Thread: Feds to issue new medical marijuana policy

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

You're looking for me to convince you that shooting smack and tweaking are good ideas? Of course they're not good ideas.

You've framed the debate with what I quoted you as saying above - you demanded that people convince you of the benefits of heroin. That's a fool's errand for two reasons: (1) there aren't a lot, if any, benefit to shooting heroin and (2) you're creating a discussion where you're the ultimate arbiter of the arguments by virtue of the fact the whole discussion then must revolve around your personal, subjective opinions.

Of course, when I turn the tables and frame the debate in terms of my personal, subjective opinions (read: doing exactly what you were doing), you have a temper tantrum, telling me I should be ignored, questioning the function of my brain, saying that I'm 'unprofessional', etc.

So, what are we discussing here? You went out of your way to make the debate about your personal vote, opinions, and declarations of "good" and "bad". Are you now saying you want an objective discussion about drug policies and specific drugs? If that is what you want, I'll happily oblige. But, that does mean that you can't go back to framing things in terms of "it's my vote, and I don't agree with you, so you're wrong!"

i used the its my vote and i don't agree with you because you weren't trying to convince me of anything, be it the pros and cons of heroin being in balance, or the specific reason why i should be so damn fired up about getting it legalized in SPITE of the consequences that will most certainly follow.
You keep thinking of "good" and "bad" as these high objective concepts. You keep thinking i want you to get me to shoot smack. Thats not what i'm saying. I want you to convince me (or at least make an effort to) of why I SHOULD vote for heroin to be legalized, just like I would try to convince someone who doesn't think pot should be legalized WHY it SHOULD, even if they AREN"T GOING TO USE IT.

See what i'm saying?

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

If you want specifics, here are a few:

(1) Heroin prohibition increases the likelihood of "hot doses" - overdoses would occur much less frequently (ala prescription drugs) if heroin content per dose were consistent, regulated and guaranteed.
(2) Heroin prohibition makes heroin prohibitively expensive, resulting in junkies sticking people up and committing crimes to feed their habits. Alcohol is comparably addictive to heroin, and nobody sticks people up for $3 to buy a forty. Ending heroin prohibition ends this type of crime as junkies can just get their fix by pan-handling proceeds.
(3) Heroin prohibition increases the likelihood of dirty needles and epidemic spread.
(4) Heroin prohibition doesn't work. People still shoot heroin and the more money we spend trying to stop it, the more people that do it.
(5) Heroin prohibition is a violation of the spirit (and arguably letter) of the interstate commerce provision and drug prohibition in general has no constitutional basis.
(6) Heroin prohibition creates a black market, which in turn creates organized and violent crime.
(7) Heroin prohibition seriously undermines our efforts in Afghanistan.

Agreed, pretty straight forward and logical. Too bad our government doesn't operate in a straight forward, logical manner.

Originally Posted by reality

'pot'
uhhhh money, coupled with harmlessness, coupled with 50% of prison pops are in for pot offenses. i see two positives and a neutral. no negatives. sounds like a good idea.


'heroin'
money, extreme physical and psychological addiction, intravenous drug use done not by trained professionals who know how to dispose of medical waste but by joe addict whos shaky cause he didn't get his fix fast enough, increase in amount of medical waste, OD deaths, increase in disease, lots of junkies running around.

i see ooo lets count them 1..2..3..4..5..6.. 6 negatives ah ah ah and count them 1............. 1 positive ah ah ah. sounds like a shitty idea.
add a clean needle program see if we can't take some of these down.
with clean needles im willing to part with the increase in disease and even willing to not be worried about joe shmoe and his needle. youve still got a large increase in medical waste, more od deaths (because face it if its legal and easily obtained more people ARE going to try it. more people try it the more will die.), more junkies running around, and the extreme addiction.
so thats 4 negatives and still only one positive. no thanks yet again.

thats my thinking about it. you can call it hypocritical or whatever you feel like, but until you balance that equation im' not gonna vote for it. its MY vote, it counts to ME.
i don't see pot and heroin in the same weight class at all man. i don't see a comparison other than that theyre both drugs. though in pots case i'd call it a "drug".

Thanks for confirming that you know nothing about the physical nature and effects of heroin addiction, but you're more than happy to hold forth on it.

Originally Posted by Jefe

Irrelevant. Cigaretts are on the way to becoming illegal, through incremental changes. Pot should remain illegal.



The vast majority of people who try alcohol never move on to harder drugs. Compare that to pot, where most people who try it will move to at least try others.



Marijuana dealers very, very rarely sell other drugs. Most pot dealers have nothing to do with coke or anything else.



Everyone knows that increased marijuana use leads to an increase in laziness.

Don't bother trying to debunk any of the above, you'll be wasting your time... I don't necesarily hold the above opinions, but this is what I've been hearing for years.

cigarettes are becoming illegal? why because you can't smoke them in restaurants anymore? matter of opinion i'd say, and not very convincing. cigarettes ARE legal. Leave the foretelling to johnny carson eh?

Everybody i know that smokes, or shoots dope etc, started with booze.


again, i don't know WHERE youre getting your info but most of the dealers i know always sell pot and another drug, be it coke, pills, shrooms what have you.

do you really want me to go grab the studies? or can we just quit this farce?

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Thanks for confirming that you know nothing about the physical nature and effects of heroin addiction, but you're more than happy to hold forth on it.

well why don't you enlighten me then tann instead of going for the ole hit and run?

Originally Posted by wiggidy

Agreed, pretty straight forward and logical. Too bad our government doesn't operate in a straight forward, logical manner.

I think with drug policy, the government (legislators in general) operate this way:

New (or existing, but only recently garnering attention) drug comes into the spotlight and there are bad side effects/problems with it. Legislators and people in general lament that things were better before this drug existed or was widely used. Draconian laws are passed attempting to re-create the world in which that drug did not exist.

That is, I believe that prohibition policies are entirely based, at their core, in an unwillingness to deal with reality.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

If you want specifics, here are a few:

(1) Heroin prohibition increases the likelihood of "hot doses" - overdoses would occur much less frequently (ala prescription drugs) if heroin content per dose were consistent, regulated and guaranteed.
(2) Heroin prohibition makes heroin prohibitively expensive, resulting in junkies sticking people up and committing crimes to feed their habits. Alcohol is comparably addictive to heroin, and nobody sticks people up for $3 to buy a forty. Ending heroin prohibition ends this type of crime as junkies can just get their fix by pan-handling proceeds.
(3) Heroin prohibition increases the likelihood of dirty needles and epidemic spread.
(4) Heroin prohibition doesn't work. People still shoot heroin and the more money we spend trying to stop it, the more people that do it.
(5) Heroin prohibition is a violation of the spirit (and arguably letter) of the interstate commerce provision and drug prohibition in general has no constitutional basis.
(6) Heroin prohibition creates a black market, which in turn creates organized and violent crime.
(7) Heroin prohibition seriously undermines our efforts in Afghanistan.
(8) Heroin is largely comparable to legal substances morphine and oxycontin. There is no rational basis for distinguishing between these drugs by declaring one 'useless' and the others 'useful'.

Thank you, this is EXACTLY what ive been asking for.

1) i assume were it legal you'd have some sort of FDA regulation of dosage etc? Would it be pure heroin in liquid form ready for injection that you could buy after providing some form of id? If its pure (and thus incredibly potent by todays standards) would there be dosing instructions? would there be a limit to how much you could buy at one time?
2)what would be a fair price if you were to set the laws? wouldn't they just charge "normal" (again by todays standards) prices? plus the tax would be exhorbinant, don't you think that would cancel out any decrease in price and keep it at status quo?
3)I'll give you this one, but then i've already said i don't have a problem with a clean needles program.
4)Murder prohibition doesn't work. no matter what we do people keep killing each other. Rape prohibition doesn't work. no matter what we do people keep raping each other. Theft prohibition doesn't work. no matter what we do people keep stealing. etc.
5)no arguement here, the fed has definetly overstepped its bounds. but would the states be overstepping theirs to outlaw it individually?
6)indeed it does. which is why we have cops.
7)why, because the afghanis like to grow poppies as a cash crop?
8)morphine and oxy aren't availible over the counter either.



Thanks for making it a debate.

Originally Posted by reality

cigarettes are becoming illegal? why because you can't smoke them in restaurants anymore? matter of opinion i'd say, and not very convincing. cigarettes ARE legal. Leave the foretelling to johnny carson eh?

Everybody i know that smokes, or shoots dope etc, started with booze.


again, i don't know WHERE youre getting your info but most of the dealers i know always sell pot and another drug, be it coke, pills, shrooms what have you.

do you really want me to go grab the studies? or can we just quit this farce?

Oh, you have actual "studies"? I thought we were just making shit up.

Don't bother showing them to me, you'd be preaching to the choir. The fact that you don't understand the hypocrisy in having your own personal list of "drugs that are ok" was enough to end this discussion. I'm just having fun watching you try to justify it.

We are a long way off from legalizing marijuana, precisely because of attitudes like yours.

It's too bad you don't see the irony in cigarettes vs. pot, and the way laws are changed incrementally to get things done (which is actually very close to getting back on topic). Yes, cigaretts are "becoming" illegal, little by little. You can barely smoke anywhere any more. MADD is trying to make alcohol illegal too, through little baby steps... does that ring any bells?

Originally Posted by reality

well why don't you enlighten me then tann instead of going for the ole hit and run?

Because with legalization, as has already been pointed out to you, none of those problems would occur.

It has been medically documented for well over 100 years that opiate/opioid addicts, as long as they get their maintenance doses, lead absolutely normal lives, with none of the effects of withdrawal and/or impurities in their drugs.

In fact, if an addict were given pharma-grade heroin on a maintenance basis, you would be unable to tell that they were an addict.

Originally Posted by wiggidy

Umm... Smoke some?

I'm not sure what your point is.

I think drgood is just pointing out that if someone doesn't want to change their mind, they'll do and say anything to justify not changing their minds.

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

I think drgood is just pointing out that if someone doesn't want to change their mind, they'll do and say anything to justify not changing their minds.

Yeah, we went over that. Thanks though.

Originally Posted by Jefe

Oh, you have actual "studies"? I thought we were just making shit up.

Don't bother showing them to me, you'd be preaching to the choir. The fact that you don't understand the hypocrisy in having your own personal list of "drugs that are ok" was enough to end this discussion. I'm just having fun watching you try to justify it.

We are a long way off from legalizing marijuana, precisely because of attitudes like yours.

It's too bad you don't see the irony in cigarettes vs. pot, and the way laws are changed incrementally to get things done (which is actually very close to getting back on topic). Yes, cigaretts are "becoming" illegal, little by little. You can barely smoke anywhere any more. MADD is trying to make alcohol illegal too, through little baby steps... does that ring any bells?

Yeah man there have been a number of studies done on marijuana and its effects. i'd pull em up for you but you said not to bother so i won't.

And i'd say we're a long way off from legalization because of attitudes like YOURS. Lumping pot and heroin together isn't going to win any votes, which is what its gonna take. Like ive said, baby steps.
What baby steps are being taken on alcohol, prosecuting DWI? oooooo scary.
So you can smoke in a restaurant anymore, big deal. I haven't seen anything about INDIVIDUALS who CHOOSE to SMOKE not being able to for x reason. or anything even close to that. All ive seen is protecting people from 2nd hand smoke, which while pretty much bunk does matter to some people.

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Because with legalization, as has already been pointed out to you, none of those problems would occur.

It has been medically documented for well over 100 years that opiate/opioid addicts, as long as they get their maintenance doses, lead absolutely normal lives, with none of the effects of withdrawal and/or impurities in their drugs.

In fact, if an addict were given pharma-grade heroin on a maintenance basis, you would be unable to tell that they were an addict.

got something concrete to back that up with? not that i don't trust you an all, i just like to see it in front of me.
if thats truly the case that NONE of those objections i raised would occur, and thats verifiable then i guess i wouldn't have a problem with it.
So if you can verify your claim please do.