is needed, because it's CBD that has medical uses. Nobody is trying to lower the CBD.


The real problem here, isn't that meds have been limited to 10%. It's that there is no recreational MJ. The other problem, is that people refuse to accept that meds are not for recreation.

So you believe only hemp (cbd) has medical values? Tell that to the cancer patients that need thc to help them eat, or the insomniacs that need powerful indica buds or extracts to help them sleep.

 

[f-e]

You have both answered a big question for me. THC can have medical use. That explains them letting us have some in the medicine. Conventional thinking, which any search engine will confirm, is that CBD has medical uses, not THC. But they, like you, are seeing past that general idea. That has to be a good thing.

10% though. Where is that thread about weed getting stronger over the years? I know the munchies arn't a new thing. And insomnia is cbd surely?

 

['Boogieman']

You have both answered a big question for me. THC can have medical use. That explains them letting us have some in the medicine. Conventional thinking, which any search engine will confirm, is that CBD has medical uses, not THC. But they, like you, are seeing past that general idea. That has to be a good thing.

10% though. Where is that thread about weed getting stronger over the years? I know the munchies arn't a new thing. And insomnia is cbd surely?

Cbd does nothing for my dads insomnia, the only thing that works is the purest indicas I can find that have a high thc content and left to mature late. I think cbn plays a role too. They test higher than 10% thc though I know that.

 

[JustSumTomatoes]

So you believe only hemp (cbd) has medical values? Tell that to the cancer patients that need thc to help them eat, or the insomniacs that need powerful indica buds or extracts to help them sleep.

I'm one of those insomniacs and I approve this message

 

[rolandomota]

It's funny how they want a thc cap to prevent people from going crazy but they are actually encouraging people to grow these low thc no ceiling sativa's that freak people out more often than the 20 plus strains

What's next a ban on holding your hit?

 

[Drewsif]

What's next a ban on holding your hit?

A ban on killer Africanized weed (the high ceiling stuff of the past most kids today would think was laced)

I think classic Sativa must have converted to delta 11 or whatever it is that happens with edibles in the liver.

 

[Tudo]

The medical pros had me on 8 of the big percocets a day. It's been partially responsible for destroying my gastro-intestinal system which I have now had the pleasure of visiting surgeons a number of times, to no avail.


Oye if I only pushed myself to smoke more of the higher thc cannabis sooner as it's all resulted in a reduction of the percet poison by 90% ( 90% less )

 

[JustSumTomatoes]

I'm glad to be part of a small community that despite the governments attempts to tell us what is safe, what medicines to take, where to buy it, and what taxes to pay on it, we throw up the middle finger and care for ourselves and loved ones anyway.... And thrive while doing it. This attitude is in the spirt of every true patriot.

 

[Badfishy1]

I'm not sure where you're from, but you seem to have a totally different hierarchy to what I'm used to. Here, the idea of a prescription being needed, is actually to control what people get.

That's not the patient deciding what they get. It's not the doctor either. The doctor is just following the packets directions like anyone else, and giving you an idea what might be suitable. Ultimately, the upper limit of this isn't the doctors decision though. They're just administration. Working within rules set for them. Which is exactly how they want it, for when they get sued.

What 'prescription' you can get is decided by people much higher up than patients or their doctors. It's the people you say it isn't. The one's shuffling through the results of much testing, to find the most they can tell a doctor they can give, without letting MJ get taken to court and loosing. If you want to blame somebody for this 10%, it's the people that published the study. The gov has given you all it can, while making sure YOU don't get sued. Because somebody will blame the meds, they always do. And any money awarded, is your tax dollar.


This all looks like a load of nonsense to me. Maybe I'm a lightweight, but I can get quite stoned on 20% green, If I take up the challenge. I mean really fucking stoned if I try. I'm quite sure I could get half as stoned on 10%. What ailment requires people to get more stoned than that? Convention says no THC at all is needed, because it's CBD that has medical uses. Nobody is trying to lower the CBD.


The real problem here, isn't that meds have been limited to 10%. It's that there is no recreational MJ. The other problem, is that people refuse to accept that meds are not for recreation.

Sounds great in theory, but you obviously aren’t aware of the pill mill epidemic in Fl. Don’t confuse what you THINK should be the hierarchy as to what the hierarchy actually is. Who in your opinion should be in charge of telling Doctors and patients what is needed? The manufacturers? Take a look at the lawsuits the Purdue just paid out claiming oxy’s were non addictive. The gubbament? Over in England people are going blind because the gubbament refuses lasick surgery until it’s too late. The pharmacist? He does nothing more than bean count what the doctor prescribes... not really seeing how either of these is more knowledgeable that the patient suffering said ailments. Also, if you would be so kind as to point me in the direction of a case study showing CBD alone helps with PTSD.

 

[soil margin]

The medical pros had me on 8 of the big percocets a day. It's been partially responsible for destroying my gastro-intestinal system which I have now had the pleasure of visiting surgeons a number of times, to no avail.


Oye if I only pushed myself to smoke more of the higher thc cannabis sooner as it's all resulted in a reduction of the percet poison by 90% ( 90% less )

How long were you on the 8 percs a day for? 8 big percs is 80mg of hydro and that's definitely alot, but I've known some guys on 10-20 a day for awhile though, and they seemed to survive somehow.

 

[f-e]

Sounds great in theory, but you obviously aren’t aware of the pill mill epidemic in Fl. Don’t confuse what you THINK should be the hierarchy as to what the hierarchy actually is. Who in your opinion should be in charge of telling Doctors and patients what is needed? The manufacturers? Take a look at the lawsuits the Purdue just paid out claiming oxy’s were non addictive. The gubbament? Over in England people are going blind because the gubbament refuses lasick surgery until it’s too late. The pharmacist? He does nothing more than bean count what the doctor prescribes... not really seeing how either of these is more knowledgeable that the patient suffering said ailments. Also, if you would be so kind as to point me in the direction of a case study showing CBD alone helps with PTSD.

I don't understand. Are you saying you should be able to take anything you want, then blame somebody else for it?

The Purdue set guidelines, and was wrong. But what does this matter, if we should all just get what we want without guidance anyway.

What happened there, was people got a prescription, that was wrong, and so sued. The doctor was fine though, because like your pharmacist, he is just following the book. Written that time by Purdue. It's exactly what I have been saying. The blame has to stop somewhere, and there will be blame. There always is. The Gov's job is to protect you, and the doctors, by seeing guidelines are set, that reflect research papers. It all boils down to what a judge will decide. The prosecution will produce paperwork that >10% is bad. So this is all a doctor can safely prescribe. I don't want you beating him with a stick until he gives you more. Landing him in jail. He needs the gov to protect him from you, by saying no >10% weed is allowed.


I have asked what needs more than 10%. Is it PTSD? I doubt anything needs more than 10%, which is really quite a simple point to make. The sort of thing a judge will understand.




I'm not sure what to make of the indicas taken to destruction, in order to combat sleep disorders. We are talking THC though here, and neither indica or sativa matters. Well.. sativa's are leaning 0.4% further towards THC, but it's not the divide people expect. I imagine it's fully finished indica's or sativa weed that's been sat around for months that works. Not for it's THC content though. Indica plants have a more definite finish than sats, and at the end are producing THC slower than it's converting to CBN. I myself chop early by most standards, because it limits the effect you're looking for from longer flowering. I like the racey wide awake hit from THC, not the drowsy heavy feeling from the same plants in the final weeks. So I totally get where your coming from, and think your mistaken that he wants THC. In a court, I'm offering some science that's a little beyond 'my dad says' so I'm afraid I can't let this story effect my thoughts on what THC does. You're actually enforcing my belief.


I can't deny the logic behind this decision, just to remain one of the sheeple. I'm not saying I agree with it, but the decision making process is what it is. The only move here, is to discredit that paper that says 10% is bad. Or counter it. Because it exists, and will influence a court. Just as it has the local government.

 

[Badfishy1]

I don't understand. Are you saying you should be able to take anything you want, then blame somebody else for it?

The Purdue set guidelines, and was wrong. But what does this matter, if we should all just get what we want without guidance anyway.

What happened there, was people got a prescription, that was wrong, and so sued. The doctor was fine though, because like your pharmacist, he is just following the book. Written that time by Purdue. It's exactly what I have been saying. The blame has to stop somewhere, and there will be blame. There always is. The Gov's job is to protect you, and the doctors, by seeing guidelines are set, that reflect research papers. It all boils down to what a judge will decide. The prosecution will produce paperwork that >10% is bad. So this is all a doctor can safely prescribe. I don't want you beating him with a stick until he gives you more. Landing him in jail. He needs the gov to protect him from you, by saying no >10% weed is allowed.


I have asked what needs more than 10%. Is it PTSD? I doubt anything needs more than 10%, which is really quite a simple point to make. The sort of thing a judge will understand.




I'm not sure what to make of the indicas taken to destruction, in order to combat sleep disorders. We are talking THC though here, and neither indica or sativa matters. Well.. sativa's are leaning 0.4% further towards THC, but it's not the divide people expect. I imagine it's fully finished indica's or sativa weed that's been sat around for months that works. Not for it's THC content though. Indica plants have a more definite finish than sats, and at the end are producing THC slower than it's converting to CBN. I myself chop early by most standards, because it limits the effect you're looking for from longer flowering. I like the racey wide awake hit from THC, not the drowsy heavy feeling from the same plants in the final weeks. So I totally get where your coming from, and think your mistaken that he wants THC. In a court, I'm offering some science that's a little beyond 'my dad says' so I'm afraid I can't let this story effect my thoughts on what THC does. You're actually enforcing my belief.


I can't deny the logic behind this decision, just to remain one of the sheeple. I'm not saying I agree with it, but the decision making process is what it is. The only move here, is to discredit that paper that says 10% is bad. Or counter it. Because it exists, and will influence a court. Just as it has the local government.

Purdue set guidelines that were wrong-
No, Purdue lied time and again about non addictive properties

What happened there people got a wrong prescription-
No, the medical community cashed in on a KNOWN cash grab that has destroyed millions of families and started in motion a heroin problem that has gripped the nation.

Govt’s job is to protect me-
No. Absolutely NOT the job of the Gov. Not really sure how a govt a agency bringing crack cocaine into LA is then passing ridiculous drug laws essentially removing the male figure out of the black family is ‘protecting’ anybody.

I never once said a patient should have the final say in what he is prescribed. So not really sure where that comment comes from. Anyhow, nice work shilling for and defending big pharma, but they spend millions and millions yearly for PR purposes, hope you are getting yours

 

[Gry]

Averages for Big Pharma are currently running 14 prescriptions per year, per person.

I find very feeble comfort in anything related to that pathetic excuse for an industry.

Pus eats morphine as if it were a breakfast snack.

 

[Dropped Cat]

The medical pros had me on 8 of the big percocets a day. It's been partially responsible for destroying my gastro-intestinal system which I have now had the pleasure of visiting surgeons a number of times, to no avail.


Oye if I only pushed myself to smoke more of the higher thc cannabis sooner as it's all resulted in a reduction of the percet poison by 90% ( 90% less )

Prescription opioids are notorious for the damage to the GI.

Have you had surgery removal of any bowel sections yet, I wonder.

Damn bro.