Originally Posted by dickay
Yes, I deliberately changed it pot, because you put pot in the same category FIRST when responding to MetsGuy. Again, whose being hypocritical?
Certifiable
Yes, I deliberately changed it pot, because you put pot in the same category FIRST when responding to MetsGuy. Again, whose being hypocritical?
o
Please, dude, stop taking everything I say EXACTLY literally, and stop trying to make it seem as though I'm implying anything that I'm not.
You didn't cite anything. You just said some stuff, with no actual citations. The fact of the matter is you keep qualifying your statements by saying things like "Studies have shown..." and "It's been proven that..." yet you provide NO outside sources to back that up. You just expect everybody to blindly take what you say as truth.
No, I honestly don't ever remember you posting numerous citations and sources, at least not in any thread I participated. I could be wrong, but if I am, I'd like you to actually provide such proof, instead of, once again, just telling me "No, I'm right."
I've already, in other threads, expressed my belief that I am 100% utterly and completely for legalizing marijuana, as it's less harmful to the user than both cigarettes and alcohol, and it's less "harmful to society", to use a term of yours, than alcohol, and that while I'm for the legalization of all other drugs, I'm not as "hardcore" for it as I am for marijuana.
Legal for adults, sold and regulated, just like other currently legal drugs, I figured that much should be obvious.
Certifiable
And please don't forget taxed. Taxed, and taxed rather heavily.
Another reason to be for legalization would be the almost overnight change in every state governments bottom line. They would suddenly go from the billions of dollars in red ink due to the "war on drugs" to not spending all of that money on jails, prisons, court proceedings, etc. This part alone would balance most state budgets. Then the double whammy of NEW income from the taxing of them. Take that money, invest in clinics for those with addictions (to any drug, alcohol included), and invest in spiking law enforcement in the other areas, where Dickay may have a point. Especially, IMO, driving while intoxicated. I still believe that crime should be treated way more seriously than it is even now.
Registered User
Thank you for this. I agree that pot is not as harmful as cigarettes or alcohol. I don't believe those products should be legal either however as they are "harmful to society" as you agreed with in the statement above. I don't necesssarily subscribe to the beliefs that pot is a 'gateway drug' either. I worry however about making another mistake. There is no getting around legal tobacco or alcohol...they are ingrained in our society and culture and have caused irreprehensible harm to our society as a whole. Why should we make the same mistake with pot or any current illegal drug? And if we OK'd just pot because it is 'less harmful' than other legal drugs, where does it end?I've already, in other threads, expressed my belief that I am 100% utterly and completely for legalizing marijuana, as it's less harmful to the user than both cigarettes and alcohol, and it's less "harmful to society", to use a term of yours, than alcohol, and that while I'm for the legalization of all other drugs, I'm not as "hardcore" for it as I am for marijuana.
I'd like to think its obvious too, but many complain about any restriction on drugs as an infringement on their personal freedoms. Why only legal for adults? Why regulated at all if it is to be legal? It sounds like wanting the best of both worlds, and getting the least. Oxycotton and roids are legal with prescription. How is that working out?Legal for adults, sold and regulated, just like other currently legal drugs, I figured that much should be obvious.
παραλία
Well, bro, part of communication is saying what you mean. Now, of course, nobody can be expected to be 100% correct in their verbage at all times, but how am I supposed to take your statement that Ohms uses DOJ and FBI data and your data is crap?
Registered User
Sounds like a Boston Tea Party. Taxation pi$$es me off as much as anything.And please don't forget taxed. Taxed, and taxed rather heavily.
But crime still would exist and IMO increase in the long run. Look up the Alaska experiment and Needle Park if you look up no others. Cigarettes are legal and taxed to he!! but hows that effecting the health care system, especially if it may soon be govt. controlled?? I'd personally rather pay to keep drugs off the street than to pay for clinics to help wane kids off their addictions, the costs of increased crime which I believe evidence supports happens with legalized drugs and increased health care costs more so than we already are.Another reason to be for legalization would be the almost overnight change in every state governments bottom line. They would suddenly go from the billions of dollars in red ink due to the "war on drugs" to not spending all of that money on jails, prisons, court proceedings, etc. This part alone would balance most state budgets. Then the double whammy of NEW income from the taxing of them. Take that money, invest in clinics for those with addictions (to any drug, alcohol included), and invest in spiking law enforcement in the other areas, where Dickay may have a point. Especially, IMO, driving while intoxicated. I still believe that crime should be treated way more seriously than it is even now.
Nice one, the usage of the word 'bro' always tweaks people up.
παραλία
Dude makes me think of bro, but I'll admit to saying both as an actual term of endearment
Registered User
ahhh...i missed the 'dude'. That got you tweaked which led to the 'bro' rebuttle. Nice! 'Lad' is the ultimate however, I wonder if he'll use it next.
o
What? All I said was that ohms is quoting government sources, and dickay isn't quoting any sources. Jeez. Nothing in my statement AT ALL implied that I think "EVERYTHING the government says is completely and totally to be taken without any salt grains".
Registered User
I quoted govt. sources from the DEA during a recent thread of this nature. It was immediately shot down as completely biased.
Certifiable
Always, always changing the argument aren't you? Why can't you just come clean and admit you're just plain against drug use, and then are looking for "facts" to back up the belief?
OK, how's Ocycotton and roids working out? I'll tell you. They're giving great benefit to a great many people who suffer with chronic pain or chronic arthritus or chronic asthma.
Do you want to tell those millions of people to just grin and bear it?
Sure you do. Because some people abuse the system, we should throw out the whole system. Because some people can't handle a hard drug, we should limit it from everybody. But why not then because some people can't handle falling too deeply into religious beliefs and cults should we not ban those?
Pain killers are already under-prescribed because physicians are scared of the overzealousness of government, something I'm sure you're fully aware of and support. Yet you fail to mention the millions suffering in unnecessary pain because of it.
If we made them legal and over the counter would some abuse them? Yep. Sure would. But it would begin with a choice. If they make that choice and then suffer terrible consequences, so be it, they knew the risks going in. And if they get involved with "other" criminal activities because of it, then there's already laws on the books governing them, and they should face the consequences. Whereas you don't want to even give those who suffer in pain the option of the choice.
So, you're right. Where does it end? People make bad choices with guns, eventually ban them too? People make bad choices with alcohol, ban that too? People make bad choices with baseball bats, as they've been used in murders before. Ban them?
You mentioned the "success" of China in an earlier post. Yep, they ban all sorts of stuff. Including speech. Is that the kind of country you want to live in? See, it keeps coming back to that, though you won't admit it.
Registered User
You have too much sarcasm in your responses to garner level headed discussion. You take to much to extreme rather than rationalizing and submitting to common sense. I don't have a problem with mediscal use of oxycotton, steroids, or even pot for that matter. It is a fact however that Steroids being more accepted in society and body building has become more and more available to our youth who are using it in much increased numbers. Oxycotton has a significant black market, is highly addictive and people are getting killed to obtain it or fund their addiction. These are all legal substances when controlled.OK, how's Ocycotton and roids working out? I'll tell you. They're giving great benefit to a great many people who suffer with chronic pain or chronic arthritus or chronic asthma.
You want to say all drugs should be legal and use only pot as an example, it is you molding the argument. What in the world is the need for crack cocaine, ecstasy, heroin, and other uppers/downers or designer drugs needed for?? There is no reason to make such drugs available in any manner in a controlled mediscal manner let alone legal for all.
I believe there are restrictions based upon the activities of these individuals. Practicing religion in general does not endanger society and on the contrary much more good than bad comes from it.But why not then because some people can't handle falling too deeply into religious beliefs and cults should we not ban those?
Actually, there are alot of people that feel pain killers and drugs for ADHD and the like are overpresribed. I know of nobody suffering in pain because their doctor is afraid to prescribe pain killer. I doubt you do either.Pain killers are already under-prescribed because physicians are scared of the overzealousness of government, something I'm sure you're fully aware of and support. Yet you fail to mention the millions suffering in unnecessary pain because of it.
So lets rid of all the food regulation, after all plant managers should have a 'choice' whether or not to control hygiene. Lets rid of water treatment enforcement, lets rid of traffic laws, lets rid of insurance mandates, lets rid of all border control, lets rid of port security and airline security, lets rid of all controls on everything since there are laws in place should one go to far and make a wrong choice. Sure the innocent bystanders may wish laws were there to PREVENT AND BE PROACTIVE but screw them and their personal freedoms.If we made them legal and over the counter would some abuse them? Yep. Sure would. But it would begin with a choice. If they make that choice and then suffer terrible consequences, so be it, they knew the risks going in. And if they get involved with "other" criminal activities because of it, then there's already laws on the books governing them, and they should face the consequences.
Nah, you don't go to extremesYou mentioned the "success" of China in an earlier post. Yep, they ban all sorts of stuff. Including speech. Is that the kind of country you want to live in? See, it keeps coming back to that, though you won't admit it.
Certifiable
And you still didn't answer the point about painkillers being underprescribed because of today's "intolerance." Another inconvenient fact? Don't like to talk about the resulting suffering of millions because they can't get painkillers legally? Nope, just dismiss those millions out of hand.
What in the world is the need for anything in the world besides food, clothing and shelter? Baseball isn't necessary for our survival, but I rather enjoy it. Football too, but I can guarantee you in the upcoming weeks someone's life is going to be destroyed as a direct result of football. Again, you only want to ban "certain" unnecessary things, but as you stated earlier, where will it end?
Using a drug by itself doesn't endanger society either, but you insist on lumping drug use with other crimes, but don't want to link violence related to religion to religion. It doesn't matter how many times you say otherwise, these are the bottom lines. Using a drug by itself does not endanger society. Period. Neither does practising religion by itself.
And this is where you've totally lost all rationale. Dude, now you're either living life with your head in the sand, or your being deliberately deceitful. Either way, I'm not going to even respond to such crap as this, and instead invite you to research the American Medical Association's very own statements on this.
You really are an arrogant piece of work to decide what choices others should have and shouldn't and who should suffer in pain and shouldn't and are even so wise as to know who I know and don't know.
Arrogance like that deserves nothing but ridicule and sarcasm.
And once again you change the arguments of a single person in the privacy of his own home not affecting others to other acts and laws that obviously affect everyone.
What, responding intelligently is becoming too difficult?
Just to help you get a grip on reality, here's the link to the American Medical Association's July 8, 2008 statement on pain management and the under-prescribing of painkillers.
From the statement:
And you can bet the reason the DEA withdrew its support was entirely political, not based in science.About the AMA position on pain management using opioid analgesics
Unbalanced and misleading media coverage on the abuse of opioid analgesics not only perpetuates misconceptions about pain management; it also compromises the access to adequate pain relief sought by over 75 million Americans living with pain.
In the past several years, there has been growing recognition by health care providers, government regulators, and the public that the undertreatment of pain is a major societal problem.
Pain of all types is undertreated in our society. The pediatric and geriatric populations are especially at risk for undertreatment. Physicians’ fears of using opioid therapy, and the fears of other health professionals, contribute to the barriers to effective pain management.
In 2001, in an unprecedented collaboration, the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) joined 21 Health Groups, including the American Medical Association, in calling for balanced policy governing prescription pain medications. In August 2004, the DEA issued a document entitled Prescription Pain Medications: Frequently Asked Questions and Answers for Health Care Professionals and Law Enforcement Personnel, however, the agency withdrew its support for the document less than 2 months later saying that it "contained misstatements" and "was not approved as an official statement of the agency."
And, for the record, I do know someone that suffers with chronic pain that has been denied relief because of the reluctance of Doctors to do so in fear of retaliation from the authorities. That's one of the reasons I take this so personally. But, irregardless, personal or not, I would never feel I had the right or power or wisdom to use the force of government to tell you that you should suffer, or what you can or can't do in the privacy of your own home. I still find it extremely arrogant that others feel they have that "right" and/or "wisdom."
παραλία
Yeah, the AMA made of doctors would have no reason to want to push more pills. Why would they want to sell more pills and make more profits for drug companies who sponsor doctors, hold retreats, etc?
The vast majority of science AND government is corrupt to the point that quoting this study or that study is useless.
Registered User
I won't go as far as to say the AMA is entirely bias/corrupt and the study should be completely disgarded, as they did with the DEA statistics quoted in other threads....I will simply say that as with many studies there are truths and then gross misrepresentations of them. They should be reviewed and taken as a whole along with common sense, and information from both sides.
Reply With Quote
