Rick Thompson

All of the conversation in this thread was interesting and relevant- until the comment made above by SFC. I did read something interesting- Hayduke, you wrote that you rec'd the letter I wrote about, too. It was dated two weeks ago; you must have had this for quite a few days now. Why didn't YOU tell the community about this travesty? Anybody else feel like this letter should have been brought out into the open immediately, not hidden away in dark corners?

Here is the first mention of PROFITS in this thread. Not made by a dispensary proponent but by a detractor like yourself. YOU brought profits into the conversation, not I. He even said the word THREE TIMES and we are still to believe that everyone is okay with profits? Not a believeable statement.

Actually you are quite wrong. We have read that all dispensaries have no compassion. It was even written with a "Period." at the end of the sentence. No wiggle room, no some-of-them-are-ok. "Period." You are now saying "employed by some of the". This is in conflict with the whole "Period." thing. At least be consistent with your messaging. Profit was mentioned by you and others- if profit incentive is not a bad thing, why do you and your brothers keep using that word as a sword? If profit is not an issue you should never have mentioned it. Your quote is a reasonable approach to the issue but it IS NOT consistent with what has been written on pages 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this thread.

Uh, according to the 1 caregiver-5 patients statement, you are not allowed to try out another caregiver to see if they are "giving you better service" until AFTER you officially switch caregivers with LARA. Under the dispensary model you are free to shop around. The freedom you describe, Celliach, does not exist in a fixed 1:5 system. Switching caregivers is possible but only at a cost ($10 change form) and with risk (you can't give them a trial growing period).

Very true. No single solution exists to the problems faced by patients today. I will say, and I hope that this sentiment is echoed by those I have poked at here today, no one on this listing actually wants to harm patients. SFC and Zap and Hayduke and Jamie and I all want the same thing- patients to have access to quality medication in a way that is comfortable and safe and protected- we just disagree on how to bring that about. I believe the caregiver system and the dispensary system work together to offer options to patients. SFC wants to limit choices to eliminate the dispensary portion of the equation. One philosophy embraces choices, one eliminates choices. In America, we are predicated on a free market economy that offers us 20 different types of aspirin, 15 different fast-food restaurants and oodles of places to buy clothing, groceries, alcohol. Choice, or no choice. I choose CHOICE. I bet most of the rest of us would agree that is best, too.

You are quite welcome.

Now Caveat states that caregivers have the same profit incentive and business model as dispensaries. Costs- either labor, overhead, medicine, testing- are passed on to the consumer. The difference between a single man distribution center (caregiver) and a multi-man distribution center (dispensary) is become less and less frightening. An evolution of thought is taking place here.

Uh, you do realize that Northern Lights is a commercial interest... so is Komorn Law, a commercial interest that makes money from patients and caregivers... are you really so interested in bashing things that you would make such a broad, sweeping statement?

Did you hear that, SFC? Even Zap thinks your statements are off-base. Thanks for the show of support, Zap!

How about caregivers stop saying things that are denegrating dispensaries. That sword cuts both ways, my good man. Start practicing what y'all preach.

Caveat, read SFC;s statements. All dispensaries are in it fir profit and none of them know anything about compassion. "Period." He said it. Read the posts, man!

HELL YES! Now, finally, someone with an open mind,

You can't even be consistent within your own postings, SFC. "Dispensaries are not about compassion, they are about profits." Soooooo, how does that fit with your statement "we have no problem with dispensaries"??? It took three sentences to completely contradict yourself. And that, my friends, is why no one will take SFC seriously. We have Zap that claims negativity was confined to only dispensary comments but that was proven false... we have SFC who can't decide if he likes dispensaries or not... What a muddied message. Good luck with that.

No, you have NOT said that. You shoot at dispensaries every chance you get. Nice misstatement to avoid being responsible for your words.

"We're not upset about the film, we're upset about what you and Jamie, and Matt Abel, etc have said in the film." Nice contradiction. Or should I say, obfuscation.