Why Legalizing Pot Is a Bad Idea

[Expat]

Why Legalizing Pot Is a Bad Idea

I am sure this is just crazy propaganda to be ignored...
It has some actual statistics, but once again, that's just crazy talk.

 

[88GT]

I didn't look, but does the author also favor the criminalization of tobacco products and alcohol? Seems his only argument (admittedly I just skimmed the post) is the dangers associated with it. If that's the standard, we should probably ban firearms as well.

 

[Big Dave]

If it's SOOO dangerous then where are all of the REAL statists showing the death toll related to it.....I guarentee they're minimal if any at all.

 

[Big Dave]

And the Doctor, former advisor to the president.......what happened to him, did he resign TOO because he's wrong!!

 

[MisterChester]

I didn't look, but does the author also favor the criminalization of tobacco products and alcohol? Seems his only argument (admittedly I just skimmed the post) is the dangers associated with it. If that's the standard, we should probably ban firearms as well.

He just claims it's not like alcohol at all, and doesn't mention tobacco at all. This guy is obviously clueless.

 

[Tynimiller]

I'm a fan of taxing this and less for property tax

 

[BigMatt]

The only question I have is about traffic accidents. His statistics show a 100 percent increase in marijuana related traffic deaths. That is 78 vs. 39. He doesn't say how many of these had other circumstances too - alcohol, texting, other distractions.

 

[mrjarrell]

The only question I have is about traffic accidents. His statistics show a 100 percent increase in marijuana related traffic deaths. That is 78 vs. 39. He doesn't say how many of these had other circumstances too - alcohol, texting, other distractions.

I found it interesting that, when he cited another article on these traffic incidents, he was citing an article he had written on the matter that took issue with an article that was written by Radley Balko. He had no real data to back up his assertions, ( and he even stated in his article that data he would find acceptable would not even be available till late in 2014). This was a poorly written article by someone who really doesn't know what he's talking about. Pretty typical of Heritage, though.

 

[Drail]

There are FAR too many people licensed to operate a motor a motor vehicle in this and EVERY other State I have lived in that have never even seen any marijuana in their entire life - but the State will still "sell" them a license. Using motor vehicle accident rates when looking at traffic safety and blaming marijuana on ANY of it is "junk science" - especially now that almost everyone I see on the road is playing with their cell phone. Marijuana is the absolute least of our worries for traffic deaths or injuries. And then we have the whole alcohol issue. The Number 1 problem currently is cell phone use.

 

[rambone]

"The science is clear and unambiguous – pot is a dangerous substance. It is not like alcohol at all."

 

[HoughMade]

I say legalize pot.

My kids need even more people without ambition to "compete" against. Compete.....Hah!

 

[hoosierdoc]

I found it interesting that, when he cited another article on these traffic incidents, he was citing an article he had written on the matter that took issue with an article that was written by Radley Balko. He had no real data to back up his assertions, ( and he even stated in his article that data he would find acceptable would not even be available till late in 2014). This was a poorly written article by someone who really doesn't know what he's talking about. Pretty typical of Heritage, though.

Are you of the belief that increased access to mind altering substances will NOT lead to increased accidents and death? Or do you just not care because you want everything legalized?

 

[88GT]

Are you of the belief that increased access to mind altering substances will NOT lead to increased accidents and death? Or do you just not care because you want everything legalized?

False dichotomy. He can care and still favor the policy that gives more freedom than less. People hurt themselves all the time. Why aren't we advocating for all of the potentially dangerous items to be banned? I'll ask it again: if the standard is based on the potential of the item to hurt or kill, why isn't more of INGO in favor of the prohibition of firearms?

 

[hoosierdoc]

I have never seen him admit a downside to legalizing drugs. he smears any study/article/comment against legalizing. I just want him to say legalizing and freedom in this scenario outweighs the harms that will come with it.

he also will not answer my question as to whethe he supports OTC stat us for everu pharmaceutical. if heroin should be free and legally obtainable, is he also advocating for lasix, zyprexa, percocet, etc.

 

[mrjarrell]

Are you of the belief that increased access to mind altering substances will NOT lead to increased accidents and death? Or do you just not care because you want everything legalized?

Might there be adverse consequences? Sure. It could happen, might even be an uptick in negative consequences for some people. So what? You doctors kill more people on a yearly basis than guns or pot. I'm not calling for you to be banned or censured, even though statistics show you folks to be much more dangerous than many things. That's not the issue. Alcohol is responsible for many more deaths than illegal drugs, You going to call for prohibition to be reinstated? Or do we let adults determine what to put in their own bodies? There are already penalties in place for people who harm others, so we already have a "safety net", of sorts.

So far the statistics in Colorado and Oregon are not bearing out the oh woe is me crowd. Time will tell whether it is a horror story, (highly doubtful) or nothing to worry about (the more likely outcome).
I see 88 has really already answered you, very well, too I might add. I get that you're against it. We've heard your side before. You're entitled to your opinion. But the facts just don't support continued prohibition.

 

[mrjarrell]

I have never seen him admit a downside to legalizing drugs. he smears any study/article/comment against legalizing. I just want him to say legalizing and freedom in this scenario outweighs the harms that will come with it.

he also will not answer my question as to whethe he supports OTC stat us for everu pharmaceutical. if heroin should be free and legally obtainable, is he also advocating for lasix, zyprexa, percocet, etc.

You keep moving the goalposts. And yes, I do believe that freedom and relegalisation outweighs the minor harms that might come with it. As for your assertion that I've refused to answer a question...well, I can't answer something that you've never asked me. Why should heroin be free? The Bayer Company, it's creators certainly charged for it, why wouldn't any pharma company? Why should drugs be free? As for whether drugs should be OTC, I see no issue with that. They were OTC for ages before the government decided they could regulate them. Nothing there to keep doctors from still prescribing them for their patients. Or are you just concerned about your current monopoly on granting people access to necessary drugs?

 

[hoosierdoc]

as stated in other threads, I am no longer against it, just not advocating for it. it's a non-issue in my life. I do however want the legalization crowd to be intellectually honest.

the "monopoly"... there are a million places to get a script these days. blah blah blah.

so... OTC for all pharmaceuticals? we can then pass a federal law making it illegal to sue the drug manufacturers. , prices would plummet.

 

[steveh_131]

the "monopoly"... there are a million places to get a script these days. blah blah blah.

I disagree. My family has a host of medical problems and I have found doctors to be largely useless. I could have saved myself a fortune in bypassing them altogether if I had access to the necessary medications. Thanks to the nanny state, I have to pay drug dealers with diplomas to give us the meds that I already researched.

Be honest, how many doctor visits revolve almost solely around getting a prescription? I know it's a huge percentage.

 

[hoosierdoc]

You keep moving the goalposts. And yes, I do believe that freedom and relegalisation outweighs the minor harms that might come with it. As for your assertion that I've refused to answer a question...well, I can't answer something that you've never asked me. Why should heroin be free? The Bayer Company, it's creators certainly charged for it, why wouldn't any pharma company? Why should drugs be free? As for whether drugs should be OTC, I see no issue with that. They were OTC for ages before the government decided they could regulate them. Nothing there to keep doctors from still prescribing them for their patients. Or are you just concerned about your current monopoly on granting people access to necessary drugs?

By "free" I meant legal or freely obtainable without script, not obtaining without payment. Sorry for the confusion.

you are doing ass u me thing here a lot. I am simply asking if your stance on drugs affects ALL drugs. Four months later you answered that. I am implying nothing.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I disagree. My family has a host of medical problems and I have found doctors to be largely useless. I could have saved myself a fortune in bypassing them altogether if I had access to the necessary medications. Thanks to the nanny state, I have to pay drug dealers with diplomas to give us the meds that I already researched.

Be honest, how many doctor visits revolve almost solely around getting a prescription? I know it's a huge percentage.

Yes it is, but that's mainly due to laws in place, not doctor's rules. Many docs will give 12-month scripts on non-controlled substances. Many complicated patients need frequent monitoring of labs and checking for side effects. It would be malpractice to provide a year's worth of many meds without any guarantee of continued oversight (office visits)

in this era of massive legal ramifications for poor medical outcomes, do you really think docs will just accept the liability of long-term treatment plans without frequent evaluations? Tort reform would help greatly.