UC Hastings restrictions for medical marijuana patients Forum

[Marionberry]

Literally, more than half the people in law school do drugs, just saying.

Also, I cannot stress enough that your "cognitive performance" assertion has never once been proven. Like I said, it only does this when using it. If she smokes at night time, she wakes up untouched by the side effects(in a cognitive performance sense), believe it or not she will perform as well as she can, even after smoking the night before.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of this medicine enables her to enjoy her life, and live pain free, which in turn allows her to work on school. Although you claim that there are other medicines that are as effective/more effective, I can only point out how they are not natural, are not as safe, they do not immediately alleviate the symptoms, they have serious negative side effects, they actually make her way more impaired than marijuana, and are much more costly.

But yeah, she should be forced to choose between her happiness, safety, and education?

Look, I'm skepticalhippo about the legitimacy of cannabis use in this case, but let's assume that there is a real need for it. From your vague posts, I'm thinking it's being used for chronic pain? Yes, this may be a condition that would warrant the use of cannabis, and it is arguably safer and has less side effects than opiate pain medication. However, if your pain is significant enough that it requires 2-3 grams a day, should you really be considering law school? It's not undergrad, and you'll be at a significant handicap compared to your peers against whom you'll be graded on a curve.

Also, if it's being used for chronic pain, how is the person only going to use it in the evenings? It would seem that that would require their pain to go untreated during the day.

[minuit]

10,000 a year= about 2 pounds = 2-3 grams per day (i.e. 2 big joints a day, if you smoked it, but a lot of what is grown will be used to cook with, to stay away from smoking so much. And cooking with it makes it necessary to have a large amount). So it's really not "so much." It's hard for people to understand these conversions and marijuana's actual affect on a "conditioned" human body, if you have never used it for these reasons, or to this extent.

ahh gotcha... yeah, cooking it makes that amount a lot more reasonable.

[Marionberry]

10,000 a year= about 2 pounds = 2-3 grams per day (i.e. 2 big joints a day, if you smoked it, but a lot of what is grown will be used to cook with, to stay away from smoking so much. And cooking with it makes it necessary to have a large amount). So it's really not "so much." It's hard for people to understand these conversions and marijuana's actual affect on a "conditioned" human body, if you have never used it for these reasons, or to this extent.

ahh gotcha... yeah, cooking it makes that amount a lot more reasonable.

If cooked properly, they will have the same amount of THC crossing their blood-brain barrier, just at different rates. Also, regardless of how conditioned someone is or how it is consumed, 2-3 grams of high grade cannabis is a lot.

[minuit]

10,000 a year= about 2 pounds = 2-3 grams per day (i.e. 2 big joints a day, if you smoked it, but a lot of what is grown will be used to cook with, to stay away from smoking so much. And cooking with it makes it necessary to have a large amount). So it's really not "so much." It's hard for people to understand these conversions and marijuana's actual affect on a "conditioned" human body, if you have never used it for these reasons, or to this extent.

ahh gotcha... yeah, cooking it makes that amount a lot more reasonable.

If cooked properly, they will have the same amount of THC crossing their blood-brain barrier, just at different rates. Also, regardless of how conditioned someone is or how it is consumed, 2-3 grams of high grade cannabis is a lot.

i agree, my extremely conditioned friends maybe consumed 1 gram per day tops before cutting back. but you do need to use a lot more when cooking, definitely. that must be some chronic pain

[HastingsLove]

Have you, perchance, heard of the Controlled Substances Act? Do you know what a C&F board is?

I'll edit that now that I've read your off-point link to the LA Times' article.

The link was certainly not off-point, and actually addresses your questions quite nicely, if you think about it.

[Marionberry]

Have you, perchance, heard of the Controlled Substances Act? Do you know what a C&F board is?

I'll edit that now that I've read your off-point link to the LA Times' article.

The link was certainly not off-point, and actually addresses your questions quite nicely, if you think about it.

I think his point was that you might not need to worry about being prosecuted for it, but that a C&F board might not look favorably on years of behavior that is in violation of federal law.

[HastingsLove]

Have you, perchance, heard of the Controlled Substances Act? Do you know what a C&F board is?

I'll edit that now that I've read your off-point link to the LA Times' article.

The link was certainly not off-point, and actually addresses your questions quite nicely, if you think about it.

I think his point was that you might not need to worry about being prosecuted for it, but that a C&F board might not look favorably on years of behavior that is in violation of federal law.

"Might not" leaves me right where I started. Also, a state board is worried about your adherence to the state's laws. If the state's laws conflict with the feds (which they don't anyways, because in the link about the Federal memo, we are told that as long as we follow state laws we are not doing anything wrong, if we follow the state guidelines) Although yes the black and white federal law would still see her as "in violation," anyone with a brain would not hold it against her, if the state and feds have said (in black and white) that what she is doing is legal, and by legal I mean they both say you will not be found guilty if you follow the state laws, not that you won't be arrested, because at the time of the arrest there might be probable cause, because the cops don't have all the facts. Right? Right.

[BeenDidThat]

Have you, perchance, heard of the Controlled Substances Act? Do you know what a C&F board is?

I'll edit that now that I've read your off-point link to the LA Times' article.

The link was certainly not off-point, and actually addresses your questions quite nicely, if you think about it.

I think his point was that you might not need to worry about being prosecuted for it, but that a C&F board might not look favorably on years of behavior that is in violation of federal law.

"Might not" leaves me right where I started. Also, a state board is worried about your adherence to the state's laws. If the state's laws conflict with the feds (which they don't anyways, because in the link about the Federal memo, we are told that as long as we follow state laws we are not doing anything wrong, if we follow the state guidelines) Although yes the black and white federal law would still see her as "in violation," anyone with a brain would not hold it against her, if the state and feds have said (in black and white) that what she is doing is legal, and by legal I mean they both say you will not be found guilty if you follow the state laws, not that you won't be arrested, because at the time of the arrest there might be probable cause, because the cops don't have all the facts. Right? Right.

Assuming that your friend is you, you shouldn't go to law school if this is how you reason.

[Marionberry]

"Might not" leaves me right where I started. Also, a state board is worried about your adherence to the state's laws. If the state's laws conflict with the feds (which they don't anyways, because in the link about the Federal memo, we are told that as long as we follow state laws we are not doing anything wrong, if we follow the state guidelines) Although yes the black and white federal law would still see her as "in violation," anyone with a brain would not hold it against her, if the state and feds have said (in black and white) that what she is doing is legal, and by legal I mean they both say you will not be found guilty if you follow the state laws, not that you won't be arrested, because at the time of the arrest there might be probable cause, because the cops don't have all the facts. Right? Right.

Are you high right now?

[HastingsLove]

"Might not" leaves me right where I started. Also, a state board is worried about your adherence to the state's laws. If the state's laws conflict with the feds (which they don't anyways, because in the link about the Federal memo, we are told that as long as we follow state laws we are not doing anything wrong, if we follow the state guidelines) Although yes the black and white federal law would still see her as "in violation," anyone with a brain would not hold it against her, if the state and feds have said (in black and white) that what she is doing is legal, and by legal I mean they both say you will not be found guilty if you follow the state laws, not that you won't be arrested, because at the time of the arrest there might be probable cause, because the cops don't have all the facts. Right? Right.

Are you high right now?

About sea level

[bk1]

"Might not" leaves me right where I started. Also, a state board is worried about your adherence to the state's laws. If the state's laws conflict with the feds (which they don't anyways, because in the link about the Federal memo, we are told that as long as we follow state laws we are not doing anything wrong, if we follow the state guidelines) Although yes the black and white federal law would still see her as "in violation," anyone with a brain would not hold it against her, if the state and feds have said (in black and white) that what she is doing is legal, and by legal I mean they both say you will not be found guilty if you follow the state laws, not that you won't be arrested, because at the time of the arrest there might be probable cause, because the cops don't have all the facts. Right? Right.

Stop being stupid and ask an actual lawyer your question rather than a board full of 0L's and current students who can only speculate.

Then again, you're probably high right now that you won't listen considering you didn't do this the last time someone told you to.

[bk1]

About sea level

Then it seems like there is cocaine in your future, so much cocaine.

[Marionberry]

This is one of my favorite kinds of threads:

1) Poster creates account/alt to ask question.

2) People answer poster's question. Answers are not what poster wanted to hear.

3) Poster rejects answers, and becomes combative.

[TurtlesAllTheWayDown]

that was a hyperbole.

2-3 grams a day?!? I would consider that making a hyper bowl. PUNNED!

Anyone else appreciate the irony of reading a cogent argument about not using illegal substances while Hunter S. Thompson is staring you in the face?

[Marionberry]

that was a hyperbole.

2-3 grams a day?!? I would consider that making a hyper bowl. PUNNED!

Anyone else appreciate the irony of reading a cogent argument about not using illegal substances while Hunter S. Thompson is staring you in the face?

"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."

[HastingsLove]

This is one of my favorite kinds of threads:

1) Poster creates account/alt to ask question.

2) People answer poster's question. Answers are not what poster wanted to hear.

3) Poster rejects answers, and becomes combative.

I don't want to hear anything? All I have done is listened to the points, and then talked futher about them! I did not "reject" them, I offered another point to further the conversation.

Welcome to law school!

[Marionberry]

This is one of my favorite kinds of threads:

1) Poster creates account/alt to ask question.

2) People answer poster's question. Answers are not what poster wanted to hear.

3) Poster rejects answers, and becomes combative.

I don't want to hear anything? All I have done is listened to the points, and then talked futher about them! I did not "reject" them, I offered another point to further the conversation.

Welcome to law school!

I will say that your being stoned seems to make you considerably more docile than most of the OP's who post threads that end up like this.

[BeenDidThat]

This is one of my favorite kinds of threads:

1) Poster creates account/alt to ask question.

2) People answer poster's question. Answers are not what poster wanted to hear.

3) Poster rejects answers, and becomes combative.

I don't want to hear anything? All I have done is listened to the points, and then talked futher about them! I did not "reject" them, I offered another point to further the conversation.

Welcome to law school!

No, I want to welcome YOU to law school, where stupid arguments will get caned down faster than a pothead in Singapore.

[bk1]

I don't want to hear anything? All I have done is listened to the points, and then talked futher about them! I did not "reject" them, I offered another point to further the conversation.

Welcome to law school!

Have you contacted an actual lawyer instead of continuing to respond in this thread? I didn't think so.

[Marionberry]

I don't want to hear anything? All I have done is listened to the points, and then talked futher about them! I did not "reject" them, I offered another point to further the conversation.

Welcome to law school!

Have you contacted an actual lawyer instead of continuing to respond in this thread? I didn't think so.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[bk1]

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

How else am I supposed to treat my glaucoma?

[bilbobaggins]

Before I begin: Hey Marion, stop shitting all over the legacy of HST by posting unfounded, anti-drug, pig bullshit.

Sorry, ok, moving on. This is not legal advice. No one should do anything based on what I'm about to say. This is hypothetical conjecture about an academic problem.

After a cursory Westlaw search, I wasn't able to find any cases where this has come in order to litigate entrance into the State Bar after C&F denial based on medical marijuana use. The issue, I would think, is that even though California law permits marijuana growing for medical use as long as you have a properly obtained card, Federal law clearly prohibits such activity. The State Bar looks for applicants who comply with both State and Federal law. I wouldn't want to have to litigate my way onto the Bar if I could avoid it, but it seems like this is precedent waiting to happen, one way or the other.

This is a general statement from the state bar website:
"Drug and alcohol abuse and dependencies are considered major problems in today's society and as such can be seen in the number of lawyer discipline cases that are directly related to these problems. These issues are of particular concern to the Committee."

So, yeah, I'd say that it's not a risk averse decision to grow a bunch of pot while enrolled at Hastings. I'm not even sure it's a smart decision to have a Pot Card. I would say she'd be better off getting the pot however she normally gets it now (aside from growing).

[HastingsLove]

"Might not" leaves me right where I started. Also, a state board is worried about your adherence to the state's laws. If the state's laws conflict with the feds (which they don't anyways, because in the link about the Federal memo, we are told that as long as we follow state laws we are not doing anything wrong, if we follow the state guidelines) Although yes the black and white federal law would still see her as "in violation," anyone with a brain would not hold it against her, if the state and feds have said (in black and white) that what she is doing is legal, and by legal I mean they both say you will not be found guilty if you follow the state laws, not that you won't be arrested, because at the time of the arrest there might be probable cause, because the cops don't have all the facts. Right? Right.

Stop being stupid and ask an actual lawyer your question rather than a board full of 0L's and current students who can only speculate.

Then again, you're probably high right now that you won't listen considering you didn't do this the last time someone told you to.

Thanks, but I don't know the number to the lawyer willing to have an in-depth conversation about the legality of medical marijuana and how it is viewed by law schools (especially for free/She's broke).

As for all this hate. I won't be responding to anyone else who posts something that clearly is of no help to this debate. If anyone has any info, knows a medical marijuana patient going to LS that grows, or thinks there is no way Hastings would be cool with this, or that they would be cool with it, I would be happy to have a healthy conversation about it.

[Marionberry]

Thanks, but I don't know the number to the lawyer willing to have an in-depth conversation about the legality of medical marijuana and how it is viewed by law schools (especially for free/She's broke).

As for all this hate. I won't be responding to anyone else who posts something that clearly is of no help to this debate. If anyone has any info, knows a medical marijuana patient going to LS that grows, or thinks there is no way Hastings would be cool with this, or that they would be cool with it, I would be happy to have a healthy conversation about it.

Okay serious question: You indicated (vaguely) that in this situation "your friend" is using cannabis to treat chronic pain. How would they treat their pain during the day (classes, exams, studying) without being under the influece every waking hour? Having an answer to questions like these would be necessary for "your friend" to convince anyone that their use is not recreational in nature.

Also, I got a bad back. Doctor says I need a backiotomy. Would this qualify me for medicinal marijuana?

[bilbobaggins]

Thanks, but I don't know the number to the lawyer willing to have an in-depth conversation about the legality of medical marijuana and how it is viewed by law schools (especially for free/She's broke).

As for all this hate. I won't be responding to anyone else who posts something that clearly is of no help to this debate. If anyone has any info, knows a medical marijuana patient going to LS that grows, or thinks there is no way Hastings would be cool with this, or that they would be cool with it, I would be happy to have a healthy conversation about it.

Okay serious question: You indicated (vaguely) that in this situation "your friend" is using cannabis to treat chronic pain. How would they treat their pain during the day (classes, exams, studying) without being under the influece every waking hour? Having an answer to questions like these would be necessary for "your friend" to convince anyone that their use is not recreational in nature.

Also, I got a bad back. Doctor says I need a backiotomy. Would this qualify me for medicinal marijuana?

The more this comes from a 'tard of a guy who was almost always fucked up and was one of the most brilliant writers of the 20th century the more i laugh and also cry.