Let's talk about Medical Marijuana

[Eddie]

I'm a staunch supporter of people having the right to do as they please with their own bodies. To me a person should be allowed to ingest whatever substances they want. Criminalize behavior like disorderly conduct, assault or public intoxication but leave those who can control themselves or who have the sense to stay indoors alone.

I think that arguing health risks is silly because I can do just as much damage to my body with whiskey, cigarettes and big macs as I can with marijuana. I don't want the government telling me what I can smoke anymore than I want them telling me what I can eat.

 

[360]

Poll added.

 

[360]

I'm a staunch supporter of people having the right to do as they please with their own bodies. To me a person should be allowed to ingest whatever substances they want. Criminalize behavior like disorderly conduct, assault or public intoxication but leave those who can control themselves or who have the sense to stay indoors alone.

I think that arguing health risks is silly because I can do just as much damage to my body with whiskey, cigarettes and big macs as I can with marijuana. I don't want the government telling me what I can smoke anymore than I want them telling me what I can eat.

What a great combination!!!

 

[E5RANGER375]

the RADICAL religious community is the SOLE reason for several laws including the criminalization of pot and many other issues that should be a individuals right to perform if they so choose to do so in a safe way. just like i think prostitution would be legal just like it is in some places and countries, if it werent for the thumpers. (i put radical because i dont believe all people of religion are radical or even wanna get involved in a negative way on rights issues, so to be clear im NOT anti-religion, im pro-choice, whatever you wanna do is your business, believe or dont believe, i dont care, i respect both views. KEEP CHURCH AND STATE SEPERATE!!!! this isnt being done or we wouldnt have half the stupid laws that we do now)

 

[schafe]

Poll added.

Didn't vote.. seem to be the only one who would vote "don't care if it's legal or not--it's bad stuff and i'm staying away.

 

[schafe]

My main point of interest is in the morality of telling other people -- at gunpoint -- what they may or may not ingest for whatever reason they may have for ingesting it.

Will you be on my side, then, when they come for my Baconator at gunpoint due to the "cost to society" in health insurance payouts?

 

[360]

Didn't vote.. seem to be the only one who would vote "don't care if it's legal or not--it's bad stuff and i'm staying away.

It's not a public poll. Nobody knows how you vote.

 

[Eddie]

Will you be on my side, then, when they come for my Baconator at gunpoint due to the "cost to society" in health insurance payouts?

Funny but not entirely out of the question. We are already making laws stopping people from riding motorcycles without helmets or smoking in public. If those are OK then why not regulate your bacon intake or force you to exercise or tell you to turn off that T.V. and read a book? I think that when we start legislating based on "cost to society" that we are approaching a slippery slope that leads to the loss of more and more of our freedoms.

 

[Fletch]

Will you be on my side, then, when they come for my Baconator at gunpoint due to the "cost to society" in health insurance payouts?

It should go without saying that the Kelly Brownells of the world are my sworn enemies.

 

[schafe]

Funny but not entirely out of the question. We are already making laws stopping people from riding motorcycles without helmets or smoking in public. If those are OK then why not regulate your bacon intake or force you to exercise or tell you to turn off that T.V. and read a book? I think that when we start legislating based on "cost to society" that we are approaching a slippery slope that leads to the loss of more and more of our freedoms.

I was hoping someone would recognize the inference. Your examples are spot on !

 

[SavageEagle]

I would vote, but even the last part of the last sentence is too vague for me. Criminal laws for it's misuse? What constitutes misuse? Smoking in public? Smoking in a theater? Dropping the joint? MINIMAL laws regulating its use, MAYBE.

 

[NWIeng]

Voted the bottom one.

Let me preface by stating that I've never used, so if I seem naive, so be it.

One can argue that it's a 'gateway' drug, but if you smoke it, you're not exactly running some great risk of being permanently screwed up like LSD or something like that. So in that regard, it's effects are similar to that of alcohol in that you can function to an extent while under its effects.

I say legalize it, have farms and labs grow it for even recreational use, and tax it like you wouldn't believe. Let the gravy train start rolling, just like booze and cigarettes.

BUT....

The only thing that keeps me from being 100% behind the above is how they test for it. If you were to book someone for driving while impaired from mariujana, you would need to have a method of testing that's instantaneous. A blood draw is I think the only way you do this. (someone correct me if I'm wrong). A forced blood draw is the only way you would proof precise use times, as hair follicles would be useless.

So if you did legalize it, the enforcement of its miss-use would be an absolute nightmare.




And by all means, I'm not a doctor, don't play one on TV. If my assumptions and way out of line, I'd love to know which part is wrong on this subject.

 

[360]

I would vote, but even the last part of the last sentence is too vague for me. Criminal laws for it's misuse? What constitutes misuse? Smoking in public? Smoking in a theater? Dropping the joint? MINIMAL laws regulating its use, MAYBE.

Come on...we aren't legislators, but we can figure out a general acceptance on misuse. Operating a motor vehicle while impaired causing an collision, or bodily harm, contributing to a minor, no flying an aircraft under the influence, general workplace safety measures...etc...obviously smoking laws would include marijuana smoke, and dropping a joint? Well that is just like spilling your beer. Abuse.

 

[360]

Let me preface by stating that I've never used, so if I seem naive, so be it.

One can argue that it's a 'gateway' drug, but if you smoke it, you're not exactly running some great risk of being permanently screwed up like LSD or something like that. So in that regard, it's effects are similar to that of alcohol in that you can function to an extent while under its effects.

I say legalize it, have farms and labs grow it for even recreational use, and tax it like you wouldn't believe. Let the gravy train start rolling, just like booze and cigarettes.

BUT....

The only thing that keeps me from being 100% behind the above is how they test for it. If you were to book someone for driving while impaired from mariujana, you would need to have a method of testing that's instantaneous. A blood draw is I think the only way you do this. (someone correct me if I'm wrong). A forced blood draw is the only way you would proof precise use times, as hair follicles would be useless.

So if you did legalize it, the enforcement of its miss-use would be an absolute nightmare.




And by all means, I'm not a doctor, don't play one on TV. If my assumptions and way out of line, I'd love to know which part is wrong on this subject.

Care to provide an example without using the men who discovered and tested it? (because of the vast amounts consumed).

 

[Benny]

I disagree to a point here...they should provide repercussions for your reckless or irresponsible driving, not because you may be intoxicated.
The whole premise that being intoxicated is breaking some kind of moral law is an outrage...like being charged with public intoxication is bad. All that is is big brother taking away rights from you from owning your own body.

Again, all I am suggesting is they should enforce against the action, not the substance...and that goes for all drugs.
I don't care that some drugs may cause people to lose control, when that happens, there should be stiff consequences for those actions that cause harm or injury to others or their property. Let us all have control of our own bodies, then we may actually feel like the constitution is being supported here.

So are you saying they should get rid of brealilizers and go back to field sobriety tests? I'd be all for that, but it'd never happen.

 

[SKSnut]

I too don't know the permanent effects you are speaking of but I also don't care. I said what I did based on my experiences, and for me...drunks far outweigh stoners.

I'm not saying either substances are "good". What I'm saying is...


I've known Drunks who Beat their wife and children. Mentally abuse their family. Cause havoc and chaos in their circle of family and friends. I've known drunks that steal, and drunks that spend their life on a bar stool, only to get off of it and drive home on a civilian filled street.

I've known stoners who have a lack of motivation who are lazy. I've known stoners who eat a lot, and random stuff. I've never met a stoner who beats his wife or is violent to his family.

THIS...THIS is the only reason I think Drunks are far worse. And I have to say that..."You don't want either surrounding your family and friends"...I Guarantee you know someone who is a stoner, you just don't know it.

As stated above...I'm not "FOR" either. But judging by my past....If I had to pick one, it would be a pot head.

thats pretty much what i was gonna say. Marajuana is the lesser of 2 evils

 

[antsi]

Put aside the fact that people get medical marijuana cards for having a hangnail

Let's consider only the upsides of the proposed policy, ignoring for the moment any downsides. Are you in favor?

medical marijuana is largely a joke. it does have it niche in AIDS wasting and appetite stimulation in cancer patients, etc. it also has some use in refractory nausea and vomiting, but this use has largely been eclipsed by the setrons.

i dont have a problem with legalizing pot, but call it what it is. the "pharmacies" in places like CA are silly....anyone can get weed, including drug addicts who then sell it to teenagers. then the addicts turn around and buy smack with their profits.

Bingo.

I am no fan of the war on drugs. I don't do drugs (not even caffiene, tobacco, or EtOH) but that's my choice; not the effect of government enforcement. The War on Drugs has a corrupting influence on our society and is ineffective in actually stopping people from using drugs.

But I believe that the medical arena is the WORST place to toy around with legalizing pot.

Already my OB ER is jammed with pregnant prescription narcotic abusers coming in at all hours making up symptoms in order to convince me to prescribe them a fix, and costing the taxpayer upwards of $1000 minimum per visit (and often astronomically higher than that) for whatever workup is required to diagnose their complaints.

What you are proposing is to take my OB ER already jammed with pregnant narcotics abusers, and put the word out to all the pregnant pot heads; "Go to the OB ER and make up some symptoms, get your free pot paid for by Medicaid."

AWESOME idea, dude.

I'd much rather see the .gov distribute pot directly to people for the express purpose of getting wasted. Then, whatever tiny minority of patients who actually have a justifiable medical need for it can go to Uncle Sam's Canabis Distribution Center pretending they just want to get high, instead of sending 70 million pot heads to ERs all around the country pretending to have medical conditions that will have to be worked up on the taxpayer dime.

 

[redneckmedic]

Just so its said... you (in general) might be quite surprised at the folks that are very well respected professionals in our community that smoke pot on a regular bases, and even their peers don't know. I'm talking about people I know, not just making a generalization. MD's, attorney's, Public Safety, and large business owners.

 

[360]

Just so its said... you (in general) might be quite surprised at the folks that are very well respected professionals in our community that smoke pot on a regular bases, and even their peers don't know. I'm talking about people I know, not just making a generalization. MD's, attorney's, Public Safety, and large business owners.

I'm well aware.

 

[samot]

Just so its said... you (in general) might be quite surprised at the folks that are very well respected professionals in our community that smoke pot on a regular bases, and even their peers don't know. I'm talking about people I know, not just making a generalization. MD's, attorney's, Public Safety, and large business owners.

Yes sir, That is a fact.

I agree with legalizing it.
But i disagree with whomever said to tax the crap out of it. Ya see thats the problem. It cant be taxed cause you COULD (if legal) plant it right next to your tomatoes in your garden, therefor the gov doesnt get thier cut, if its kept illegal the gov still makes money off of it