It's crunch time. with two weeks to go until the election, we'll find out soon who has run out of money, which candidates are on their "A game" and which ones need to go back to the "B league."

The pace of advertsing will pick up, and you may see some bickering between candidates spill over into the public arena.

Newspapers will be running "Candidates on the issues" pieces, and we can find out where they stand, or if they don't have a clue.

For me, it's like Christmas, Halloween, and New Years all rolled into one.


Unknown said…
"I believe most things aren’t worth doing unless they are funny." --SDWC's PP

"...and we can find out where they stand, or if they don't have a clue." --SDWC's PP

Funny, eh? Like laughing at proponents of the therapeutic use of a God-given herb while those who need it are sent to prison for trying to feel better? "Let 'em eat Valium," SDWC says, with a smirk.
Anonymous said…

You are boring us all to death with your constant off-topic rants about the wacky weed.

Give it up. You are making more enemies of your cause than supporters.
Unknown said…
Proud to have enemies who fearlessly call themselves "anonymous".
Anonymous said…
Bob, since you are talking about a God-given herb, remember God put the tree with the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden which Adam and Eve were NOT to eat.

It was there but not to be used. It was edible, good for the body, but bad for the soul.

There are drugs with the same active chemical ingrediant that marijuana has. But of course they don't work!
Anonymous said…
Gimme a break, Notla. All of a sudden medical marijuana is analogous to the forbidden fruit? Why, because you said so? Or can you refer me to a bible chapter and verse to support your wacked-out hypothesis?

Are oranges evil too? Pineapples? Rosemary? Cilantro?

Do you have even the foggiest idea what you're talking about?
Anonymous said…
Of course Notla doesn't have a clue, Will. It's simply more Reefer Madness.

The madness shall end.
Anonymous said…
Anon wrote (to Bob):
"Give it up. You are making more enemies of your cause than supporters."

You are absolutely, positively, 100% correct.

Surely, PP's close-mindedness on this issue is indefensible. Aggravating even. But why, Bob, do you insist on fighting with him about it? Do you really think you're gonna change his mind? NOTHING is going to change his mind. It's a lost cause. He's as much as told you so, in his words and his actions.

What do you hope to gain by instigating him? Do you really think that's going to bring the people who read *this* blog over to your side?

Anon's right: you're hurting your own cause by posting here in the manner you do. People don't know much about medical marijuana. Many are going to cast their votes based on the proponent(s) of the measure. Many are going to cast their vote based on nothing more than YOU and your behavior. And if your incessant need to battle PP hurts the people whom you purport to be fighting for, I personally won't forgive you. I don't care how much work you've done to get this on the ballot.

If you want to persuade the readers of SDWC, you might want to try to give them some information, some facts, rather than endlessly repeating your tired mantra about the people who are "sent to prison for trying to feel better." You might want to tell them about all the medical organizations that support the use of medical marijuana, like the New England Journal of Medicine, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Public Health Association, the American Society of Addiction Medicines, the AIDS Action Council, the National Nurses Society on Addictions, the Minnesota Public Health Association, the Minnesota AIDS Project, the Minnesota Senior Federation, and the state nursing associations of California, Colorado, Florida, New York, North Carolina, Minnesota, Illinois, Virginia...

In short, you might want to present a cogent argument in support of your cause, instead of childish, combative remarks directed towards a person who isn't going to be persuaded, no matter what.

Armed with the facts, SD voters will make a reasonable decision on this issue in November.

Armed with nothing more than your petulant antics--regardless of how clever and cutting your remarks may be--the initiaive will fail.

It's up to you.
Anonymous said…
Hey, Will, Bob is the one who brought God into the discussion, like God gave us marijuana so why don't we use it? Didn't you read what he wrote?

Evidently you have never read the Bible or unfortunately never attended Sunday school. The very first book in the Bible, Genesis, chapter 2 and first half of 3 are what you asked for. That's where you can read about it.

And, no, oranges, pineapples, etc are not evil. I think you need to calm down, have another smoke.
Anonymous said…
I'm not going to debate you, Notla. I learned long ago that debating fundamentalists is an exercise in futility.

But I am familiar with Genesis, and the rest of the Old Testament, and the New Testament too, for that matter. I didn't ask you to cite me to the garden of eden story. I asked you to refer me to a bible chapter and verse where it says that medical marijuana is "bad for the soul" (your words). Can you do that, Notla?

While you're at it, can you tell me where in the Bible it says that oranges and rosemary AREN'T bad for the soul?

Seems to me that whatever Notla approves of is good for the soul, and whatver Notla disapproves of is bad for the soul.

Oh, btw, real sophisticated argument there, insinuating that anyone who supports this measure must be a recreational marijuana user. That's like saying anyone who supports the abortion ban must be a fetus.
Unknown said…
I'll do whatever it takes to instigate discussion of why some peabrains want to pit people in jail for trying to feel better.
Anonymous said…
Will, my point was that Bob was inferring that God gave it to us so it must be good. I simply stated that that God also gave us the tree in the Garden. So, just because it's here on earth doesn't make it good to use, or we should use it. Why not herion from the poppies or cocaine from the cocoa plant?

As I also stated there are drugs available with the same active chemical ingrediant as the "medicinal marijuana". Someone will surely say, but that doesn't work. Right?
Anonymous said…
Notla, I understand what you are trying to say, and I understand that you were responding to Bob's statement that marijuana is "God-given."

What I still don't understand, however, is the basis for your conclusion that medicinal marijuana is more like heroin than oranges -- i.e., why is medical marijuana "bad for the soul" and an orange nothing more than a tasty fruit high in Vitamin C?

In other words, how do you know God disapproves of medical marijuana? Because that's what you've been told your whole life? Because it's currently not approved for medical use in 39 states? Why?

Hence my question: Do you have even the foggiest idea what you're talking about?

I regret the tone of that question now, so I beg your forgiveness. But I sincerely would like to understand the basis for your opinion. It's one thing to personally disapprove of medical marijuana. It's another thing entirely to assert that your personal disapproval has some Biblical, God-sanctioned foundation -- that medical marijuana is "bad for the soul." That's a bold statement, Notla, and I will not let it go unchallenged.

You wrote:
"As I also stated there are drugs available with the same active chemical ingrediant as the "medicinal marijuana". Someone will surely say, but that doesn't work. Right?"

All I can tell you is that patients find smoked marijuana to be more therapeutically effective than other forms of the drug. I know this not from personal experience, but because my friend, Dawn, who suffers from MS, and who has tried *every possible legal drug* (including Tysabri, an experimental drug yanked from the market because it killed a few people) tells me that smoked marijuana makes her feel "1000 times better than any other drug out there."

And I believe her. She's an honest person suffering from a terrible disease. She's not looking for an excuse to get high. She's telling the God's honest truth.

If you knew her, you'd believe her too.
PP said…
#1, What does any of this have to do with it being two weeks until election day.

#2, I thought I answered the reasons for my opposition long, long ago at
Anonymous said…
Notla, Your comments are increasingly difficult to follow.

I'm not sure if I'll do any better but there needs to be some clarification.

First, if you cared to look up anything about the history of marijuana in the United States, you'd find that marijuana was considered the "devil's weed" in the 1920s and 1930s. Not God, but the Devil, evidently put dope on the planet. Whether anybody still believes this crap is another story. The devil didn't, btw.

Also, not sure where you're going with the cocaine and heroin analogy. Again, if you cared to do any research, you'd know that both have medical value. Incidentally, cocaine is a schedule II drug under the federal scheme while marijuana is a schedule I drug. In other words, according to the federal government, cocaine has a recognized medical value while marijuana does not.

In my opinion, the failure of Congress to place marijuana into a different class which reflects today's society and understanding of marijuana is one of the greatest disappointments of public policy in our lifetime. How many tens of thousands of people need to be locked up for someone to listen?

Also you like to discuss the active ingrediEnt in marijuana, THC. Undoubtedly, big pharm companies have attempted (and will continue) to synthesize THC into pill form. The point your missing however is that smoked marijuana --through a vaporizer, a joint, what have you, -- works the best. The side effects from the THC pill have proven less alleviating than smoked marijuana.

The madness shall end.
Anonymous said…
PP, I wish to make a bold prediction:

Your position on Medical Marijuana will be the minority on November 7, 2006. It will be a glorious day.

South Dakotans will vote for common sense. South Dakotans will vote for Medical Marijuana.
Anonymous said…
notla is the only one of you who has logical, common, clear sense.Fundamentalist or not, I like him(her).
PP said…
Eddie, respectfully, I disagree.

But look at it this way, one of us will be right, and the other will be wrong.
Anonymous said…
Where did I say that the Bible mentioned marijuana? Where did I say marijuana was bad for the soul?
Go back and read it again, I was writing about the tree with the forbidden fruit. You totally took it out of context. Nice try Will!

You are the one who got all hyper and began ranting ridiculously about oranges and pineapples.

You say medical marijuana, I say marijuana. I had a nephew who smoked weed for his headaches, couldn't surivive without it. Needed a bigger high, fried his brains on harder drugs.

You don't need milder weed, the drugs are available for help. You just want it to legalize the weed.

You keep trying to distract the arguement from the fact that "medical marajuana" is not needed. The drugs are available with the same active chemical.
Unknown said…
Yes, PP, you have said that you oppose medical use of cannabis because it's illegal. You have never said that you don't think it is effective.

Therefore, we are left to believe that you think it's okay to withhold effective medicine from people who need it, simply because the word "marijuana" is annoying enough to knot-headed politicians that they made it illegal.

"Let 'em eat Valium." --War cry of SDWC

What's this have to do with the primary election? Well, it's apparently a lot more interesting than any topic SDWC has posted for several days.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: Frederick not in SDGOP Chair Race

A strategic move by Sutton. Good for him, bad for Dems.