The whole point of free speech is not to make ideas exempt from criticism but to expose them to it.

Saturday, October 9, 2010

Five questions

I am going to publish the five questions for Jo Prang right here, right now. It doesn't matter if she sees them, because she can't do anything with them except decide she doesn't want to show up Wednesday night at the joint issues forum put on by Democracy in Action and Peace and Justice.

1. Currently, South Dakota law prescribes up to a year in jail and up to a $500 fine for possession of an ounce of cannabis. Possession of six live cannabis plants could get a person several years in jail.

Do you think that people who are trying to alleviate their own suffering with cannabis -- and who have no more than six cannabis plants and no more than an ounce of usable cannabis -- should be put in jail?

2. Please tell us what you know about the FDA’s Compassionate Investigational New Drugs Study (CINDS).

Hint: The FDA has been sending rolled cannabis cigarettes to patients for over 20 years.

3. As a pharmacist, you accept written recommendations from doctors allowing patients to purchase many different types of dangerous drugs from you.

Do you accept that some of these same doctors might recommend cannabis, and might be correct in their assumption that cannabis will at least not harm, and might help, these patients? If not, at what point would you stop deferring to their professional knowledge?

4. A Rapid City internal medicine specialist, Dr. Doug Traub, has testified in court -- on behalf of a patient being sentenced for possession of cannabis -- that “smoked cannabis is essential to my patient’s therapy.”

Was Dr. Traub lying, or was he just demonstrating professional incompetence?

5. You dispense many dangerous drugs from your drugstores. So do many other pharmacists. From time to time, some of these drugs get diverted to the illegal market, through no fault of the pharmacist.

Which of the dangerous drugs that you currently dispense would you recommend being prohibited because they might find their way to someone not authorized to use them?

6. (contingency question)

What, exactly, are the dangerous effects of cannabis on people? How many people have died from cannabis ingestion, either smoked or eaten?


Bill Dithmer said...

Great questions Bob.

taco said...

Excellent questions.

grudznick said...

Bob, Bob, Bob. You know I'm not in favor of toking up for the heck of it like you are want to do, but these actual sick people should follow the law and get medicine from real doctors, not witches and herbiferms. Stop using the medical thing as your excuse.

You want to toke. Say you want to toke. I can at least respect that.

grudznick said...

Why doesn't HIPPA apply to these toke-growing "caregivers"? It's because they're just growing weed for their own use.

Bob Newland said...

Grud, some day I just may accidentally find out who you are. I will piss down your throat.


Sergeant Joe Friday said...

Just the facts, ma'am.

Ten studies the US wished it hadn't funded:

Portugal's decriminalization experience.

repete said...

Excellent links Joe, especially the first one.
This may be clickable...

Duffer said...

Reasonable selection there Mr. Newland.

In a way a person almost feels poorly for Ms. Prang - as a pharmacist her position is impeachable.

Who would you put there? Sure wouldn't be this Mabry character from Vermillion. One idiotic statement after another.

I agree with others who are warning about the AG and the legislature meddling with the intent of a successful initiative. They don't think this is about compassion or personal liberty - they see DFHs.

Good luck.

Bob Newland said...

What are DFHs?

DDC said...

Here's Glenn Greenwald (the author of the Cato paper on Portugal) discussing Portugal's decriminalization.

Youtube video


Duffer said...

DFH - dirty f*@king hippies

Donna said...

Bob- #1 seems to me like a waste of a question. Jo has an easy out by only having to state that currently those people are breaking the law, period. She most likely will not give you any opinions or personal feelings. And we all know EVERYONE should obey the law. It doesn't gain you any ground. I would use 6 instead of 1.

Bob Newland said...

Oh well. It's a done deal. These are the questions. I don't mind her copping out on one.