Which group of people would you rather belong to?

[Lunar]

well, that's fine if you think all substances should be prescription only.  But why the bias against one particular substance that's less addictive, less destructive, and less-intoxicating than the others?

[Workers' Friend]

well, that's fine if you think all substances should be prescription only.  But why the bias against one particular substance that's less addictive, less destructive, and less-intoxicating than the others?

Because pain killers, if used correctly, can be more effective than pot. With government research, weed lovers won't have an excuse to make weed legal. I know people need prescriptions, but some drugs are just too evil.

[Lunar]

well, that's fine if you think all substances should be prescription only.  But why the bias against one particular substance that's less addictive, less destructive, and less-intoxicating than the others?

Because pain killers, if used correctly, can be more effective than pot. With government research, weed lovers won't have an excuse to make weed legal. I know people need prescriptions, but some drugs are just too evil.

What?  Why is weed more "evil" than Oxycontin or Morphine?  They are in the same family as Heroin and Opium.  People who abuse Oxycontin love it a lot more than "weed lovers."  People who abuse amphetamines and meth (both legal if prescribed), love their medicine a lot more than marijuana-abusers and the former have their lives destroyed a lot more.

You say that the government should research an identical drug that doesn't get you high and just let all of the currently suffering people off on their own because some people abuse it privately?  How does that even remotely address the issue?  People will abuse it no matter what, and the point of prescribed medicine is to get the most effective medicine to the people who need it, which s up to the doctor to decide.  Why shouldn't the doctor have the best set of tools currently available?

Again, why are you biased against a medicine that's proven effective and that contains less side effects, less addictive potential, and less intoxication than a lot of drugs you do support maintaining their legal status (painkillers, etc).

I don't even use any of the above, but this just silly.

[Workers' Friend]

well, that's fine if you think all substances should be prescription only.  But why the bias against one particular substance that's less addictive, less destructive, and less-intoxicating than the others?

Because pain killers, if used correctly, can be more effective than pot. With government research, weed lovers won't have an excuse to make weed legal. I know people need prescriptions, but some drugs are just too evil.

What?  Why is weed more "evil" than Oxycontin or Morphine?  They are in the same family as Heroin and Opium.  People who abuse Oxycontin love it a lot more than "weed lovers."  People who abuse amphetamines and meth (both legal if prescribed), love their medicine a lot more than marijuana-abusers and the former have their lives destroyed a lot more.

You say that the government should research an identical drug that doesn't get you high and just let all of the currently suffering people off on their own because some people abuse it privately?  How does that even remotely address the issue?  People will abuse it no matter what, and the point of prescribed medicine is to get the most effective medicine to the people who need it, which s up to the doctor to decide.  Why shouldn't the doctor have the best set of tools currently available?

Again, why are you biased against a medicine that's proven effective and that contains less side effects, less addictive potential, and less intoxication than a lot of drugs you do support maintaining their legal status (painkillers, etc).

I don't even use any of the above, but this just silly.

I'll tell you why weed is worse, because it makes you outright stupid! the bad effects last about a month, and I have never seen anybody doing good on Weed. I know many people who take it, medical or non-medical, they ALWAYS do something crazy or hurt others.

Anyway, please get back on topic.

[Lunar]

Medical marijuana is the topic.

Are you saying various amphetamine, methamphetamine, oxycontin, morphine, hydrocodone, valium, xanax, etc. don't also make people stupid?  Are you kidding me? That's the most ridiculous thing my eyes done heard.

[Workers' Friend]

Medical marijuana is the topic.

Are you saying various amphetamine, methamphetamine, oxycontin, morphine, hydrocodone, valium, xanax, etc. don't also make people stupid?  Are you kidding me? That's the most ridiculous thing my eyes done heard.

They all make people stupid, but Weed is too risky on legality. I am tired of hearing the "Legalize weed" stuff, I don't want anarchy.

[Lunar]

I'm simply talking about prescriptive medicine though, like all of the rest of medicine that includes intoxicating effects (a fair bit of it).

No anarchy required.

[Workers' Friend]

I'm simply talking about prescriptive medicine though, like all of the rest of medicine that includes intoxicating effects (a fair bit of it).

No anarchy required.

I don't think Medical Marijuana should be legalised still, I feel way too unsafe about, as with any weed.

[Хahar 🤔]

I'm simply talking about prescriptive medicine though, like all of the rest of medicine that includes intoxicating effects (a fair bit of it).

No anarchy required.

I don't think Medical Marijuana should be legalised still, I feel way too unsafe about, as with any weed.

And you don't feel unsafe with methamphetamines, etc.?

[DownWithTheLeft]

Being opposed to medical marijuana means you are either:
a) Against science
b) Against helping people
c) Against all medicine
d) Someone who can't think/research for themselves
e) Someone who just likes controlling people for shifts and giggles

or somewhere in between.

I favor legalizing all drugs, but blanket generaliziations like that are far from intelligent.  While I think medical marijuana does not have many downsides, there are certainly people who are entitiled to hold the belief that it may be abused. 

[© tweed]

I'm simply talking about prescriptive medicine though, like all of the rest of medicine that includes intoxicating effects (a fair bit of it).

No anarchy required.

I don't think Medical Marijuana should be legalised still, I feel way too unsafe about, as with any weed.

what a sheltered statist joke you turned out to be

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm simply talking about prescriptive medicine though, like all of the rest of medicine that includes intoxicating effects (a fair bit of it).

No anarchy required.

I don't think Medical Marijuana should be legalised still, I feel way too unsafe about, as with any weed.

what a sheltered statist joke you turned out to be

I think he's a populist version of benconstine and is trying to be a "populist hero" like constine tries to be a "moderate hero" with contrived views and an obviously manipulated PM score.

[Lunar]

Being opposed to medical marijuana means you are either:
a) Against science
b) Against helping people
c) Against all medicine
d) Someone who can't think/research for themselves
e) Someone who just likes controlling people for shifts and giggles

or somewhere in between.

I favor legalizing all drugs, but blanket generaliziations like that are far from intelligent.  While I think medical marijuana does not have many downsides, there are certainly people who are entitiled to hold the belief that it may be abused. 

I was half-serious, but then my question is: should we forbid all drugs from becoming medicine that have abuse potential?  Is "abuse potential" or "gets you really high" a legitimate disqualification for medicine?  Because it hasn't been in the past.

 People get addicted to marijuana and it harms their lives without a doubt, but it's not even in the same ballgame as meth, amphetamines, opiates, etc.  If you refuse to let a doctor make the best decision for his patient (and marijuana is the best treatment for glaucoma and for a few other things like the nausea associated with migraines), then yeah, you probably do fit into one of the above categories.  I think if you research THC it's pretty undisputed that it has substantive and unique medical benefits.  The government has a few counter-arguments out there, but they aren't very good.

[Хahar 🤔]

I'm simply talking about prescriptive medicine though, like all of the rest of medicine that includes intoxicating effects (a fair bit of it).

No anarchy required.

I don't think Medical Marijuana should be legalised still, I feel way too unsafe about, as with any weed.

what a sheltered statist joke you turned out to be

I think he's a populist version of benconstine and is trying to be a "populist hero" like constine tries to be a "moderate hero" with contrived views and an obviously manipulated PM score.

"Populist hero"?

That'd seem plausible, except that I can't imagine why anyone would do that.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I was half-serious, but then my question is: should we forbid all drugs from becoming medicine that have abuse potential?  Is "abuse potential" or "gets you really high" a legitimate disqualification for medicine?  Because it hasn't been in the past.

 People get addicted to marijuana and it harms their lives without a doubt, but it's not even in the same ballgame as meth, amphetamines, opiates, etc.  If you refuse to let a doctor make the best decision for his patient (and marijuana is the best treatment for glaucoma and for a few other things like the nausea associated with migraines), then yeah, you probably do fit into one of the above categories.  I think if you research THC it's pretty undisputed that it has substantive and unique medical benefits.  The government has a few counter-arguments out there, but they aren't very good.

Oh I agree with your statement 100%, but I still think that one thing that slows this down, as I know from being on the right on some social issues, is the left's arrogance that if you disgaree with them you are retarded and hate science

[Horus]

Medical marijuana is the topic.

Are you saying various amphetamine, methamphetamine, oxycontin, morphine, hydrocodone, valium, xanax, etc. don't also make people stupid?  Are you kidding me? That's the most ridiculous thing my eyes done heard.

They all make people stupid, but Weed is too risky on legality. I am tired of hearing the "Legalize weed" stuff, I don't want anarchy.

OH good lord, where do I begin with this??? Most of what I wanted to say Lunar already said, but I'll throw my two cents in on this.

First off, you say weed makes you stupid? Weed doesn't make you stupid, it alters how you think about things, which to someone as close-minded as you might appear as "stupid". However, it is anything but. I smoke weed fairly often, and it has had no negative affects on my life at all. The fact that it is illegal is purely economic. All the drug control stuff and the like are simply to keep people buying liquor and tobacoo because the economy would be thrown a curveball if weed were legalized and the tobacco companies just wouldn't have it.

But back on topic, how would legalization of weed lead to anarchy? For that matter, how does weed lead to violence? I have never heard of a single case where someone committed a crime solely because they were high. Yes, people have committed crimes when high, but there was always something else that led them to do it. Weed is a natural herb, a virtually harmless and oftentimes helpful plant that is misunderstood by so many, particularly the moral crusaders such as you. Do some research.

[Lunar]

it does make people pretty stupid/spacey, but so does missing a night of sleep

[Associate Justice PiT]

it does make people pretty stupid/spacey, but so does missing a night of sleep

     Clearly the solution is to ban all-nighters.

[Lunar]

I was half-serious, but then my question is: should we forbid all drugs from becoming medicine that have abuse potential?  Is "abuse potential" or "gets you really high" a legitimate disqualification for medicine?  Because it hasn't been in the past.

 People get addicted to marijuana and it harms their lives without a doubt, but it's not even in the same ballgame as meth, amphetamines, opiates, etc.  If you refuse to let a doctor make the best decision for his patient (and marijuana is the best treatment for glaucoma and for a few other things like the nausea associated with migraines), then yeah, you probably do fit into one of the above categories.  I think if you research THC it's pretty undisputed that it has substantive and unique medical benefits.  The government has a few counter-arguments out there, but they aren't very good.

Oh I agree with your statement 100%, but I still think that one thing that slows this down, as I know from being on the right on some social issues, is the left's arrogance that if you disgaree with them you are retarded and hate science

Well, I'm not really driving the national debate, haha.  It's fine to be against medical marijuana while supporting prescription cocaine, meth, and opiates, but it just means you either don't know the facts or are hypocritical or inconsistent with the application of your ideology.  I just don't think there's a legitimate, fact-supported ideology out there that excludes marijuana from legitimate medicine but includes everything else that's currently counted as medicine.


And yes, cocaine and meth are both legally prescribed medicines in the U.S.A.

[Хahar 🤔]

it does make people pretty stupid/spacey, but so does missing a night of sleep

     Clearly the solution is to ban all-nighters.

Good idea.

[dead0man]

I'll tell you why weed is worse, because it makes you outright stupid! the bad effects last about a month, and I have never seen anybody doing good on Weed. I know many people who take it, medical or non-medical, they ALWAYS do something crazy or hurt others.

Shenanigans.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'll tell you why weed is worse, because it makes you outright stupid! the bad effects last about a month, and I have never seen anybody doing good on Weed. I know many people who take it, medical or non-medical, they ALWAYS do something crazy or hurt others.

Anyway, please get back on topic.

I agree with you, but what the hell does making it illegal do?  It only furthers the use of it

[Lunar]

Indeed, alcohol consumption actually increased during the Great Depression, and a lot of people got hurt by drinking improper, unregulated moonshine. 

But he's against all recreational substances, which I think is at least an ideologically consistent point of view, even if it's impractical or totalitarian.  That's fine.

What I want to know is why are meth, cocaine, and fentanyl, some of the most powerful more powerful and addicting psychoactives known to science, legal for doctors to give, but not THC?  Are people less stupid when they pop Valium or Xanax or Oxycontin?  Is THC not one of the best available cure for glaucoma or migraine-induced nausea? If the concern is that people "might be high at work" - that's ridiculous, plenty of other medicines get people more disoriented and "stupid."  If the concern is "we should wait until another medicine is made that doesn't make people stupid" well that's ridiculous for the just-stated reason, but doubly so for the people who will go blind without THC - one of the top medicines for the disease - or who are suffering today.

As someone that is extremely familiar with the medical marijuana system in California (even though I do not smoke wacky-tobacky), I could even understand greater restrictions on the users of recreational marijuana to make sure that it is actually going to the people who need it.

I say the "legalization" movement is at least reasonably debatable in its merits, but opposing medical marijuana is not.   Let the doctors do their job.

[Earth]

If anything, I'll probably have good conversations with people in group B.

Just a quick question: How is being against medical pot bad? I support science and medication and everything (I of course have allergic asthma, and I take NON-POT medicine.), but medical marijuana will still make people high, and how can people work for a living if they are stoned? They could be serving their government, and maybe even help research for a better alternative for medical marijuana.

Who says people that use medical marijuana are going to be high 24 hours a day? People still go to work every morning, and function normally, no matter how much pot one might smoke. At this point, I can't think of another drug with a benefit as good as marijuana, that is less harmful. Marijuana is not physically addictive, nor are there any major physical/psychological side effects of it's use.

I do, however, wished Smoking and Drinking were illegal. I am tried of the rebellious youth wanting drugs (even cigarettes and aclohol) just to disobey their parents.

By making these things illegal, then their use will skyrocket. Laws don't do any good trying to keep things out of people's hands, particularly when people should make up their own mind about what they'll ingest. It's not the role of government to police people's choices.

Because pain killers, if used correctly, can be more effective than pot. With government research, weed lovers won't have an excuse to make weed legal. I know people need prescriptions, but some drugs are just too evil.

But painkillers have a far higher risk, and are more damaging to the body than marijuana. Addiction is very likely with painkillers versus marijuana. How is a drug, any drug, "evil"? Of course, people can do evil things under the influence, and in the search for more drugs, but that's a symptom of making drugs illegal in the first place.

I'll tell you why weed is worse, because it makes you outright stupid! the bad effects last about a month, and I have never seen anybody doing good on Weed. I know many people who take it, medical or non-medical, they ALWAYS do something crazy or hurt others.

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but you're flat out wrong. I used to smoke a lot when I was younger, and people I know still use it, but no one has gone crazy or hurt another while high.

They all make people stupid, but Weed is too risky on legality. I am tired of hearing the "Legalize weed" stuff, I don't want anarchy.

There's no other option to consider than to make marijuana and all drugs legal, there are too many people that are being negatively effected by anti-drug laws, and the prisons are filling up because of it. People should have the right to make up their own minds about drugs, and the option to use them should be open. Many other countries allow recreational drug use to a certain extent, and none of them are in chaos.

[dead0man]

I really want to hear some of Bob Dole's many stories of people hurting other people while high.  There are some bad side effects to marijuana use, but going "crazy" and hurting people aren't among them.  (unless of course another drug was in the equation....I'm looking at you alcohol.)