Fred Gardner 
Member since Mar 24, 2010


Stats

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Letters for March 24

... since I hadn't written or said any of them.

I better get back to work.

Posted by Fred Gardner on 03/24/2010 at 3:44 PM

Re: “Letters for March 24

PS... I started pointing out the trees and lost sight of the forest. It wouldn't matter if all the assertions Downs made after "According to Fred Gardner..." had been true! It still would have been false attribution (albeit less embarrassing to yours truly). —FG

Posted by Fred Gardner on 03/24/2010 at 3:34 PM

Re: “Letters for March 24

David Downs response is an exercise in sophistry. I was embarrassed that he had run off five inaccuracies and attributed them to me. He apologizes for the first, then attempts —pretends, actually— to defend the rest of his error-laden riff.

He stands by: "Ever since Prop 215 passed in 1996 there's been a boom…" ignoring the fact that for years after Prop 215 passed, California law enforcement and the medical board choked off implementation. The late Tod Mikuriya often said, "the medical marijuana story is not just about marijuana, it's about the erasing of history." Dr. Tod was talking about the 1930s, but now it's his own role in cracking the wall of Prohibition that's being erased.

Downs stands by calling me a doctor because I play one on TV.

He stands by "Anywhere from 50 to a few hundred doctors in the state do all the prescribing" by invoking Denney's and Lopez's estimates of how many doctors have dedicated their practices to issuing cannabis approvals. This is sophistry. "All" means "all," as in 100 percent, every single one, etc. It doesn't mean "the majority."

He stands by "no one counts them" because no state agency counts them, and because the Patient ID center's list of 2,100 California MDs who have approved cannabis use by patients is only a partial figure.

He ignores the fact that he wrote "they set up high-volume practices" in reference to the "doctors in the state who do all the prescribing." He pretends he agreed all along that "not all doctors run high-volume clinics."

He also agrees —Oh, reasonable Downs— that the doctor-patient relationship should be sacrosanct. But in context, "they exclusively determine if marijuana would be an effective treatment for customer maladies," suggests that doctors who readily approve cannabis use by their patients have inordinate power and perhaps should be monitored.

Downs presumes that I was writing in response to "negative press" for my "cause." (He wrote "his or her cause," apparently confused by my androgynous appearance.) Not at all. I was writing to disassociate myself from inaccuracies that had been attributed to me.

Fred Gardner

Posted by Fred Gardner on 03/24/2010 at 2:59 PM

Readers' Favorites

Most Popular Stories


© 2016 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation