|
|
Post by Ancient Goddess on Feb 2, 2005 13:42:25 GMT -5
Well, I think it should be legal in both cases: medicinal and...recreational. I thought I had made that clear under my second post in this section, and I apologize for not explaining it further.
Marijuana is already used by a wide variety of age ranges, young and old. I believe that there wouldn't be a change in the statistics if it was legalized. Underaged teenagers can purchase/obtain beer, so it shouldn't be too much of a difference. A large percentage of teenagers already smoke weed regardless.
I never disagreed with you that it would go up...I just stated I didn't believe there would be too much of an increase. This harmful mind-altering substance has already lodged its way inside of our general society. The government can't squash it, so there's really no point of banning it. It's ultimately up to the individuals to control their amount of intake...although a legalized limit of use would help these people out tremendously.
The main point of my argument is the fact that the public already has access to this drug and can get it pretty easily. So why even attempt to keep it from the public? They find ways to get it regardless, legally or illegally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sephiroth Kaizen on Feb 2, 2005 22:38:31 GMT -5
I just wanted to add this in here because this caught my attention:
The probability of marijuana being legalized for medicinal purposes are so slim to none, it's not worth mentioning.
A doctor may prescribe a form of medication that has the affect as marijuana or maybe some of the, (for lack of a better term) counterparts of marijuana, but the chances of that being prescribed are still slim. Doctors are no longer 'doctors' they are technicians. I say this because after a doctor diagnoses the problem, they report it to the insurance company who in turn tells the doctors what to prescribe for the problem. An insurance company is not going to tell a doctor to prescribe a drug that they're going to have to pay top dollar for. A doctor wouldn't even have the leeway to prescribe something like that for a political move. If they did, they'd mine as well be flushing their 10 years of college down the drain and kiss their license goodbye.
As for the legalization of marijuana, I don't really care about it, mainly because I don't use it and neither do any of my friends. Marijuana harms the people who use it and don't have sense enough to use it within their homes where they can't injure others. Marijuana harms people who don't know how to control themselves. And I don't know about the comment of using marijuana will lead the way to more dangerous substances because I've known people who have only smoked marijuana and would never touch anything outside of that. Marijuana doesn't kill braincells, so I'm not too sure what the big deal is. It makes you smell, it makes your lips purple, it makes Kage act like an ass, but otherwise, I don't care.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colour of Art on Feb 3, 2005 9:51:14 GMT -5
i enjoyed both the last two responses.
saiyatrunks...curious...
use of ecstasy, cocaine, and crack along with cheating on your taxes, speeding, corporate fraud, petty theft.....i can actually go one for days.
all of these are illegal, yet have firmly rooted places within our society. It is almost/near impossible to govern these actions. the genie is out of the bottle with corporate fraud and the gov is trying to get it back in now(same issues Theodore Roosevelt dealt with nearing 100 yrs ago) Because these actions are firmly rooted in our society do you propose we legalize them?
ecstasy, cocaine, and crack only harm those people who choose to use it, and not everyone becomes an addict.
speeding doesnt harm anyone, unless you are driving reckless. corporate fraud helps the market stay up so it benefits the entire country, petty theft honestly HURTS NO ONE! the gov. has money....the IRS doesnt really get hurt by people cheating here and there..... do u agree that these should be legal because they are rampant and wide spread in our society. I would propose that more people speed, steal, and lie on taxes than do marijuana....should these be legaliszed first?
about the doctor comment...
that is a strictly cynical view of doctors. true, Unfortunately alot of medicine has gone to treatment and not preventitive and insurance companies have a lot to do with that(our culture is also responsible for that). But doctors honestly have alot of options when it comes to prescribing medicines, and often it is because of the pfizer, p&g, and Ciba, etc will all offer competing drugs...a bad example but valid one is....for erectile dysfunction a doctor can prescribe cialis or viagra....the choice is the doctors...
marijuana is actually very inexpensive so if a doctor did prescribe it, that would be the least expensive method. whilelegalizing marijuana is doubtful, i believe the legalization of marijuana substituents is possible.
also...
the political move...half of everything doctors do is political. A doctor will chose a pfizer drug because they have a relationship with pfizer and look more at the pfizer data. This is what pushes some doctor decisions and loss of license is not at risk, because in areas where they do it, they have the legal option to do so...
also, when talking about marjuana, etc etc it is very rare that insurance companies cover these drugs in anyway shape and form. that is the real problem with cost. people want inexpensive drugs because marijuana and marijuana based drugs wont be covered by insurance companies because they are not treatment drugs, they are more or less, luxuries to help deal with the condition of the patient. That is why (unless you are dealing with a great insurance plan which is rare) the insurance company wont have much say with marijuana...that decision is tween the doctor patient and the patients check book.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ancient Goddess on Feb 3, 2005 11:32:08 GMT -5
Out of all of the drugs you listed, Colour, marijuana does the least amount of harm. For many, weed is a subsitute for tobacco and will not truly affect someone unless it is taken in large amounts, not unlike alcohol. Cocaine, heroine, ecstasy....those pretty much screw people up within their first dosages. As I said eariler, weed should have a legalized amount like alcohol. The two results (drunk and high) are very similar, anyway.
Corperate fraud and cheating on taxes have larger consequences than being high. Usually, you'd end up in prison longer...you think that's better than smoking weed? I'm sorry if I don't understand this....(side note: Petty theft, like all cases of theft hurts two people: A.) the individual the object was stolen from; and B.) the person who gets caught....so it does hurt someone)
Anyway, I still haven't seen a valid statement about the initial harm the substance can do if it is legalized. It wouldn't be any different as to what it is now...the same effects would still be in place. To me, it sounds like you're saying, 'since it's illegal now, it's bad and should stay banned'. I don't think this is what you meant, however, but reading your statement kinda gave me that impression.
I don't think that the legalization of this drug would damage society too much, but then....this is just what I believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colour of Art on Feb 3, 2005 12:38:57 GMT -5
i understand what you were saying...
(i never said i didnt like your argument...its impressive)
but i was refering to your statement which i will quote...
Posted on: 02/02/2005 at 13:42:25 by Saiyatrunks
"The main point of my argument is the fact that the public already has access to this drug and can get it pretty easily. So why even attempt to keep it from the public? They find ways to get it regardless, legally or illegally."
you stated that was your "main point" and if that was your "main point" my subsequent post was saying that marijuana is like other actions and drugs,
" the public already has access to this drug and can get it pretty easily."
if you are using that as your "main point" how do u argue against legalizing cocaine, crack, or other things that take place in society and are peoples choices, their health affects or....what? neither marijuana or cocaine have health benefits and in fact have negative, both are personal choices, both occur regularly, both are addictive, but yes cocaine is way more addictive and debilitating, but... the extent of the high was not in your argument....if i use cocaine, it doesnt affect anyone around me.....if i smoke marijuana the smoke around me does affect everyone around me....hmmm see the argument for legalizing cocaine your words make?
the consequences you listed for corporate fraud are consequences because of law...that is why you get longer pison sentences....if the laws are gotten rid of, they no longer will be have greater consequences. As you said on..
Posted on: 02/02/2005 at 13:42:25 posted by saiyatrunks
"I never disagreed with you that it[rates of use]would go up...I just stated I didn't believe there would be too much of an increase.
so legalizing tax or corporate fraud should also not increase the rate of occurence....rt? and
cheating on my taxes or corporate physically doesnt harm anyone with second hand smoke or increased chance of cancer.
do u honestly think walmart misses out on a snickers or soda someone lifts? i doubt it. theft only hurts someone who gets caught, if its a crime. u could easily make a law with limits, if someone is stealing a certain amount of something for immediate consumption or immediate use its not a crime. or if it is stolen from a fortune 500 company or etc etc that way people that steal cars, rob banks, citizens, etc etc are still criminals. a limit similar to your limit of marijuana use.
the point of my post was to show how your well articulated "main point" for legalizing marijuana (which is fine, i am not arguing against it) can also be employed for the legalization of alot of other things "the public" already does.
your latest point seems to stress more of the variety of health benefits. second hand smoke is something people are quickly trying to control and smoking is being outlawed in tons of places currently. Is it logical to legalize something that presents a similar problem that you are currently trying to bring under control? "Contact smoke" from weed is.....depending on the way your body is affected by weed, serious. I can sit in a bar and drink by myself and only get myself drunk. You cant sit in a bar or anywhere near someone and smoke and not affect them. with cigarettes you affect their health(a bad)
with weed you affect their health and mental state....
u have to agree on that? If i am over the age of legal use of marijuana and i smoke...not only am i affecting the health of people under age, im also giving them a high too(if they want it or not). i dont know if you have ever been around marijuana before but....you cant downplay the affect of contact-smoke.(from what i hear i've never been around weed before 8-\ ummmm
alcohol and tobacco our government is working diligently to taylor and control at higher and more effective levels. to relate the recreational use of marijuana to tobacco and alcohol is abit of a stretch and doesnt really help, because those are substances with decreasing legal freedom. i would b able to follow your argument a lil bit more if their freedom was increasing but they're not they are decreasing.
to close this post i will close it with a direct quote from you and a question....
Posted on: 02/02/2005 at 13:42:25 by saiyatrunks
This harmful mind-altering substance has already lodged its way inside of our general society. The government can't squash it, so there's really no point of banning it. It's ultimately up to the individuals to control their amount of intake...although a legalized limit of use would help these people out tremendously.
minus the mind altering substance part....how does your statement not hold true for petty theft, corporate or tax fraud, and speeding?
exactly as stated...how does your argument not hold true for marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy.... just reading it?
do agree they should all be legal or is the argument not enough? if not, where are the flaws in this well articulated and effectively logical argument?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sephiroth Kaizen on Feb 3, 2005 18:16:46 GMT -5
about the doctor comment... that is a strictly cynical view of doctors. true, Unfortunately alot of medicine has gone to treatment and not preventitive and insurance companies have a lot to do with that(our culture is also responsible for that). But doctors honestly have alot of options when it comes to prescribing medicines, and often it is because of the pfizer, p&g, and Ciba, etc will all offer competing drugs...a bad example but valid one is....for erectile dysfunction a doctor can prescribe cialis or viagra....the choice is the doctors... marijuana is actually very inexpensive so if a doctor did prescribe it, that would be the least expensive method. while legalizing marijuana is doubtful, i believe the legalization of marijuana substituents is possible. also... the political move...half of everything doctors do is political. A doctor will chose a pfizer drug because they have a relationship with pfizer and look more at the pfizer data. This is what pushes some doctor decisions and loss of license is not at risk, because in areas where they do it, they have the legal option to do so... also, when talking about marjuana, etc etc it is very rare that insurance companies cover these drugs in anyway shape and form. that is the real problem with cost. people want inexpensive drugs because marijuana and marijuana based drugs wont be covered by insurance companies because they are not treatment drugs, they are more or less, luxuries to help deal with the condition of the patient. That is why (unless you are dealing with a great insurance plan which is rare) the insurance company wont have much say with marijuana...that decision is tween the doctor patient and the patients check book.
Doctors DO NOT have an option when prescribing medicines to their patients. They have a series of steps they must go through in order to get to certain points. For example, if a person comes in with the complaint of extreme headaches, the doctor may prescribe it as simply a stress headache or slight migraine, report the diagnosis to the patient's insurance company and the insurance company with tell the doctor what to prescribe because THEY are paying for it. If that medicine does not work then the insurance company gives the doctor the okay to prescribe something slightly stronger. These checkpoints have been put in place because of the frivolous laws that take place in the medical system. An extremely strong drug will not be prescribed right off the bat without the doctor's diagnosis (usually two or three opinions) and the insurance company's okay.
The doctor may have a relationship with a certain pharmaceutical company not by their own choice, but through the choice of the insurance companies used. For example, if 75% of the doctor's patients use the same insurance company and the insurance company has a good relationship with the pharmaceutical company then of course their going to send business their way to strengthen the relationship.
Even though the legalization of marijuana's substituents is possible, that doesn't mean a doctor is going to prescribe an illegal substance just because it's cheaper. A doctor's license is at stake everytime the walk into the hospital because anything they do can be taken to court if the results are not the expected one. When a doctor is sued or threatened with a lawsuit, it means their license is at stake because one move that was made that could've been the most typical/common/practical move may not have worked as expected.
Just because you see a doctor toting around a Pfizer pen doesn't mean they have a good relationship with them. Hey, I'm not a doctor and I have Pfizer pens bursting from my dresser drawers. |
|
|
|
Post by Colour of Art on Feb 3, 2005 19:00:38 GMT -5
impressive to know you have doctors in your family...but a family full of doctors doesnt mean you cant be incorrect.... i know this because..
my father is a doctor, my uncle is a doctor, i have cousins who are doctors, i've worked in doctors offices, i've actually done the billing, posting, and adjusting with insurance companies, i was pre-med, half my friends are in med school, some of my former employers are doctors, most my family friends are yada yada yada ya ya ya... u get the picture...
but that is cool to have doctors in your fam, specially going back multiple generations. its admirable!
but back to the post...
in an attempt to level out this aspect of the convo..and bring us closer to a medium...we may both be slightly off because everything we discuss will depend on whether the doctor is a specialist, fam practice, pediatrician, etc etc etc, It will also have to deal with the cliental and insurance companies... (lots of medicare/medicaid or higher cliental?)
im sure you know many people have multiple insurance carriers thus having primary,secondary etc coverage.
im also sure you know that lets say a doctor diagnosis a patient as having mild pain...the doctor does have the choice of prescribing lets say, tylenol, aleve, motrin or ibprofin(generic). that is an option(all of these will treat the same malidy but may not be the exact same price)
doctors choose what insurance carriers they will deal with...that is a doctor/practice decision
doctors choose the drug reps they meet with
some insurance is better than others therefore some people will be able to get name brand, and others will have to get generic medicine.
im sure you know insurance companies pay for the medicine &dont give it out, so if a doctor chooses to prescribe something else (that treats the same malidy) a patient can come out of pocket to pay the difference.
im also sure you know that all insurance companies do not pay for all medication, which means sometimes doctors prescribe medicine that is needed but just not covered, and in these cases cost is of the utmost importance b/c the entire cost is coming out of pocket.
so when speaking about all this...the insurance company plays a role, but the diagnosis, doctor, and patient also play a large role. I've done this myself with allergy medicine before...i simply did not want what the doctor wanted to prescribe, so i paid a heap extra to get a different namebrand that the doctor did not have a connection with.(it worked so much better!!!)
11 states in the USA make it legal to prescribe and use marijuana medicinally. California is one of these, and this is why I was saying that doctors do indeed do it, because of cost and political reasons (the case is going before the supreme court soon) and they are not at risk for losing thier license.
states with laws allowing medicinal marijuana...
california, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, Arizona
keep in mind there is a federal law prohibiting the use...where stems the real prblem!
so what i was speaking to in your initial post is that, yes you are right, that happens alot, but not always and it is not as simple as you made it seem. A lot more can go into it, depending on teh Dr....not to mention if the doctor is at a huge practice or a solo practice, soloist have more freedom also. And doctors, especially in these 11 states have the ability to make political statements by prescribing marijuana even though distrubtors cant sell it(the federal government is prosecuting)....their licenses are not in danger.
i dont have a pfizer pen! Im mad!
|
|
|
|
Post by Sephiroth Kaizen on Feb 3, 2005 19:29:52 GMT -5
I've decided to not read anymore of whatever the hell you wrote... simply because if you've been in the medical field you automatically think you're right. I don't argue with people who think they're doctors, so as far as I'm concerned, this issue is dead with me. Enjoy yourself.
By the way, you said you were a pre-med student, right? I'm sure pre-med students were taught to spell correctly, use the space bar and use complete words instead of letters. I understand that this is an informal forum. On the other hand, this IS the Deep Thoughts section and not only are complete sentences necessary, but the ability to convey a coherent idea through complete sentences is needed also.
I don't doubt you have doctors in your family, you've proved it by how many meaningless sentences surround the one and only main point in the paragraph.
|
|
|
|
Post by auraki on Feb 4, 2005 23:57:04 GMT -5
LOL, as a person who had mostly pre-med friends in the first two years of college who smoked lots of weed, I find this somewhat amusing.
I will be honest, some of these responses were so long-winded I merely skimmed. So, I will just state what I feel.
Weed is as addictive as tobacco. Of course, there are plenty more chemicals involved when smoking marijuana, but then, alcohol has many harmful chemicals too. What I have heard in the past from people who are serious about legalizing marijuana is that it should be legal in small quantities.
Part of the problem with convicting "drug offenders" caught with marijuana is that it wastes time, money, and jail space. Yes, weed is a gateway drug, but so is alcohol. In some respects, alcohol is much more harmful than weed. Alcohol on the long term can kill you (a much more sure thing than lung cancer), and it impairs judgement in such a way that renders you useless to society for the time period it takes to filter out of your system. Weed, in standardized doses, merely mellows you, and while one could come to depend on it, the same could be said for coffee or energy drinks.
I think if it were legalized in a controlled environment, the negative repercussions for it would be similar to tobacco products; children might get their hands on it, but if a store clerk was selling it to mature customers as opposed to some hoodlum on the street corner selling it to every jane, dick, and harry, the risk of this happening goes down.
I think the pros far outweigh the cons in this debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colour of Art on Feb 5, 2005 0:24:08 GMT -5
trying to keep it short...
is the crux of your argument that weed is as bad as 2 legal things(tobacco and alcohol)
enforcing the law is a waste of resources and time
question...the controlled environment you refer to...is that controlled selling and distribution or literally a controlled area of use?
(i kinda like the waste of jail space and money statement)
to fix the jailspace and time problem...what if marijuana charges were like speeding tickets...and jail time was only for repeat offenders or people smoking and driving. etc etc...
what about the fact that u cant smoke weed without creating second hadn smoke and contact highs to people around u (including kids)
alot of your points make me lean to making more restrictions on alcohol! Are you a member of MADD?
|
|
|
|
Post by auraki on Feb 5, 2005 0:44:40 GMT -5
Ha! As a college student....no MADD is not for my heathen soul.
Yes, my argument is basically, there are at least 2 (or more) drugs on the market that are just as bad as weed, if not worse. Worse can be found at your corner drug store, or hardware store.
By controlled, I meant strictly distrubution. If people are carded when purchasing marijuana, it becomes much easier to keep it out of the hands of youngsters. It has the same dangers as any product sold to adults: somehow, someway, children are going to get it illegally. But this way, that possibilty is kept from getting out of hand.
Most likely before legalization is implemented, strict guidelines will be in place as well as a heafty fine for those who obtain it illegally as a minor. Yes, I believe possesion of illegal doses (I'm talking kilos of weed) or minor possesion should be treated like speeding tickets, but I believe that ultimately it should legal.
And in answer to your statement about contact highs...
Many restaurants and establishments have made it mandatory that you smoke outdoors away from crowds of people. The same could be done for marijuana. It seems like a rather easy solution.
In closing, because weed, like alcohol, can be taken in moderation without disasterous results, it should be up to the consenting adult to keep themselves inside the bounds of propriety and not abuse the substance. Offenders will be dealt with by the law. Law is the only form of restriction we have on human beings, so enforcing it should be taken seriously. The system is not perfect by a long shot, but it is there to keep truly horrendous things from happening to citizens without retribution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Makku on Feb 8, 2005 3:29:18 GMT -5
Okay, here we go.
Marijuana should be legalized. Personally, I think that all substances should be unregulated. Why? The dumb fucks who use the heavy stuff will eventually die out. It'll act like a chlorine for the gene pool-- sure, we may lose a few good people, but the world will be better for it.
Oh, before I go on-- did you know that cocaine is a perscribable medication? I did NOT know that.
To continue-- that's a bit rash, and not going to happen. However, I don't think that legalization of a natural substance is going to hurt. The price will drop, everyone will be at rest on the issue, and people won't have to resort to unlawful activity to procure the substance, therefore dropping the crime rate. I refer to the first paragraph, and apply the preceding statement. If everything is legalized, drug-related crime will drop to almost nothing, thereby eliminating one of the major sources of urban crime and street warfare.
On the subject of alcohol. I fucking love alcohol. I'd take a few shots of vodka over a joint any day. However, the negative effects of alcohol are much greater than those of marijuana. The almost inevitable liver afflictions, adverse effects on the brain, the possibility of alcohol poisoning, and the all-too-often seen violent behavior associated with it. (But come on, have you ever seen a violent pothead? Fuck no.)
And on tobacco. I stand nowhere on this issue. It's expensive as fuck, pumps tar into your lungs (along with all of the artificial shit that they use), and the price is ungodly. But, whatever-- if people want to squander all of their money and fuck up their lungs, *shrug* fuck em.
There.
|
|
|
|
Post by nori on Feb 27, 2005 21:22:41 GMT -5
.........too much typing and too little smoking i fear
judging on my recent visit to a land were you can freely go and smoke it in your own home or cafe, cannabis fucking rawks........wait wtf back to subject.....
it works so well over in holland i dont see what the fucking problem is.
plus theres hookers!!!!....back to subject....
man theys got some mad shit weed over there crazy good high awesomeness to the ubermax.
cant get stuff that good at home without spending a bundle and contrary to popular misconception airport securtiy is shit, managed to get a bag full home!!!
good times
|
|
Blab
Knight
/--/ gtfo./--/
Posts: 54
|
Post by Blab on Mar 25, 2005 7:36:49 GMT -5
1 word: amsterdam. whynot take their ideas and utilize them here? heh. why.. Amsterdam? ITS FUCKING HOLLAND MANG!! I RULEE1!11 im fine though how it is now, if they legalize it now in holland the pot is goin to be more expensive (just like they did to ciggys) and which of u stonerfucks want that?! although if its more expensive but legal, they have money to make this shit better.. ah whatever, im all gooood ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Sephiroth Kaizen on May 15, 2005 15:23:07 GMT -5
Funny thing is: I still don't care. Let people smoke it if they want. I just hope they're confined to one area and not a car. I don't smoke it and wouldn't if it was legalized. *shrugs*
Lol, damn stoners.
|
|
