Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011'

[toonertoo]

I'm not saying don't make it legal......BUT, which drug will be next? someone else will want ice legal, then crack, then heroin, then what?

that is the point More, some have no use in our society. No good comes from the use of crack, meth, you will kill your mother to get that. That is why making them legal for those addicted to get without creating violent situations for the unsuspecting public. It also puts them in a bank where they are registered, and will at sometime , have to get help to get off. But in the meantime they will not be stealing and doing violent crimes to get them. And I really know nothing of these types of drugs other than I have seen what I once thought were good people, be homeless, and indigent, with no teeth, or reason to live. Terrible addicting drugs. Since brake fluid, drano, bleach, things that will kill you and make a property inhabitable until it is cleaned, are what goes into making meth, etc, I have no clue why people will ingest them, but it kills their brain, from which I dont see them recovering.
And pot is not like that.

 

[moreluck]

I think the jury is still out on any brain damage...... http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/pot/friend/mjp_faq17.htm

Also, why don't people consider inhaling MJ smoke harmful, yet they preach that cigarettes are harmful.. I understand the nicotine thing, but inhaling any kind of smoke can't be good for your lungs. How many times do we hear...they died of smoke inhalation?

 

[toonertoo]

I hear ya more, and I agree, that we dont have all the facts. I know where I work, I inhale pot all day, in the summer its like the aroma of the hour besides gunfire and bbq. And we do not know, just like until the late 60s we didnt know cigs were bad, but people had been doing it forever. I remember in the mid 70s my dentist smoked while he worked on my teeth. The biker chic next to me after delivery of my first child smoked and so did all the bikers that came to see the little tike and Mom. IN THE HOSPITAL. Now people younger than 35 would not remember when it was not considered bad.
Any smoke in My opinion only is bad for people with heart and lung conditions. Or asthma. But I doubt with all the other pollutants in the air, that all the lung disease can be blamed on one type of smoke.
People worked in factories, sanding wood, fiberglass, painting, with no masks. I was one of those. I painted for years with an air gun in the 70s and every night I would cough up paint, and my nose was the color of the day. But now if I get lung cancer or copd, they will all want to blame it on the fact I once smoked. Its not all fact, sometimes we just have to figure it out, and it sometimes takes years or decades.

 

[moreluck]

I hear ya more, and I agree, that we dont have all the facts. I know where I work, I inhale pot all day, in the summer its like the aroma of the hour besides gunfire and bbq. And we do not know, just like until the late 60s we didnt know cigs were bad, but people had been doing it forever. I remember in the mid 70s my dentist smoked while he worked on my teeth. The biker chic next to me after delivery of my first child smoked and so did all the bikers that came to see the little tike and Mom. IN THE HOSPITAL. Now people younger than 35 would not remember when it was not considered bad.
Any smoke in My opinion only is bad for people with heart and lung conditions. Or asthma. But I doubt with all the other pollutants in the air, that all the lung disease can be blamed on one type of smoke.
People worked in factories, sanding wood, fiberglass, painting, with no masks. I was one of those. I painted for years with an air gun in the 70s and every night I would cough up paint, and my nose was the color of the day. But now if I get lung cancer or copd, they will all want to blame it on the fact I once smoked. Its not all fact, sometimes we just have to figure it out, and it sometimes takes years or decades.

You spurred a memory of smoking being allowed in the movie houses. The arms of the chairs had ashtrays just like the airline seats had.

 

[soberups]

I think the jury is still out on any brain damage...... http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/pot/friend/mjp_faq17.htm

Also, why don't people consider inhaling MJ smoke harmful, yet they preach that cigarettes are harmful.. I understand the nicotine thing, but inhaling any kind of smoke can't be good for your lungs. How many times do we hear...they died of smoke inhalation?

No rational person would argue that marijuana is harmless. Its isnt harmless. Neither is tobacco, or alcohol, or caffiene, or a diet of Big Macs and doughnuts.

As a recovering alcoholic, I can tell you that chronic abuse of marijuana...while bad...is somewhat less toxic in terms of its effects on the body and the mind than chronic abuse of alcohol.

 

[menotyou]

I think the jury is still out on any brain damage...... http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/pot/friend/mjp_faq17.htm

Also, why don't people consider inhaling MJ smoke harmful, yet they preach that cigarettes are harmful.. I understand the nicotine thing, but inhaling any kind of smoke can't be good for your lungs. How many times do we hear...they died of smoke inhalation?

A vaporizer does not hurt your lungs like inhaling. This is wikipedia:

A vaporizer or vapouriser is a device used to extract for inhalation the active ingredients of plant material, commonly cannabis, tobacco, or other herbs or blends.
Vaporization is an alternative to burning (smoking) that avoids the production of irritating toxic, and carcinogenic by-products by heating the material so its active compounds boil off into avapor. No combustion occurs, so no smoke or taste of smoke is present. Vapor ideally contains virtually zero particulate matter or tar, and significantly lower concentrations of noxious gases such as carbon monoxide. Vaporizers contain various forms of extraction chambers including straight bore, venturi, or sequential venturi, and are made of materials such as metal or glass. The extracted vapor may be collected in a jar or inflatable bag, or inhaled directly through a hose or pipe. With little to no smoke produced and cooler temperatures, less material is required to achieve a given level of effect. Hence, the irritating and harmful effects of smoking are reduced,[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] as is secondhand smoke.
In comparison to other drug delivery methods such as ingestion, vaporization has a more rapid onset of pharmacological effect, direct delivery into the bloodstream (via the lungs), and more precise titration such that the desired level is reached and not exceeded, enabling consistent and appropriate dosage.

 

[menotyou]

I'm not saying don't make it legal......BUT, which drug will be next? someone else will want ice legal, then crack, then heroin, then what?

No offense, but now you are just being silly.

 

[trplnkl]

No offense, but now you are just being silly.

Silly? Really I don't think it is such a twist to think some will say...If marijuana is legal why isn't .........cocaine? Of course, rational people such as you and I can think of a number of reasons why not, but don't think for a second that someone won't try.

 

[trplnkl]

I am at heart a libertarian; I believe that, for the most part, people should be free to choose for themselves what substances they want to put into their bodies, even if those substances are moderately harmful and/or moderately habit forming. I would put tobacco, alcohol, marijuana and mild, natural hallucingens such as peyote or psylocibin mushrooms in this category. These substances are organic, they are found in nature, and they should be regulated, taxed, and legally available to adults who wish to purchase them.

I also recognize the fact that there are certain drugs that are so addictive and so toxic that there really isnt any such thing as "freedom of choice" when it comes to these substances. I would put cocaine, crack, ecstasy, methamphetamine, LSD and opiates in this category. These substances should not be "legalized" per se, but those who are addicted to them should be able to register as addicts and obtain these substances by prescription only, with the stipulation that at some point they will need to be medically detoxed and weaned off of them by a doctor who specializes in addiction treatment. The goal would be to (a) get these people off of the street and under some sort of medical supervision, and (b)to undercut the criminal black market for these substances by allowing these addicts to obtain pharmaceutical-grade versions of whatever they are addicted to at affordable prices.

Think about what this would accomplish. If the addict who now has to resort to criminal behavior (prostitution, theft etc.) in order to support a $200+ per day drug habit could go to a pharmacy and obtain those same drugs for $5 per day, he/she would no longer need to buy from the black market. The black market would dry up, since the majority of its former "customers" would be unwilling to pay the prices that made the risk of drug dealing worth taking. In one stroke, we would flush hundreds of thousands of addicts out of an overburdened criminal justuce system and into the supervised medical system where they belong. The billions of dollars that are currently funding narco-terrorism down in Mexico would dry up and remain in our country.

Is it a perfect solution? Hell no. There is no "perfect" solution. But it would be a far sight better than what we are currently doing, which pretty much consists of beating our head against a brick wall while being oblivious to the fact that it isnt the wall that is bleeding.

This is where the Libertarian and you may part ways. The premise of a registry for addicts of more harmful and addicting drugs in order to obtain medical treatment at a reduced cost to the "patient" would require a subsidy from tax dollars to treat the people that chose to take habit forming drugs.
When it comes to taking habit forming drugs there is always a choice, other than doctor prescribed medications that can become addictive. Granted there can be times where someone is addicted due to circumstances beyond their control, but I believe those times to be few and far between.
I reject the "responsibility" of getting someone off habit forming drugs because the person made bad personal choices.

 

[trplnkl]

A vaporizer does not hurt your lungs like inhaling. This is wikipedia:

A vaporizer or vapouriser is a device used to extract for inhalation the active ingredients of plant material, commonly cannabis, tobacco, or other herbs or blends.
Vaporization is an alternative to burning (smoking) that avoids the production of irritating toxic, and carcinogenic by-products by heating the material so its active compounds boil off into avapor. No combustion occurs, so no smoke or taste of smoke is present. Vapor ideally contains virtually zero particulate matter or tar, and significantly lower concentrations of noxious gases such as carbon monoxide. Vaporizers contain various forms of extraction chambers including straight bore, venturi, or sequential venturi, and are made of materials such as metal or glass. The extracted vapor may be collected in a jar or inflatable bag, or inhaled directly through a hose or pipe. With little to no smoke produced and cooler temperatures, less material is required to achieve a given level of effect. Hence, the irritating and harmful effects of smoking are reduced,[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] as is secondhand smoke.
In comparison to other drug delivery methods such as ingestion, vaporization has a more rapid onset of pharmacological effect, direct delivery into the bloodstream (via the lungs), and more precise titration such that the desired level is reached and not exceeded, enabling consistent and appropriate dosage.

This sounds a lot like the E-cigs that are on the market now. I've tried them but they make me cough more than smoking a cig does, after every puff. My wife isn't effected the same way. She uses them at times when smoking isn't allowed.
Never heard of a cannabis loaded cartridge for them though.

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

No offense, but now you are just being silly.

No, she has a point--someone, somewhere will make her argument for her.

 

[soberups]

.....The premise of a registry for addicts of more harmful and addicting drugs in order to obtain medical treatment at a reduced cost to the "patient" would require a subsidy from tax dollars to treat the people that chose to take habit forming drugs.....
.....I reject the "responsibility" of getting someone off habit forming drugs because the person made bad personal choices.

You are already "subsidizing" the treatment of people who choose to take habit forming drugs whether you want to or not. Your tax dollars go to support the police, the courts, and ultimately the overcrowded prisons where these people end up.

The so-called "war on drugs" is costing billions of our collective tax dollars to fight, and we might as well be flushing that money down the toilet for all the good it is doing us.

The legalization, registration of addicts, and availability of low cost drugs would cost a fraction of what we are already spending and would be a far more efficent and effective method of reducing the harm that is done to society by people with the medical problem of chemical dependency.

 

[moreluck]

We have legal methadone....a synthetic opiod......

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

We have legal methadone....a synthetic opiod......

...designed to wean addicts off of heroin...an illegal drug....

 

[wkmac]

Saw the better part of "Marijuana: A Chronic History" on History Channel yesterday (a 2010' documentary) and it was worth the watch. And the film was IMO balanced with those who are for and against so you hear from both perspectives, even a law enforcement perspective. This documentary is also available on YouTube so at YouTube in the search box type, "Marijuana A Chronic History" and you can see the entire film in 2-45 minute parts.

 

[trplnkl]

You are already "subsidizing" the treatment of people who choose to take habit forming drugs whether you want to or not. Your tax dollars go to support the police, the courts, and ultimately the overcrowded prisons where these people end up.

The so-called "war on drugs" is costing billions of our collective tax dollars to fight, and we might as well be flushing that money down the toilet for all the good it is doing us.

The legalization, registration of addicts, and availability of low cost drugs would cost a fraction of what we are already spending and would be a far more efficent and effective method of reducing the harm that is done to society by people with the medical problem of chemical dependency.

I realize too much is being spent already, I'm not convinced that a program that you are suggesting would lower it at all and we would still need cops, courts and still have over crowded prisons. Plus the cost of maintaining the revolving doors on the clinics for the floks looking for cheap drugs on the tax payers dime.