Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Don Young

Hi, Don't Mind Me. I'm Here Now.

Recommended Posts

Hello to you, and you, and you. Ohh and you too. I'm new to this legal aspect of marijuana. After a fall in 2009 I started getting chronic neck pain. in six months I was no longer able to work. After fighting for my SSDI for 5 1/2 years they gave me SSI instead :mad:. Been on pain meds since 2010. Was taking 25mg morphine er and vicodine 10/325 x 4/day. When I moved to NY I had a hard time getting my medical changed and went without anything for months. Started smoking weed on recommendation from a family member. Other than smoking some as a teen I really hadn't given it any thought. 

 

Well I found with my issues it was doing a better job than the pain meds. Plus I could control my dosage better. I take 5-10 mg oxycodone as needed, as some pain weed just don't help but the oxy does. Now I moved to Michigan in Feb this year. Staying with a friend. Due to his job, I won't use weed until I'm certified. Got a appointment with SOHAI next week. I've already sent them my past 3 years worth of medical records. As I have lots of records and printing them all out would be a major pain in the rear. I have a lot more going on than just neck pain. That what just the beginning.

 

I'm politically active. And most of you will not like the fact that I'm a republican. So we may go toe-to-toe some time over issues. That's okay though. I don't mind getting into heated debates. It's about all I got left. If you have been through what I've been through, you'd understand why big government needs to go away.  I'm for everyone who earns money to keep their money. If you rich, I'm glad you are. Chances are your providing something that give people that aren't a opportunity to make some money. If your one that don't like what they pay. Then find another job that will pay you better. As for me, I'm stuck on SSI getting $735/mo. I have little to no chance of getting better. Unless God reaches out and heals me.

 

May you all be blessed,

Don

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello to you, and you, and you. Ohh and you too. I'm new to this legal aspect of marijuana. After a fall in 2009 I started getting chronic neck pain. in six months I was no longer able to work. After fighting for my SSDI for 5 1/2 years they gave me SSI instead :mad:. Been on pain meds since 2010. Was taking 25mg morphine er and vicodine 10/325 x 4/day. When I moved to NY I had a hard time getting my medical changed and went without anything for months. Started smoking weed on recommendation from a family member. Other than smoking some as a teen I really hadn't given it any thought. 

 

Well I found with my issues it was doing a better job than the pain meds. Plus I could control my dosage better. I take 5-10 mg oxycodone as needed, as some pain weed just don't help but the oxy does. Now I moved to Michigan in Feb this year. Staying with a friend. Due to his job, I won't use weed until I'm certified. Got a appointment with SOHAI next week. I've already sent them my past 3 years worth of medical records. As I have lots of records and printing them all out would be a major pain in the rear. I have a lot more going on than just neck pain. That what just the beginning.

 

I'm politically active. And most of you will not like the fact that I'm a republican. So we may go toe-to-toe some time over issues. That's okay though. I don't mind getting into heated debates. It's about all I got left. If you have been through what I've been through, you'd understand why big government needs to go away.  I'm for everyone who earns money to keep their money. If you rich, I'm glad you are. Chances are your providing something that give people that aren't a opportunity to make some money. If your one that don't like what they pay. Then find another job that will pay you better. As for me, I'm stuck on SSI getting $735/mo. I have little to no chance of getting better. Unless God reaches out and heals me.

 

May you all be blessed,

Don

 

If you got SSI and not SSDI, it means you didn't work enough and didn't pay into Social Security enough. So,... big government(welfare) is paying you $735 and giving you free healthcare, and food stamps, instead of you getting zero dollars and zero healthcare. 

 

You preach bootstraps yet you are the scum you seem to hate.  *shrug*  Republicans are cutting your healthcare. Cutting your Food stamps. Lowering any yearly increase to your $735. And, they added a nice provision so that you will have to go through yearly reconfirmation of disability instead of every 3-7 years, and you know what a pain in the butt that can be. They think YOU specifically are not actually disabled.

 

I will never understand republican mentality.

 

You are the reason as a society we come together and help each other. It makes us stronger. We use government, ya know, Constitutional government to pitch in together to make sure people like you at least get a few bucks to help ya out.

 

Yea,... I will never get it. Deluding yourself to some standard you cannot even live up to,  never even pulled up your own bootstraps and worked, and complain about "big government`" that is currently saving your life out of the goodness of society.

 

And ya vote Republican. The exact people who want to take away what little you have. They want to phase out SSI. They want to phase out Medicaid.  And where does that leave you?

 

Astonishing....

 

p.s.  Can you explain it to me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ain't being a dik, I am serious. You are the exact type of voter I do not understand at all.

 

What is it?

 

Why do you want to get rid of what little support you have in life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because government healthcare is bad. dont you understand mal?

 

hey you big R-Republicans, i say return those big government welfare and medicaid and ssi checks. you dont need big governments help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Treat medical marijuana with respect and you will go far here. 

 

Starting right off with 'weed' doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.  After all it's done for us. 

 

Your political views are different than mine. But hey, it's America! Majority rules and freedom of speech. 

 

It is what it is. I'm not into shooting down every newby that comes here with different views. Everyone one of them could just be a 

 

shill for some right wing wacko who enjoys kicking up some dust and fighting.  We have new posters that come here to do just that. 

 

If you came here just for that then you might as well leave now. We are on to the bots sowing discord here in America. It's going to

 

be 'job one' for a while to cure that.

 

If medical marijuana is truly why you came here you will do fine. Probably better to stay away from politics for your first hundred

 

posts (at least). You already fudged up on that one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ain't being a dik, I am serious. You are the exact type of voter I do not understand at all.

 

What is it?

 

Why do you want to get rid of what little support you have in life?

Right! How could we get so lucky to have one fall right in our laps like this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats the difference between weed and marijuana?

Nothing. It just sounds like Jeff Sessions when folks say weed. Seems pejorative to me. Especially when it comes to medical cannabis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ain't being a dik, I am serious. You are the exact type of voter I do not understand at all.

 

What is it?

 

Why do you want to get rid of what little support you have in life?

Just because you are serious doesn't mean you can't still be being a dik!  You should really try and understand that everyone doesn't vote a certain party for the whole platform they stand on.  Do you believe and stand for everything the dems do?  If so you're just as bad as the republicans.  Dems are part of the reason we need all these programs for people, big gov't.

Edited by ANHEMP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how someone can join an on-line discussion board and say, "I'm politically active. And most of you will not like the fact that I'm a republican. So we may go toe-to-toe some time over issues. That's okay though. I don't mind getting into heated debates." and then feel attacked.  I don't believe the OP felt attacked.

 

But this is how it goes.  A person who inserts politics into a discussion should be prepared to actually discuss - not just throw out an opinion and take his ball and go home when someone disagrees.

 

So, I'll comment on this:  " I'm for everyone who earns money to keep their money. If you rich, I'm glad you are. Chances are your providing something that give people that aren't a opportunity to make some money. If your one that don't like what they pay. Then find another job that will pay you better."

 

This sort of philosophy doesn't fit our rigged system.  Wealthy folks buy votes and get wealthier.  This is how we in Michigan were faced with the possibility of a single individual (Maddie Moroun, owner of the Ambassador bridge) continuing to monopolize the busiest international trade route in North America.  Trump's grandfather made the family fortune ($250 million) through sweetheart federal deals to provide housing in post WWII NYC.  Donald Trump himself has even bragged that his donations to political candidates bought him favors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is so much I could say here, but I don't have the energy. Suffice it to say that Malamute is dead on with his critique. I worked for the government for 30 years in the welfare arena and have personally witnessed the attitude of which he speaks. It is mind numbing that people on welfare criticize the programs on which they rely for their very existence. There has been such a stigma placed on people who receive government benefits that the recipients themselves believe they are unworthy of respect. Nice job Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is so much I could say here, but I don't have the energy. Suffice it to say that Malamute is dead on with his critique. I worked for the government for 30 years in the welfare arena and have personally witnessed the attitude of which he speaks. It is mind numbing that people on welfare criticize the programs on which they rely for their very existence. There has been such a stigma placed on people who receive government benefits that the recipients themselves believe they are unworthy of respect. Nice job Republicans.

Not only that (all you said) but we have a wave of people who rail against "entitlements" and say that social security isn't an "entitlement." Somewhere along the line, many folks decided that "entitlement" is a bad word. I blame the likes of entertainers like Rush Limbaugh for this. Social security benefits for old folks are "entitlements." They are entitled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...entitled because they paid in advance. :-)

 

 

Anyhow,...

 

Norby from New York.

 

ANHEMP from New York.

 

Don Young from New York.

 

 

*shrug*

 

 

I do honestly want to know about what I asked though.  I really don't understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ain't being a dik, I am serious. You are the exact type of voter I do not understand at all.

 

What is it?

 

Why do you want to get rid of what little support you have in life?

i would also like to know why a voter (who is on foodstamps or ssi or medicare) would support republicans who want to get rid of or drastically cut medicare, medicaid, social security, welfare, food stamps.

 

its not a bad question, ANHEMP. its also not a DEM vs REP question. its an honest question.

 

 

still waiting for an answer.

 

 

even obama tried to cut social security and medicare in his 2014 budget.

http://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/articles/2013/04/29/how-the-chained-cpi-affects-social-security-payments

 

 

trumps budget cuts are going to hurt the people on SSD:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/05/23/trump-budget-does-cut-social-security-and-medicaid-breaking-major-promises/

 

Social Security payroll taxes cover retirement, survivor benefits, and disability. People who find themselves permanently disabled and incapable of working at all — only about a third of applicants pass the vetting process, according to government statistics — can receive Social Security benefits. In 2016, that was about 8.8 million people, a decrease of 1.13% over the previous year. Children and spouses can potentially also become eligible, which can add close to 2 million additional people. In 2016, the total spent was $142.7 billion.

 

The cuts are supposed to produce total savings of $72 billion between 2018 and 2027 and are listed as a budget line item called "Reform disability programs." As NBC News reported, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney told reporters yesterday that Trump intended only to protect the retirement benefits part of Social Security, although he made no such distinction in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ANHEMP i think a lot of us can agree on things govt should and shouldnt do, right?

 

like we agree the govt shouldnt be spying on us?

the govt shouldnt be spying on what books we get at the library.

the govt shouldnt be funding corporations to advertise or move jobs to other countries.

 

these are not dem vs rep fights. as both parties support that nonsense.

 

but i think we can also agree on other things the govt should do

like testing and ensuring we have clean water and air to breathe? nixon created the EPA!

or taking care of the old and sick with medicare/medicaid ssd/ssi?

 

what about welfare or foodstamps? i support foodstamps so people arent starving.

 

 

 

lets find out what we agree on, then we can argue what candidate or party supports the most policies we both agree on, deal ?

Edited by bax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, on the Nixon thing.

While technically he created the "EPA", it was because Congress forced the Administrative branch to enforce laws they had passed.  Basically, Nixon took all those laws and wrapped up all the environmental protections into one agency, made the proposal to do so, thus creating the EPA.  But, his proposal actually lessened the already current laws. And he then veto'd the clean water act which was overridden by Congress.

 

Nixon gets way too much credit.  It was really Ed Muskie that championed the protections.

 

"Whereas Richard M. Nixon’s commitment to environmental protection was
opportunistic and short-lived, Muskie’s was neither. Growing up in Rumford,
Maine, Muskie observed the impact of pollution on the Androscoggin River and
the air from nearby paper mill smokestacks. In his 1954 gubernatorial campaign,
he had raised pollution as a problem. As governor, he called for legislation to
address water pollution and began to understand the complexity of the problem.

After his election to the Senate in 1958, he had little opportunity to act on his
environmental interest until April 1963 when he became the chairman of the newly
created Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution. Muskie quickly
commissioned comprehensive staff reports on water and air pollution. Although
Muskie saw pollution as interfering with economic development and was
interested in conservation, early on he recognized pollution as a public health
problem. By mid-June 1963, Muskie was holding six days of hearings on water
pollution; in September 1963, Muskie held three days of hearings on air. The
Senate passed legislation in both areas during 1963, although the water bill died in
the House of Representatives. The work of America’s greatest environmental
legislative leader had begun.

 

In 1963, fighting pollution brought little political payoff. The first Earth Day
was still seven years away and the environment had not become a popular cause.
Regulating pollution raised then-complicated issues of constitutional power and
scientific causation. It was not an endeavor for the faint of heart or for uncurious
minds and spirits. Pioneering never is.

 

The 1970 Clean Air Act and the 1972 Clean Water Act were the culmination
of Muskie’s legislative efforts that began the prior decade. From 1963 to 1970, the
Senate passed a series of measures that incrementally enhanced pollution control,
each adding to the edifice predecessor acts had begun to build. For instance, the
Clean Air Act of 1963 expanded programs for research and technical assistance
and incentivized states to improve their air quality programs. It also authorized
the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare to convene state and local officials
to address interstate air problems. In 1964, Muskie held air pollution hearings in
six cities and reported “our war” against “this menace to our health and welfare”
was “in its infancy.” The Clean Air Act of 1965 directed the Secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare to establish the first, albeit modest, emissions standards for
motor vehicles. In 1965, Muskie held field hearings regarding water pollution,
culminating in the Water Quality Act of 1965, which authorized the federal
government to establish standards for federal waterways unless states set adequate
water standards for interstate water within their jurisdictions. Congress passed
the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, which was an amended version of
legislation Muskie had introduced and shepherded through the Senate. It provided
funds to help defray the cost of compliance with the 1965 act. That year
Congress also passed amendments to the Clean Air Act to strengthen and expand
it. Convinced that a national response was needed, Congress passed the Air
Quality Act of 1967 to establish ambient air quality standards based on federal
criteria. The Act adopted a regional approach to implement the national criteria.
HEW was to designate “atmospheric regions,” the States were to adopt plans
showing how they would comply with the federal standards, and HEW was to
report on progress.

 

This brief sketch of some legislative enactments leading up to Muskie’s two
environmental masterpieces, the Clean Air Act of 1970 and Clean Water Act of
1972, simply identifies some markers along the way. It does not even begin to
suggest the activities that produced them, the extensive study and hearings to
understand the problems, the committee meetings to exchange views and develop
consensus, the conferences with members of the House of Representatives to try to
resolve conflicting approaches, and the continuing work to educate the public about
the twin menaces to its health; not to mention Muskie’s own mastery of every
aspect of the subject—technical, political, strategic, constitutional.

 

Even so, this incomplete outline suggests the longevity and commitment of
Muskie’s legislative work up to 1970 and 1972, a record that would have made him
America’s “most important environmental leader” and “environmental law’s
champion” even had he shifted his attention to other areas after he achieved
national prominence during his spectacular 1968 vice-presidential candidacy. He
did not. His rising national stature expanded the demands made on him, yet he
retained his leadership role regarding environmental legislation and his
commitment to protecting spaceship Earth and the people and species on it. In fact,
it was during these years after Muskie had achieved national prominence, and at a
time when other claims on his time increased exponentially due to his position as a
leading party spokesman on a host of issues and front-runner for the 1972
Democratic presidential nomination, that Muskie shepherded the monumental
Clean Air Act of 1970 to become law and did most of the work to complete the
Clean Water Act of 1972, a project that retained his devotion even amidst the
disappointment of his failed run for the presidency.

 

Many legislators claim victory after a legislative accomplishment and move on
to other pursuits, but that was not Muskie’s way. He recognized that legislating
was an ongoing enterprise and there was much more to do to combat pollution. On
April 23, 1974, the day after the fourth Earth Day and after the master pieces were
in place, Muskie lamented, “notwithstanding the legislation we have enacted, and
the public awareness which has been stimulated, we have achieved so little in
dealing with the problem.” In 1975, he held extensive hearings on the Clean Air
Act. A substantial part of 1976 was dedicated to passing amendments to the Clean
Air Act in the Senate, reaching agreement with the House in conference, before the
bill ultimately died via filibuster. Legislation passed the following term. Far
from short-lived and opportunistic, Muskie’s work on environmental issues began
before the cause became a cause and spanned most of the four terms of his Senate
career until he left that body to become Secretary of State on May 8, 1980.

Indeed, he continued to write about, and advocate that government address,
newly discovered environmental challenges as well as some of the familiar ones
where work remained to be done after he left public office.

 

Although the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act are not known as the
“Muskie” Act(s) they might well be. Indeed, as Richard Lazarus points out,
members of the Supreme Court treat Muskie’s intent as the relevant lodestar for
understanding those acts. The justices recognize him as the creator of the
regulatory framework."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's about how we weigh each of the policies, not how many.  I'm neither rep or dem.  I think both suck.  Some people are 1 issue voters like a lot of the people here with MJ

ANHEMP i think a lot of us can agree on things govt should and shouldnt do, right?

like we agree the govt shouldnt be spying on us?
the govt shouldnt be spying on what books we get at the library.
the govt shouldnt be funding corporations to advertise or move jobs to other countries.

these are not dem vs rep fights. as both parties support that nonsense.

but i think we can also agree on other things the govt should do
like testing and ensuring we have clean water and air to breathe? nixon created the EPA!
or taking care of the old and sick with medicare/medicaid ssd/ssi?

what about welfare or foodstamps? i support foodstamps so people arent starving.



lets find out what we agree on, then we can argue what candidate or party supports the most policies we both agree on, deal ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...entitled because they paid in advance. :-)

 

 

Anyhow,...

 

Norby from New York.

 

ANHEMP from New York.

 

Don Young from New York.

 

 

*shrug*

 

 

I do honestly want to know about what I asked though.  I really don't understand it.

NYS will definitely put you against Dems.  Look theyre in charge there and have the worst medical mj law in the country.  They carteled the med mj program and screwed the people who got the liscences too. Cuomo did that(with all the other dems falling into line) and took away the right to own "assault rifles".  NY will make anyone hate dems.  But I suppose you are fine with that Mal, right?  Dem all the way!!!  Whatever they do is good for you?

Personally I am an independent and have voted libertarian and mostly dem in teh other categories, what's your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...