Marijuana Dispensary or "Supervised Consumption Site"

[Raven1]

Something is clearly wrong in our governing bodies that would condemn a marijuana dispensary because the substance is illegal, yet seldom if ever causes severe health issues, but allow a safe place for the consumption and provide tools necessary for the consumption of other ILLEGAL substances that cause a whole myriad of severe health issues including overdose and subsequent death.

They are succeeding at pitting us against one another.

I have people in my life that use marijuana to successfully treat ailments, I have a family member that has been able to use their hands again after using a marijuana recipe for severe arthritis. I have watched several cancer patients be able to enjoy food because of marijuana. Most of these people have a prescription, some however do not.

I have had several in my life treated with opiates for pain relief following a car accident, a work place incident (WCB) and a very good family friend committed suicide (not an accidental overdose) because of his inability to get help getting off the morphine the doctors had prescribed him.

If given the choice...(we don't actually have a choice, they just tell us we do and most believe) I would much rather have a marijuana dispensary near a school or a playground, or rolling down the road like an ice cream truck for that matter versus any type of facility (mobile or stationary) that enables opiate addiction.

[Tony]

Here's the issue, in my opinion. I have no problem at all for someone using pot for a medical reason. However, if you need any drugs prescribed by a medical doctor then you should be getting that from a licensed pharmacist. There is currently no control over the growing of pot. There isn't a body in place that tests the THC levels, and monitors the manufacture of gummy bears etc.

If the product is going to be sold for medical reasons, then why not let the many drug stores out there handle it?

As of today, recreational use of marijuana is illegal, and will be until 2018 at the earliest. By the time the Provinces get it together, and municipalities get their end worked out, I'd say you'd be looking at 2019- 2020.

I don't agree with supervised consumption sites either. I think they should have supervised addiction sites, where addicts can go for free counseling to try to help them kick their addiction, what ever it is. To me, that would be far more effective in the battle against addiction.

Your comments about opiates are valid. Some people do get addicted to them ,but there's help in getting off them if you choose to do so. I have also known people who smoke dope on a regular basis not function well at all, and I've known alcoholics who can't function and some who can function.

In the end, it's the choices that each of us makes that determine how we live. Some people make bad choices, some make bad choices, realize it, and then turn themselves around.

[TylerM4]

Here's the issue, in my opinion. I have no problem at all for someone using pot for a medical reason. However, if you need any drugs prescribed by a medical doctor then you should be getting that from a licensed pharmacist. There is currently no control over the growing of pot. There isn't a body in place that tests the THC levels, and monitors the manufacture of gummy bears etc.

So my question is Why? Why do we need doctors and pharmacists involved?

I think the general opinion is because of risk. So let's look at the risks: Impossible to overdose, despite many medical studies nobody has been able to link marijuana to harmful outcomes due to the drug, side effects, etc. Only some medical evidence that *suggests* regular consumption can impact developing brains. Tylenol has WAY more documented negative medical outcomes and harms dozens of people every year (usually due to children getting it, or inappropriate use) yet I somehow doubt you're going to suggest we need a prescription for it.

Any other drug with that much study and that low of a risk would be sold "over the counter". So why not Marijuana?

[Mtn Biker]

Regrettably most Canadians have their head in the sand on this one. I heard a dispensary owner make a very valid point the other day and it goes similar too: The only reason the government is cracking down on dispensary in their current form is to eliminate them from the industry so big pharma can take over, because they will feed the government of the day boat loads of cash to make it so. It that comes to pass, then the under ground market and the crime it creates, will continue.

[Tony]

Here's the issue, in my opinion. I have no problem at all for someone using pot for a medical reason. However, if you need any drugs prescribed by a medical doctor then you should be getting that from a licensed pharmacist. There is currently no control over the growing of pot. There isn't a body in place that tests the THC levels, and monitors the manufacture of gummy bears etc.

So my question is Why? Why do we need doctors and pharmacists involved?

I think the general opinion is because of risk. So let's look at the risks: Impossible to overdose, despite many medical studies nobody has been able to link marijuana to harmful outcomes due to the drug, side effects, etc. Only some medical evidence that *suggests* regular consumption can impact developing brains. Tylenol has WAY more documented negative medical outcomes and harms dozens of people every year (usually due to children getting it, or inappropriate use) yet I somehow doubt you're going to suggest we need a prescription for it.

Any other drug with that much study and that low of a risk would be sold "over the counter". So why not Marijuana?

You're hard pressed to buy a cold medication in a grocery store now, unless they have a pharmacy attached. The thing is, is that marijuana is a regulated drug. Is it a tax grab? More than likely. Is liquor a tax grab, by all means. But we are talking medical marijuana in this post. There are lots of medicines that doctors prescribe that are over the counter, or found on the shelf. Maybe that's where this could be without a doubt. The word dispensary indicates that it needs to be dispensed, so therefore it should be a professional dispensing it. (And by professional I don't mean someone who smokes pot) It's the lack of regulation on it that's the problem. I read the other day where pot is now being laced with fentanyl. That doesn't sound safe to me. If there is some level of control, then that would never happen to innocent people using marijuana for medicinal purposes.

If the Government sees fit to legalize if for recreational use, then pot stores or liquor stores make sense, but once again, regulated growers and standards would have to be met, and there are none right now.

[TylerM4]

I totally agree - you need more rules than "any old store can sell it".

Regarding lack of controls - there's 1 big reason why there are no controls. Because it's illegal. You can't regulate something that's illegal to begin with.

I'm confident that with legalization will come regulation. Look at what was done down south. Dispensaries are required to provide lab testing data and potency data with the products they sell. There have even been gummy bear recalls due to mislabeling, etc.

Legalization will make marijuana dispensary much safer for everyone involved. You don't need prescriptions and pharmacists to enforce regulation.

[youjustcomplain]

I think the general opinion is because of risk. So let's look at the risks: Impossible to overdose, despite many medical studies nobody has been able to link marijuana to harmful outcomes due to the drug, side effects, etc. Only some medical evidence that *suggests* regular consumption can impact developing brains.

I'm not for or against "pot". I'm not sure where I stand.
However, you're not being honest, or you've not looked very hard for evidence against your argument. Either way.

Here is the results of just one study.
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/p ... nabis.aspx

A few little bits here:
Physical health problems
Even though the main risk to physical health from cannabis is probably from the tobacco that it is often smoked with, new research has found that the cannabis plant also contains cancerogenic mutagens that can affect people's lungs.

What about driving?
In New Zealand, researchers found that those who smoked regularly, and had smoked before driving, were more likely to be injured in a car crash. A recent study in France looked at over 10,000 drivers who were involved in fatal car crashes. Even when the influence of alcohol was taken into account, cannabis users were more than twice as likely to be the cause of a fatal crash than to be one of the victims.

Psychoses - schizophrenia and bipolar disorder
There is now sufficient evidence to show that those who use cannabis particularly at a younger age, such as around the age of 15, have a higher than average risk of developing a psychotic illness, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
These studies also show that the risk is dose-related. In other words, the more cannabis someone used, the more likely they were to develop a psychotic illness. Furthermore, a study in Australia recently showed that those who used cannabis could develop the illness about 2.70 years earlier than those who did not.


Either way, there is evidence to support the argument that challenges yours.

[Fancy]

So let's look at the risks: Impossible to overdose, despite many medical studies nobody has been able to link marijuana to harmful outcomes due to the drug, side effects, etc. Only some medical evidence that *suggests* regular consumption can impact developing brains. Tylenol has WAY more documented negative medical outcomes and harms dozens of people every year (usually due to children getting it, or inappropriate use) yet I somehow doubt you're going to suggest we need a prescription for it.

Any other drug with that much study and that low of a risk would be sold "over the counter". So why not Marijuana?

There are risks that many don't appear to ackowledge.

Cannabis users had more diffuse cerebral activation across all trials, and they made more errors in working memory tasks relative to nonusers.

http://www.pedneur.com/article/S0887-8994(16)30478-7/fulltext#sec1.6
There are many studies and more information coming out about the negative aspects of regular using. Adolescents should not be using marijuana so I would not want to see supervised consumption sites. Treat it like the drug that it is.

[Raven1]

I'm not for or against "pot". I'm not sure where I stand.
However, you're not being honest, or you've not looked very hard for evidence against your argument. Either way.

Here is the results of just one study.
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/p ... nabis.aspx

A few little bits here:
Physical health problems
Even though the main risk to physical health from cannabis is probably from the tobacco that it is often smoked with, new research has found that the cannabis plant also contains cancerogenic mutagens that can affect people's lungs.

What about driving?
In New Zealand, researchers found that those who smoked regularly, and had smoked before driving, were more likely to be injured in a car crash. A recent study in France looked at over 10,000 drivers who were involved in fatal car crashes. Even when the influence of alcohol was taken into account, cannabis users were more than twice as likely to be the cause of a fatal crash than to be one of the victims.

Psychoses - schizophrenia and bipolar disorder
There is now sufficient evidence to show that those who use cannabis particularly at a younger age, such as around the age of 15, have a higher than average risk of developing a psychotic illness, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
These studies also show that the risk is dose-related. In other words, the more cannabis someone used, the more likely they were to develop a psychotic illness. Furthermore, a study in Australia recently showed that those who used cannabis could develop the illness about 2.70 years earlier than those who did not.


Either way, there is evidence to support the argument that challenges yours.

The problem with studies is their findings depend who is providing funding for said study and whether there's an opportunity for bias to provide personal gain to . Studies since the late 80's have been bought and paid to say whatever the group in question wants the study to reveal.
Now as far driving goes, what about abusers of prescription narcotics....they are just as hazardous if not more so than anyone using marijuana for medical purposes. The doses often times are low in thc and there is little if any affect on the patient.

My initial post is not in reference to the "recreational" pot user/abuser or the availability to those underage for purposes other than medicinal purposes.

We have a situation where people are advocating, condoning and accepting supervised consumption sites at the governments behest and yet the same government that is providing sanctuary for the use of very powerful illegal drugs that are usually not obtained with prescription when using these facilities and condemning dispensaries from distributing marijuana to those that have a prescription for the drug they seek.

There are not enough pharmacists educated strictly on the benefits of marijuana and its derivatives in order for the products to be "dispensed" appropriately at only pharmacies.

[Raven1]

There are risks that many don't appear to ackowledge.

Cannabis users had more diffuse cerebral activation across all trials, and they made more errors in working memory tasks relative to nonusers.

http://www.pedneur.com/article/S0887-8994(16)30478-7/fulltext#sec1.6
There are many studies and more information coming out about the negative aspects of regular using. Adolescents should not be using marijuana so I would not want to see supervised consumption sites. Treat it like the drug that it is.

I for one have had the displeasure of witnessing the long term physical effects of opiates and their derivatives on individuals and it isn't pretty.
It has been proven over and over that opiates are addictive and harmful when abused. Yet our governments are placating the use of opiates and the user by providing "supervised consumption sites and other safety nets under the harm reduction and war on drugs banners.

[Gixxer]

I'm not for or against "pot". I'm not sure where I stand.
However, you're not being honest, or you've not looked very hard for evidence against your argument. Either way.

Here is the results of just one study.
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/p ... nabis.aspx

A few little bits here:
Physical health problems
Even though the main risk to physical health from cannabis is probably from the tobacco that it is often smoked with, new research has found that the cannabis plant also contains cancerogenic mutagens that can affect people's lungs.

What about driving?
In New Zealand, researchers found that those who smoked regularly, and had smoked before driving, were more likely to be injured in a car crash. A recent study in France looked at over 10,000 drivers who were involved in fatal car crashes. Even when the influence of alcohol was taken into account, cannabis users were more than twice as likely to be the cause of a fatal crash than to be one of the victims.

Psychoses - schizophrenia and bipolar disorder
There is now sufficient evidence to show that those who use cannabis particularly at a younger age, such as around the age of 15, have a higher than average risk of developing a psychotic illness, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
These studies also show that the risk is dose-related. In other words, the more cannabis someone used, the more likely they were to develop a psychotic illness. Furthermore, a study in Australia recently showed that those who used cannabis could develop the illness about 2.70 years earlier than those who did not.


Either way, there is evidence to support the argument that challenges yours.

All garbage and B.S. fear mongering and propaganda at it finest

[Wheels]

I am very much opposed to legalizing marijuana.
1. Personal experience: I saw my brother deteriorate from a talented individual with potential for a magnificent career to a surfer on a sickness benefit experimenting with more potent drugs. All from regular consumption. He now has regular seizures.

2. Cannabis, more precisely the nine cannabinoids have not all been thoroughly analyzed, and because it is a natural product it seems to fly under the regulation radar of Canada Health regulations.

3. We are not listening to medical personnel, police officers, mental health counsellors, psychiatrists, scientists all because the Province is in line to benefit from tax revenue. Organized Crime have the jump on the production, why would they suddenly legitimize their operation and pay taxes? Once a criminal always a criminal, how can the Government be so naive?

We really have become a hoping, coping, doping and shopping society!

[Jflem1983]

How can we charge anyone with anything if we have safe injection sites for illegal drugs . That's so backwards . Promote heroin . Ban pot .

[Gixxer]

I am very much opposed to legalizing marijuana.
1. Personal experience: I saw my brother deteriorate from a talented individual with potential for a magnificent career to a surfer on a sickness benefit experimenting with more potent drugs. All from regular consumption. He now has regular seizures.

2. Cannabis, more precisely the nine cannabinoids have not all been thoroughly analyzed, and because it is a natural product it seems to fly under the regulation radar of Canada Health regulations.

3. We are not listening to medical personnel, police officers, mental health counsellors, psychiatrists, scientists all because the Province is in line to benefit from tax revenue. Organized Crime have the jump on the production, why would they suddenly legitimize their operation and pay taxes? Once a criminal always a criminal, how can the Government be so naive?

We really have become a hoping, coping, doping and shopping society!

Bahhaha to funny

[Ken7]

Regrettably most Canadians have their head in the sand on this one. I heard a dispensary owner make a very valid point the other day and it goes similar too: The only reason the government is cracking down on dispensary in their current form is to eliminate them from the industry so big pharma can take over, because they will feed the government of the day boat loads of cash to make it so. It that comes to pass, then the under ground market and the crime it creates, will continue.

You are likely correct on your comments and I agree. I've stated that right from the get-go anyway. IF one uses it daily be it medical ( not covered ) or for recreational use if they can save $30.00 per week / month they will.

It isn't going to stop organized crime at all.

Why because the wealthy will buy it from Shoppers DM and the "Middle Class" have to find a discount supplier because they can't afford it.