I agree that the problem of abuse isn't limited to any one substance, but the general problem has been around at least as long as humans have walked upright. It's not limited to our current society at all.

The problem in our current society is one of "control" in which some substances that lend themselves to abuse are legalized (and in the case of tobacco actually subsidized) by governments, while others are outlawed, with such nonsense as the unwinnable "war on drugs" as a result.

The late John W. Campbell, longtime editor of Astounding/Analog Science Fiction magazine and an outspoken rabble rouser (among other things, he published the first report about dianetics, which led to creation of the Church of Scientology, but I don't hold that mistake against him), had what I consider to be the most elegant solution: remove all regulation and restrictions on such substances, allowing unlimited access to one and all. His reasoning was that the most hopeless addicts would OD and thus remove themselves from the gene pool, while criminals would no longer be able to profit from being the sole source of supply! In the same article, he also advocated allowing anyone to practice medicine, including surgery, with no oversight or controls, on the theory that the incompetent would quickly become obvious and go out of business while the competent would enjoy unfettered success. Obviously he had not visited a sewage plant and observed what rises to the top of the vat there, and had managed to underestimate the gullibility of the average person...

Spartan, I agree with you about the need to change much more than just whether or not marijuana is legalized fully or in part. I don't know if I agree with you about the testing issue. I don't think that it's a safe summary to say that our hopes (for a better society?) are pinned on a single solution. While you may not have said that in so many words, the sentiment I see in that last sentence bothers me in that there is, in my opinion, an urgent need to change the way we incarcerate people based on these marijuana offenses. I would hate to see that urgent issue set aside while we try to ponder and solve the bigger picture.

I'm going to assume that if we ever had true legalization, employers wouldn't fire you for having it in your system -- except Wal-Mart of course.

I'm going to assume that if we ever had true legalization, employers wouldn't fire you for having it in your system -- except Wal-Mart of course.

I test all prospective employees for drugs as a condition of hiring them, and never extend a job offer after a positive result. I would reserve the right to fire any employee who is found impaired while on the job. If one tested positive after an incident/accident/investigation, I would DEFINITELY fire them. These three standards are explained up front in the interview process. You don't have to work for me, but if you do, that's the deal.

What gives people the impression that it's OK to be mentally impaired in the workplace, whether you're greeting shoppers at the front door of a Wal-Mart, or passengers at the front door of an airliner?

A: So what would change if mj were legal? It is currently illegal and that hasn't stopped people from driving under the influence of mj.

B: So that mean you also support new laws restricting the use of cell phones while driving.

Koko - I absolutely support restricting cellphones while driving because they distract the driver to a tremendous degree. Same goes for in-car navigation systems, and all of the other gizmos that manufacturers are installing these days. People can't use them without becoming a danger to themselves and others. We don't need new laws, we simply need to enforce existing laws regarding distracted driving. Two points in expansion of my beliefs:

1) As a bicyclist, I continually read about other cyclists being killed by inattentive motorists. I am one text message away from eternity every time I ride on the streets.
2) As a pilot, I believe that motorists should have to meet similar qualification and recurrency standards in order to earn and keep their driver's licenses.

Is it really too much of a burden to ask motorists to pay attention while they drive?

I test all prospective employees for drugs as a condition of hiring them, and never extend a job offer after a positive result. I would reserve the right to fire any employee who is found impaired while on the job. If one tested positive after an incident/accident/investigation, I would DEFINITELY fire them. These three standards are explained up front in the interview process. You don't have to work for me, but if you do, that's the deal.

What gives people the impression that it's OK to be mentally impaired in the workplace, whether you're greeting shoppers at the front door of a Wal-Mart, or passengers at the front door of an airliner?

I understand your point, but I don't think that a positive drug test for marijuana in the system proves impairment. I was always under the impression that drug tests for marijuana can come up positive as many as 30 days after use. If you can be impaired that long, then marijuana is TRULY a drug to be feared. I think that we need a test to see if the person is impaired, not if they've used the drug in the last 30 days.
If the drugs you test for are legalized, then you may be vulnerable at that stage to a discrimination lawsuit by rejecting someone who tests positive for a legal substance. You may as well tell all prospective employees that you will not hire them if they have any tattoos or have a pit bull or drink on the weekend. If the employee is not impaired when on the job or on call, it is immaterial whether or not they test positive for drugs.

Koko - I absolutely support restricting cellphones while driving because they distract the driver to a tremendous degree. Same goes for in-car navigation systems, and all of the other gizmos that manufacturers are installing these days. People can't use them without becoming a danger to themselves and others. We don't need new laws, we simply need to enforce existing laws regarding distracted driving. Two points in expansion of my beliefs:

1) As a bicyclist, I continually read about other cyclists being killed by inattentive motorists. I am one text message away from eternity every time I ride on the streets.
2) As a pilot, I believe that motorists should have to meet similar qualification and recurrency standards in order to earn and keep their driver's licenses.

Is it really too much of a burden to ask motorists to pay attention while they drive?


Thanks for taking the the time to answer my questions.

I test all prospective employees for drugs as a condition of hiring them, and never extend a job offer after a positive result. I would reserve the right to fire any employee who is found impaired while on the job. If one tested positive after an incident/accident/investigation, I would DEFINITELY fire them. These three standards are explained up front in the interview process. You don't have to work for me, but if you do, that's the deal.

What gives people the impression that it's OK to be mentally impaired in the workplace, whether you're greeting shoppers at the front door of a Wal-Mart, or passengers at the front door of an airliner?

So you need a piss test to know if somebody is mentally impaired in the workplace? Wow, that must suck.

Legalizing it is pretty pointless when employers are still testing for marijuana just because they can not test for any other, much more serious drug use
Many employers don't drug test, the food service industry for one. Since many of the jobs that don't drug test also don't pay as well, the war on drugs hits these people the hardest. This is because simply having a decent lawyer will often reduce penalties greatly, and good lawyers aren't cheap these days.

Also what about the mature and responsible people who are self-employed? These people are sharp enough to make a living without organizational resources yet we need the government to regulate what they put in their bodies?

I test all prospective employees for drugs as a condition of hiring them, and never extend a job offer after a positive result. I would reserve the right to fire any employee who is found impaired while on the job. If one tested positive after an incident/accident/investigation, I would DEFINITELY fire them. These three standards are explained up front in the interview process. You don't have to work for me, but if you do, that's the deal.

What gives people the impression that it's OK to be mentally impaired in the workplace, whether you're greeting shoppers at the front door of a Wal-Mart, or passengers at the front door of an airliner?

You have now jumped the shark. I didn't say it would be "OK" to be impaired at work. That should be obvious. The issue is that there may be pot in your system, but you are not currently impaired. My suggestion was that merely having it in your system would not be grounds for termination if it were currently legal.

Alcohol can still be detected in your system days after drinking. Having it there does not mean you were drinking on the job.

Some of you people seem deliberately obtuse in your arguments.

Some of you people seem deliberately obtuse in your arguments.Many folk are control freaks. It's good to find that out about a prospective employer, before submitting to his (economic) chains.

I've never had a drug test, never been a condition of employment even before I got into architecture and was in retail. I can definitely understand one if you are in an accident in a company vehicle but as far as someone on their own time, that is a bit much for alcohol or marijuana, many could test positive for a prescription narcotic while not "on the job", would that be a firing offense? If roughnecks were tested for what they did on the weekend there wouldn't be many them in the West Texas oilfields, just based on experience with my brother-in-law and the crew that he runs around with.

I've never had a drug test, never been a condition of employment even before I got into architecture and was in retail. I can definitely understand one if you are in an accident in a company vehicle but as far as someone on their own time, that is a bit much for alcohol or marijuana, many could test positive for a prescription narcotic while not "on the job", would that be a firing offense? If roughnecks were tested for what they did on the weekend there wouldn't be many them in the West Texas oilfields, just based on experience with my brother-in-law and the crew that he runs around with.

My current employer had a pre-employment drug screen. Merely having alcohol in your system would not create a "positive" on the test. They were looking for evidence that the employee was such an alcy that they showed up to the test drunk. Also, pharmaceuticals prescribed by a physician are not cause for failure of the screen. They were looking for non-prescribed drugs. They also tested for cannibinoids, benzos, mescaline, shrooms, coke, smack, and meth, among others.

Many folk are control freaks. It's good to find that out about a prospective employer, before submitting to his (economic) chains.

Jim's point is well-taken and illustrates that at-will employment cut both ways. You'll want to know as much about your prospective employer before agreeing to work there (although I'd discourage handing the owner a little cup and asking him to return with a sample).

My current employer had a pre-employment drug screen. Merely having alcohol in your system would not create a "positive" on the test. They were looking for evidence that the employee was such an alcy that they showed up to the test drunk. Also, pharmaceuticals prescribed by a physician are not cause for failure of the screen. They were looking for non-prescribed drugs. They also tested for cannibinoids, benzos, mescaline, shrooms, coke, smack, and meth, among others.

Mescaline and shrooms? Since when?

Mescaline and shrooms? Since when?

Since forever. They are making a comeback as is PCP.

The Oklahoman published a conservative version of this Tulsa World story today
Medical Marijuana Study Nixed by State Official [Brian Crain] (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20121129_11_A1_ULNSdo813611)

As a sidenote, I was in touch with a couple groups about using Amazon as a fundraiser but they didn't get back to me. So I will see if there is any interest in this.
If anyone plans on using Amazon for future purchases and would like to help raise funds for medical marijuana in Oklahoma, you can use this link to
Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&linkCode=ur2&tag=67867800-20)
They have a program where 4-6% of purchases gets kicked back. I will forward the funds to the Tulsa NORML or okmedicalmarijuana.org. Of course you can always just donate directly too.

bump

you bumped a post 12 minutes after you made it? What, did ya take a toke and forgit when ya posted?

Whoever said it's not Republicans who are against sensible marijuana legislation, please note this story in today's Tulsa World. Constance Johnson, a Democrat, has been trying repeatedly to get the legislature to consider medical marijuana. This GOP stooge, Brian Crain, won't even allow a "study," because, you know, learnin' stuff has no place in our state. God forbid we study something.

What's even more galling about the article is the stupidity of Mark Woodward, from the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics, who actually brings up the Mexican cartels to bolster his opposition! Brilliant logic. The cartels are making lots of money off this drug, so let's keep it illegal so they can continue to make lots of money off this drug.

Medical marijuana study nixed by state official | Tulsa World (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20121129_11_A1_ULNSdo813611&r=7322)

Crane - a construction tool
Crain - a political tool

I always enjoy the way the typical OK R politico falls on a sword of reverence to honor the importance of a federal law he likes but will do some really oddball nonsensical twists of logic to try and justify defy anything federal should it not meet with his/her approval. Some of the most outcome determinative folks on the planet can be found in our state capitol.

I'll leave you guessing as to my own use but will say, well over 50% of the country is in favor of medical marijuana. Yet only around 10% of the country are regular users. So only about 1 in 5 of us actually smokes. If weed itself was my concern, wouldn't I have left for "greener" pastures by now? Many have been indoctrinated by the mainstream media to fear political activists, when they are really the civilizing force behind democracy.

Its amazing to me that the opposition right now is coming from Tulsa, when their NORML chapter looks like it is about 10x bigger than ours. You would think they could find a sympathetic voice in the legislature, considering they have much softer sentencing than our part of the state. Seemingly a little more popular support there, and certainly less fear.

Its amazing to me that the opposition right now is coming from Tulsa, when their NORML chapter looks like it is about 10x bigger than ours. You would think they could find a sympathetic voice in the legislature, considering they have much softer sentencing than our part of the state. Seemingly a little more popular support there, and certainly less fear.

Overall, the Tulsa delegation has more wingers than the OKC delegation.

I firmly believe, and in addition to that, am completely convinced that the legalization of "cannabis" will result in the malfunctioning light at 115th and Penn--plus everything else, including appreciation of good food and stuff including but not limited to selfish, incessant whining on nearly every front--being better than it is right now. How can anyone say know to that?... oops... i meant no..... (nevermind . . . call in the paraquat and napalm strike forces . . . there is no intelligent life here . . .=)

Since forever. They are making a comeback as is PCP.

Wrong! Workplace tests consist of five substances, not including those two, LSD, inhalants, XTC, and so on. Oh, but they've included PCP in the panel for ages. I worked in that industry for several years.

Wrong! Workplace tests consist of five substances, not including those two, LSD, inhalants, XTC, and so on. Oh, but they've included PCP in the panel for ages. I worked in that industry for several years.

Until the "Mary Jane-ites" waving banners on the ramparts and doing the rest of the NORML stuff or refusing to do so based upon principals and vice-principles and so forth and so on succeed in this Viva la Revolution! I would suggest that carefully selected operatives in favor of an "organic high . . . like from mother nature and whatnot" inject themselves into the "Drug Testing Industry" and "Do The Good Work" . . . at least until Jean Val Jean "The Miserable" shows up in Imaginationland riding cover for Don Quixote and watching his back on account of Pancho Sanza is too stoned to object.

Here is a portait of The Mata Hari of Alice B. Toklas browinies as an example of expanded conscioulsness . . .
at least among the Ad Agency Scoff-laws
LLrTPrp-fW8

Overall, the Tulsa delegation has more wingers than the OKC delegation.
This is a little off topic but how do think the GOP feels now about their nominee in retrospect? I would have voted for Ron Paul but no other Republican. They may have to get a little more involved in the nomination process to keep the crazy in the bottle of the Republican party from now on. A doctor who wanted pot legalized and ran a free medical clinic? Just too good to be true I guess. But the whole GOP may have to get a little more Paul-ish if they want to remain relevant.

Its amazing to me that the opposition right now is coming from Tulsa, when their NORML chapter looks like it is about 10x bigger than ours. You would think they could find a sympathetic voice in the legislature, considering they have much softer sentencing than our part of the state. Seemingly a little more popular support there, and certainly less fear.

Certainly, you've heard of Will Foster. How can you suggest *that* part of the state is sympathetic in drug punishment!

This is a little off topic but how do think the GOP feels now about their nominee in retrospect? I would have voted for Ron Paul but no other Republican. They may have to get a little more involved in the nomination process to keep the crazy in the bottle of the Republican party from now on. A doctor who wanted pot legalized and ran a free medical clinic? Just too good to be true I guess. But the whole GOP may have to get a little more Paul-ish if they want to remain relevant.

I think they think this is all awesome. Supposedly there are all of these "libertarian" Republicans here but they seem quite happy with these elected freaking authoritarian neanderthals. Mary Fallin had Sally Kern behind her on election night. Oklahoma has moved into crazy land.

This is a little off topic but how do think the GOP feels now about their nominee in retrospect? I would have voted for Ron Paul but no other Republican. They may have to get a little more involved in the nomination process to keep the crazy in the bottle of the Republican party from now on. A doctor who wanted pot legalized and ran a free medical clinic? Just too good to be true I guess. But the whole GOP may have to get a little more Paul-ish if they want to remain relevant.

I think they think this is all awesome. Supposedly there are all of these "libertarian" Republicans here but they seem quite happy to elect and reelect these freaking authoritarian neanderthals. Mary Fallin had Sally Kern behind her on election night. Oklahoma has moved into crazy land.

This is a little off topic but how do think the GOP feels now about their nominee in retrospect? I would have voted for Ron Paul but no other Republican. They may have to get a little more involved in the nomination process to keep the crazy in the bottle of the Republican party from now on. A doctor who wanted pot legalized and ran a free medical clinic? Just too good to be true I guess. But the whole GOP may have to get a little more Paul-ish if they want to remain relevant.

Oh, they're crying in their beer. What fools they were! Damm! If only the STUPID PEOPLE, I mean low information voters, had voted for Ron Paul, maybe pot would be legal now, and OBummer2 would be just a bad dream.

Lord have mercy.

Oh, they're crying in their beer. What fools they were! Damm! If only the STUPID PEOPLE, I mean low information voters, had voted for Ron Paul, maybe pot would be legal now, and OBummer2 would be just a bad dream.

Lord have mercy.

Um...Ron Paul is not the answer.

Certainly, you've heard of Will Foster. How can you suggest *that* part of the state is sympathetic in drug punishment!
Its not a suggestion, its fact. I'll post the state marijuana policy pdf (http://www.drugscience.org/States/OK/OK.pdf) from earlier that you must not have read. Oklahoma county is 3.6 possesion arrests per thousand and Tulsa is 3.4. Thats a 6% difference

A good, rational letter to the editor today. Makes a good argument for decriminalization.

Time to end marijuana prohibition | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/time-to-end-marijuana-prohibition/article/3733093)

A good, rational letter to the editor today. Makes a good argument for decriminalization.

Time to end marijuana prohibition | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/time-to-end-marijuana-prohibition/article/3733093)

The letter would have spoken many volumes more had it been written by a retired former well known Republican legislator. I assume it would be way to much for a current one to do so. More Democrats should join with Sen. Johnson and do the same. But look at what happened to Sen. Johnson. The Republicans rigged her district, so now there won't be near as many blacks available to vote for her for reelection.

Its not a suggestion, its fact. I'll post the state marijuana policy pdf (http://www.drugscience.org/States/OK/OK.pdf) from earlier that you must not have read. Oklahoma county is 3.6 possession arrests per thousand and Tulsa is 3.4. Thats a 6% difference

Not much difference to brag about, but then the Foster case was unbelievable. He got 93 years in prison plus a huge fine for growing marijuana. I was ignorant of how wrong and overly harsh the Oklahoma laws were against marijuana until I found out about Foster. Later, I still found it hard to believe when I learned of the story about a paraplegic in a wheelchair got life in prison over marijuana in Oklahoma plus a couple, or so, of other charges that should not have added up to life in prison. Surely, this means there is a hell of a lot of vindictiveness in Oklahoma over those who use marijuana. Probably Republicans perceive this or feel the same way and so don't want anything to do with legalizing marijuana. If they did they could get voted out of office. But times are changing, except in the more isolated and backward parts of Oklahoma, and I suspect getting voted out of office over marijuana is less likely to happen than was the case 15 or 20 years ago.

Ya I was looking at raw arrest numbers and didn't realize Tulsa county had so many fewer people, so the % was different than what I expected. But in self-defense, I said sentencing, not arrests. I believe sentences are shorter in Tulsa county but am too busy to look it up.

An ounce of weed or less there should be no jail time,fine or anything. I don't smoke it now but did back in the day and I was able to quit much easier that quitting cigs. You do not get hooked on weed. Well you might if you chain smoke day and night but I have never known of anyone to do that.

These weed laws are so over the top that it looks like a bunch of monkeys got together and wrote the law.

Now short term memory loss,that's another story.

Um...Ron Paul is not the answer.

Tell that to LandRunOkie.

I think it takes up too much money for law enforcement and jails. If this isn't a political topic of the hot button sort I don't know what is. Why isn't this in the politics section?

I think it takes up too much money for law enforcement and jails. If this isn't a political topic of the hot button sort I don't know what is. Why isn't this in the politics section?
...and that is the main reason why the law enforcement industry wants it to remain illegal. Too much money for more officers, more lawyers, more prisons, more rehab, etc. to give up.

State Senator Constance Johnson of Oklahoma City is sponsoring a medical marijuana bill but she needs help on the House side. There needs to be a House co-sponsor for her bill or for another medical marijuana bill to be introduced by a State Rep. You can use this tool (http://www.okhouse.gov/FindMyLegislature.aspx?State=OK) to look up your state rep if you don't know it.

If you live in central Stillwater or central Norman, your help on this is very important. Tulsa is important too but they are doing what they can. Here are those reps pages:
Norman (http://www.okhouse.gov/District.aspx?District=44)
Stillwater (http://www.okhouse.gov/District.aspx?District=34)

The number of emails and calls is just as important as how they are written. Also your opinion matters even if you live outside of these districts. Your rep doesn't know what you think unless you tell them! The three best arguments to use are:
(1) police should spend their time on more important things
(2) taxing marijuana would turn a money-losing prohibition into a money-generating system
(3) veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder should be able to use marijuana legally.

Not much difference to brag about, but then the Foster case was unbelievable. He got 93 years in prison plus a huge fine for growing marijuana. I was ignorant of how wrong and overly harsh the Oklahoma laws were against marijuana until I found out about Foster. Later, I still found it hard to believe when I learned of the story about a paraplegic in a wheelchair got life in prison over marijuana in Oklahoma plus a couple, or so, of other charges that should not have added up to life in prison. Surely, this means there is a hell of a lot of vindictiveness in Oklahoma over those who use marijuana. Probably Republicans perceive this or feel the same way and so don't want anything to do with legalizing marijuana. If they did they could get voted out of office. But times are changing, except in the more isolated and backward parts of Oklahoma, and I suspect getting voted out of office over marijuana is less likely to happen than was the case 15 or 20 years ago.

Unfortunately, the "isolated and backward" parts of Oklahoma amount to about 2/3 of the state.

I have a friend from the upper middle class who didn't even leave the state until he was in college. People like that who don't take the opportunity to experience other places are much more susceptible to local political dogma. I admit, if I hadn't been to Colorado and California to see for myself, the drug war would be much harder to question. Most people I talk to in this state are surprised to hear that medical marijuana states maintain law & order perfectly fine and there's nothing to fear. In fact, I even knew a pot smoker in college who was against decriminalization LOL. The power of thought control!

Here is an audio from a town hall meeting regarding what three state legislators from the Stillwater area think about legalizing medical marijuana: http://okmedicalmarijuana.org/mjtownhall.m3u

Poll legalization support at record high, poll finds (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/04/pot-legalization_n_2240257.html?utm_hp_ref=marijuana)


Fifty-eight percent of voters said the use of marijuana should be made legal, while 39 percent said it should be illegal, the poll, conducted by the Democratic firm PPP (http://www.mpp.org/assets/pdfs/blog/MPPResults.pdf), found.

Poll legalization support at record high, poll finds (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/04/pot-legalization_n_2240257.html?utm_hp_ref=marijuana)

If mainstream Republicans did their own poll and more than 50% approved legalization, maybe they wouldn't release the results.

Washington State does the same as Colorado.

Pot smokers enter legal limbo in Washington, Colorado - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/05/us/washington-marijuana-legalization/index.html?hpt=hp_t3)

Cannabis is legal in Washington as of midnight 12-06-2012, the sky didn't fall and the world didn't end. Colorado follows suit next month. Same thing will happen the sky won't fall and the world won't end.

State Senator Constance Johnson of Oklahoma City is sponsoring a medical marijuana bill but she needs help on the House side. There needs to be a House co-sponsor for her bill or for another medical marijuana bill to be introduced by a State Rep. You can use this tool (http://www.okhouse.gov/FindMyLegislature.aspx?State=OK) to look up your state rep if you don't know it.

If you live in central Stillwater or central Norman, your help on this is very important. Tulsa is important too but they are doing what they can. Here are those reps pages:
Norman (http://www.okhouse.gov/District.aspx?District=44)
Stillwater (http://www.okhouse.gov/District.aspx?District=34)

The number of emails and calls is just as important as how they are written. Also your opinion matters even if you live outside of these districts. Your rep doesn't know what you think unless you tell them! The three best arguments to use are:
(1) police should spend their time on more important things
(2) taxing marijuana would turn a money-losing prohibition into a money-generating system
(3) veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder should be able to use marijuana legally.
If people don't write in, this isn't going to work. It really makes a difference. Has anyone written in? I don't want to insult anybody but writing to your rep is going to have a lot bigger impact than what you write on here.

Assume that it's legalized - who is going to regulate the safety of the product? This story was on the local TV news last night, and this text is from KFOR.com (I have removed some line feeds):

OKLAHOMA CITY – An Oklahoma teenager is hospitalized at OU Medical Center after smoking synthetic marijuana. Doctors are warning people about how dangerous these types of drugs are. They go by many names such as Spice, K2 and Flame. This 15-year-old boy has been at the hospital for a week with kidney failure.

His mom Rhonda Woodrift said it came on after he smoked the drug. “A week ago today he started showing signs of a stomach virus, throwing up, back aching just feeling really crummy,” she said. “He said that he smoked about a gram and he said that was all and it wasn’t that much. They say it’s a lot easier to get than pot.”

OU David Meyers said this has been happening around the country and needs to be put out to the public. “At this time seem to show direct kidney toxicity from some chemical in the mix in addition to some inflammation in the kidney like an allergic reaction,” he said. Doctors don’t know if this teen will recover his kidney use.

His mom said she does know one thing, “He says he will never do drugs again; he won’t touch them. This has been pretty scary.”

Pot is now legal in Washington, but does that make it safe? Do all dealers in Washington have to submit their pot for testing prior to selling it, or are things no different than here in Oklahoma, where anyone - not just 15-year-old kids sneaking tokes - can end up with renal failure?

synthetic marijuana has no chemical relationship to real marijuana. in the event that someone overdoses on real marijuana, the worst thing that could happen would be for them to fall asleep. marijuana cannot cause renal failure. please let us get back to the subject of real marijuana. the synthetic stuff can be very harmful and has no association with real cannabis. Here is the info again:

State Senator Constance Johnson of Oklahoma City is sponsoring a medical marijuana bill but she needs help on the House side. There needs to be a House co-sponsor for her bill or for another medical marijuana bill to be introduced by a State Rep. You can use this tool (http://www.okhouse.gov/FindMyLegislature.aspx?State=OK) to look up your state rep if you don't know it.

The number of emails and calls is just as important as how they are written. Also your opinion matters even if you live outside of these districts. Your rep doesn't know what you think unless you tell them! The three best arguments to use are:
(1) police should spend their time on more important things
(2) taxing marijuana would turn a money-losing prohibition into a money-generating system
(3) veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder should be able to use marijuana legally.

In these national cases, I don't think that the victims know if they're smoking real pot or the synthetic kind. All they know is that they're trying to get high, and then they end up in the hospital with blown kidneys. I don't think that this will change if pot is legalized, but it would if it is regulated, but neither the dealers nor the FDA want every dime bag inspected. So that takes us back to where we started.

Legal or not, you don't know what you're getting: A buzz and the munchies, or renal failure and a life of kidney dialysis.

In these national cases, I don't think that the victims know if they're smoking real pot or the synthetic kind. All they know is that they're trying to get high, and then they end up in the hospital with blown kidneys. I don't think that this will change if pot is legalized, but it would if it is regulated, but neither the dealers nor the FDA want every dime bag inspected. So that takes us back to where we started.

Legal or not, you don't know what you're getting: A buzz and the munchies, or renal failure and a life of kidney dialysis.

This is absolutely false. Synthetic marijuana is branded and sold at head shops. It is not a street drug, and it is not advertised as marijuana. It is also not marijuana. I've noticed that your posting history contains a lot of flagrantly nonfactual material.

In these national cases, I don't think that the victims know if they're smoking real pot or the synthetic kind. All they know is that they're trying to get high, and then they end up in the hospital with blown kidneys. I don't think that this will change if pot is legalized, but it would if it is regulated, but neither the dealers nor the FDA want every dime bag inspected. So that takes us back to where we started.

Legal or not, you don't know what you're getting: A buzz and the munchies, or renal failure and a life of kidney dialysis.

You make a great point. The fact that marijuana is illegal drives people to find legally sold products in the stores to achieve a high without realizing the legal stuff sold in the stores has grave health consequences that marijuana lacks. Blown kidneys yet but another unintended consequence of marijuana prohibition.

If you're calling me a liar - and you just did - then back it up.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't know the difference between synthetic and real marijuana.

I wasn't that impressed with marinol. Ain't nothing like the real thang,,,,,,,,baby.

It appears Texas is finally growing restless on the medical marijuana front.
Austin lawmaker says timing right for medical marijuana bill (http://www.kvue.com/news/Austin-state-rep-readies-bill-to-prevent-punishment-for-medical-marijuana-use-182451031.html)(Video)If I know Texas, it may come down to a business decision there. They share a border with Colorado as well, and are already overwhelmed trying to defend their southern border in the unwinnable war against drugs. The sooner they pass medical marijuana, the more Texas dollars stay in Texas.

This is absolutely false. Synthetic marijuana is branded and sold at head shops.

But I thought both fake marijuana and head shops were banned in Oklahoma.