[Vpoll] Marijuana, Weed, Pot

[irishpat183]

Just wondering, is there anyone out in IE land that has tried marijuana and is against it being legalized?

Nobody here has smoked any pot. Because we all know that it kills people when you smoke it.

 

[greyhammer90]

Nobody here has smoked any pot. Because we all know that it kills people when you smoke it.

As close as it gets! lol

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Is that so?

Desoxyn Official FDA information, side effects and uses.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, or what your point in this whole argument is, but I'll bet you every vbuck I'll ever get that you can't get your own prescription of meth from an actual, reputable physician. Unless you have a time machine and are 500 pounds, in which case I revoke my offer.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Whens the last time you met a heroin or meth user that could manage it?

 

[Buster Bluth]

I find it hilarious that Buster of all people makes it out like weed is no big thing... that guy is totally addicted... I mean think about it, he has sucked d1ck for pot... I've seen him.

It actually went something like this:

 

[Buster Bluth]

As close as it gets! lol

I live across the street from a Taco Bell. So, uhhhhh....this described my weekends.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...Whens the last time you met a heroin or meth user that could manage it?

Well...Hitler was a big meth user. What country have you ran lately?

 

[irishpat183]

Well...Hitler was a big meth user. What country have you ran lately?

Touche'.....

 

[RallySon]

I'm not sure what you're getting at, or what your point in this whole argument is, but I'll bet you every vbuck I'll ever get that you can't get your own prescription of meth from an actual, reputable physician. Unless you have a time machine and are 500 pounds, in which case I revoke my offer.

I'm a 2nd year med student who is prescribed to 30mg of "amphetamine salts" a day. THat's generic adderall.

Meth and Dextro function exactly the same. If you really want to argue the pharmacokinetics with me then feel free. You don't really have any idea what you're talking about.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I'm a 2nd year med student who is prescribed to 30mg of "amphetamine salts" a day. THat's generic adderall.

Meth and Dextro function exactly the same. If you really want to argue the pharmacokinetics with me then feel free. You don't really have any idea what you're talking about.

wrong thread -- this is about legality.

 

[Downinthebend]

And then have the tax payer on the hook for all the new heroin addicts under the ACA??

Yeah, no thanks. While I understand what you're saying...it would be a trainwreck.

Just adding to the tab...I can hear the "it's a disease maaaannnnn"

I hate this argument. In my words: Because the government is doing something it shouldn't, it justifies more government intervention!

Let me bypass my opinion of the ACA and just talk about the implications of what your logic says.

So the government can control any part of your lifestyle if it will make financial sense to the ACA? Mcdonalds makes you fat, which makes other people pay for it, so you can't have mcdonalds?

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'm a 2nd year med student who is prescribed to 30mg of "amphetamine salts" a day. THat's generic adderall.

Meth and Dextro function exactly the same. If you really want to argue the pharmacokinetics with me then feel free. You don't really have any idea what you're talking about.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I hate this argument. In my words: Because the government is doing something it shouldn't, it justifies more government intervention!

Let me bypass my opinion of the ACA and just talk about the implications of what your logic says.

So the government can control any part of your lifestyle if it will make financial sense to the ACA? Mcdonalds makes you fat, which makes other people pay for it, so you can't have mcdonalds?

That's a good point, but I think the thought is basically "what's the best drug policy we can think of, given that we can't repeal Obamacare?" You're right that the gov't has basically gotten itself a two-wrongs-makes-a-right scenario, but you also have to be practical re: drug policy if you believe that our national healthcare obligations can't/won't be changed in the near future.

 

[Downinthebend]

That's a good point, but I think the thought is basically "what's the best drug policy we can think of, given that we can't repeal Obamacare?" You're right that the gov't has basically gotten itself a two-wrongs-makes-a-right scenario, but you also have to be practical re: drug policy if you believe that our national healthcare obligations can't/won't be changed in the near future.

Actually, wouldn't the best way to end Obama-care (and entitlements at large) would be to make them impractical. Open the borders, let anyone who wants to come to this country and takepart in the entitlements do it, I believe you would see the program end overnight.

Also, I don't believe that "practicability" should trump "right" or "liberty" in all but a few instances.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Actually, wouldn't the best way to end Obama-care (and entitlements at large) would be to make them impractical. Open the borders, let anyone who wants to come to this country and takepart in the entitlements do it, I believe you would see the program end overnight.

Also, I don't believe that "practicability" should trump "right" or "liberty" in all but a few instances.

Fair enough. Basically it would crumble like the Soviet Union. But on a much smaller scale of course.

 

[irishpat183]

Actually, wouldn't the best way to end Obama-care (and entitlements at large) would be to make them impractical. Open the borders, let anyone who wants to come to this country and takepart in the entitlements do it, I believe you would see the program end overnight.
Also, I don't believe that "practicability" should trump "right" or "liberty" in all but a few instances.

Not likely....the people will keep voting in those that promise them stuff. You think all those people are gonna put up with entitlements going away overnight? It woudl be madness.

I'd rather make it hard on the people in the programs, forcing them to get off them. We've gone too far to change the programs themselves. Too many politicans getting rich off them.


My thought was more along the lines of I don't need another person on my tab. I agree with a lot of your points on less government intervention....but I still don't think Heroin legalization is that big of a victory for freedom.

 

[Redbar]

Would you use this logic for the other illegal drugs?

How is this any different than Walgreens or CVS which are actually on a lot of corners who dispense legal/deadly/addictive drugs right now. Oxycontin is the exact same thing as street heroin only higher grade and made in a lab by a massive pharmaceutical company, and we all know that heroin is highly addictive and very dangerous. Adderall and similar ADD medications are simply a high grade form of speed, and a less potent form of methamphetemine. All I'm saying is that they are already selling potentially deadly drugs on the street corner right now anyways. And you can't be serious if you think everyone who gets a prescription filled from those stores really needs all the medication they are being prescribed.

-Bobias

I love liberty and all, but you can't legalize meth and herion. You just can't -- the effects would be disasterous.

Given what RallySon has said about the relationship pharmacologically between adderal and Meth and OxyContin and heroin, the answer to Bobias' question on what the difference is between "drug users" and Walgreens and CVS is who is taking what. If you apply the same national logic to drugs that we apply to guns, that it's not the guns it's the criminal, then I say legalize them it's not the drugs that are the problem it is the abuser. Guns are at least as dangerous as drugs they both have some good effects. People need to kick their addiction to prohibition. Don't go cold turkey, start with legalizing weed and once the shakes stop move on to the other drugs. Freedom should only be checked when it interferes with another person's.

 

[Black Irish]

I'd love to see the FDA guidelines on how a company should go about producing safe heroin and meth in the event of full drug legalization. I would also think that the insurance premiums of retail distributers would be through the roof. My point is, there are more than a few practical considerations that would make full legalization very problematic aside from all the moralizing and "everyone will become an addict" line of thought. Hey, would you want a meth dispensary in your neighborhood?

 

[RallySon]

What do you mean by safe heroin or meth?

 

[Bobias]

And then have the tax payer on the hook for all the new heroin addicts under the ACA??

Yeah, no thanks. While I understand what you're saying...it would be a trainwreck.

Just adding to the tab...I can hear the "it's a disease maaaannnnn"

You don't understand because the money saved from incarcerating addicts could be used to help them at a fraction of the cost of imprisonment. I mean, as a taxpayer would you rather imprison someone and make there lives worse or would you rather have your money going to helping people. Either way, you are paying into the system and there isn't a legal way around it. I feel that it is our obligation to try and do right for the public with public funds, and that we should at least want to help people with that money.

 

[Cackalacky]

Given what RallySon has said about the relationship pharmacologically between adderal and Meth and OxyContin and heroin, the answer to Bobias' question on what the difference is between "drug users" and Walgreens and CVS is who is taking what. If you apply the same national logic to drugs that we apply to guns, that it's not the guns it's the criminal, then I say legalize them it's not the drugs that are the problem it is the abuser. Guns are at least as dangerous as drugs they both have some good effects. People need to kick their addiction to prohibition. Don't go cold turkey, start with legalizing weed and once the shakes stop move on to the other drugs. Freedom should only be checked when it interferes with another person's.

We have a winner

 

[Cackalacky]

It has become apparent to me there are those that understand there are legal versions of the same drugs that have become socially stigmatized as bad and those that cannot see the difference. Good night chaps.

 

[chicago51]

Actually, wouldn't the best way to end Obama-care (and entitlements at large) would be to make them impractical. Open the borders, let anyone who wants to come to this country and takepart in the entitlements do it, I believe you would see the program end overnight.

Also, I don't believe that "practicability" should trump "right" or "liberty" in all but a few instances.

You have to work in the system for 40 quarters or 10 years to get full entitlements.

With Social Security the more you work the more you get.

It is not like you can just walk in and get stuff.

 

[dshans]

... that guy is totally addicted... I mean think about it, he has sucked d1ck for pot... I've seen him.

I have never met Buster, nor do I expect to. Your assertion is wrong based on hands on experience ... though I can understand his addiction to me from cyber-afar.

 

[Black Irish]

What do you mean by safe heroin or meth?

What I'm saying is, with regard to the hard drugs, there may not be a "safe and responsible" manner of production. I'm no expert, but my guess is that, even in the most ideal production conditions, meth is still meth and heroin is still heroin. Will we view hard drugs in a more positive light because they are being produced by Fortune 500 companies?

 

[RallySon]

What I'm saying is, with regard to the hard drugs, there may not be a "safe and responsible" manner of production. I'm no expert, but my guess is that, even in the most ideal production conditions, meth is still meth and heroin is still heroin. Will we view hard drugs in a more positive light because they are being produced by Fortune 500 companies?

These hard drugs are already produced by pharmaceutical companies. Heroin isn't produced of course but when it's metabolized it starts looking just like any of the opiates that are on the market.

Once in the body heroin is quickly converted to morphine via 6-mam. It is essentially the same thing but the speed it crosses the blood brain barrier is what causes the intense rush that morphine doesn't provide. The end game is still morphine though. Tried to explain it as simple as possible. Sorry if it doesn't make sense.

so:
heroin -> 6-mam -> morphine

I assume the 'meth is meth, heroin is heroin' statement is about safe use rather than safe production. If that's the case, that could go for any drug on the market.

If you take 13 tylenol, that'll be your last headache.

As for viewing hard drugs in a positive light? Doubtful. Weed is still viewed as harmful to many people.

 

[dshans]

And then have the tax payer on the hook for all the new heroin addicts under the ACA??

Yeah, no thanks. While I understand what you're saying...it would be a trainwreck.

Just adding to the tab...I can hear the "it's a disease maaaannnnn"

So which, in your opinion, would be the lesser of the economic or social costs: tracking, prosecuting and incarcerating drug users and providers (very "free market" supply and demand "players") or providing (insurer "subsidized") care through AC?

Run the numbers.

 

[Irish Insanity]

I am on the legalize/tax/regulate side. Personally I've never even as much as tried it once. I have several family members who do, young to old, and have been involved with it for years. I can say the majority of them are losers (not all), and if it were legalized would simply find another illegal substance to use, manufacture, and sell. I don't believe the marijuana is the issue, its the people that are involved with it and the lifestyle a lot that are involved with it lead. I don't think making it legal will eliminate much, if any crime, but rather push a percentage of those individuals into other illegal substances or behaviors.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

I am on the legalize/tax/regulate side. Personally I've never even as much as tried it once. I have several family members who do, young to old, and have been involved with it for years. I can say the majority of them are losers (not all), and if it were legalized would simply find another illegal substance to use, manufacture, and sell. I don't believe the marijuana is the issue, its the people that are involved with it and the lifestyle a lot that are involved with it lead. I don't think making it legal will eliminate much, if any crime, but rather push a percentage of those individuals into other illegal substances or behaviors.

I still don't get people's thinking on this. If you make money off of marijuana when it's illegal why would you stop doing it when it becomes legal. The law is changing nothing about marijuana is.

2nd How does legalization "push" people into other substances and behaviors?

And for those interested Discovery Channel has "reality show" about pot in Northern California up right now...

 

[Buster Bluth]

I still don't get people's thinking on this. If you make money off of marijuana when it's illegal why would you stop doing it when it becomes legal. The law is changing nothing about marijuana is.

2nd How does legalization "push" people into other substances and behaviors?

And for those interested Discovery Channel has "reality show" about pot in Northern California up right now...

Yeah I don't get it either. I chalk it up as a nonsensical fear tactic.

The harder drugs are available right now. There isn't a big demand for it because people know that it hurts them. Legalizing cannabis won't turn people into meth addicts...