Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 135

Thread: Sessions: Marijuana only slightly less awful than heroin

  1. #11
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	marijuana.jpg 
Views:	52 
Size:	37.5 KB 
ID:	117675 Click image for larger version. 

Name:	marijuana now Im gay.jpg 
Views:	55 
Size:	45.3 KB 
ID:	117676
    You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer. -Frank Zappa

  2. #12
    Registered User
    Member Since
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    22,243
    He disagrees with the dope smokers so he is a bad guy.
    What a great line in the sand.

    As they cry I wanna smoke my dope.

  3. #13
    "Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory... lasts forever." - Shane Falco

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris0nllyn View Post
    Based on his wording, I doubt that he was going with the "law" angle. Based on that, and the fact that marijuana and heroin are classified the same, then why would he use "slightly less awful" instead of "just as awful?

    The law does not mention any substance being more "life-wrecking" than another.

    And who is "suggest[ing] that we can solve our heroin crisis by legalizing marijuana"?


    I think he's following a mindset shared by many in his generation.
    While it may not have been his angle, it's an accurate thought. The law says what he said about marijuana. We can argue this study or that study or this country or that state, but it is what the law says about it.

    Many, by the way, have said we can fix our problem with illegal drugs by legalizing them. Not sure why that's even in question - it's kind of the basis of legalizing drugs.

    His mindset is set in law. The best way to change the mindset is to change the basis of the law.
    There are only two possibilities; one is that we are alone in the universe, the other is that we are not.
    Both are terrifying.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by This_person View Post
    While it may not have been his angle, it's an accurate thought. The law says what he said about marijuana. We can argue this study or that study or this country or that state, but it is what the law says about it.

    Many, by the way, have said we can fix our problem with illegal drugs by legalizing them. Not sure why that's even in question - it's kind of the basis of legalizing drugs.

    His mindset is set in law. The best way to change the mindset is to change the basis of the law.
    Yes, it is against the law and maybe he did mean it in terms of the law (he was speaking to police).

    He mentioned the "opioid epidemic" but failed to mention,
    Medical cannabis laws are associated with significantly lower state-level opioid overdose mortality rates.
    http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama...rticle/1898878

    It's quite easy to stand back form it all and yell "but it's against the law!" while ignoring that this is the guy in charge of enforcing it. If he has this view on it, even after years of medical and recreational marijuana legalization across the country without any of the "sky is falling" predictions coming true, then forgive me if I'm not rushing to believe that he'll be at the forefront of getting the laws changed.
    Last edited by Chris0nllyn; 03-16-2017 at 12:41 PM.
    Crybaby Cripplecrow Hanging on a Monkey's Toe Club

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris0nllyn View Post
    Yes, it is against the law and maybe he did mean it in terms of the law (he was speaking to police).

    He mentioned the "opioid epidemic" but failed to mention,

    http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama...rticle/1898878

    It's quite easy to stand back form it all and yell "but it's against the law!" while ignoring that this is the guy in charge of enforcing it. If he has this view on it, even after years of medical and recreational marijuana legalization across the country without any of the "sky is falling" predictions coming true, then forgive me if I'm not rushing to believe that he'll be at the forefront of getting the laws changed.
    He shouldn't be at the forefront of getting the laws changed. That should be coming from the scientific community that performs, reviews, etc., the research. They make recommendations on what class each drug is, which is where the law actually resides. I'll ask you what Larry wouldn't answer: would you expect him, a guy with no medical training, no training in medical research or anything like that, to be expected to overrule the technicians and doctorates that made the determination, and confirmed the determination recently? Is that how you want government to work - "Bob said you're wrong, Doctor Expert, so change your ruling."?
    There are only two possibilities; one is that we are alone in the universe, the other is that we are not.
    Both are terrifying.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by This_person View Post
    He shouldn't be at the forefront of getting the laws changed. That should be coming from the scientific community that performs, reviews, etc., the research. They make recommendations on what class each drug is, which is where the law actually resides. I'll ask you what Larry wouldn't answer: would you expect him, a guy with no medical training, no training in medical research or anything like that, to be expected to overrule the technicians and doctorates that made the determination, and confirmed the determination recently? Is that how you want government to work - "Bob said you're wrong, Doctor Expert, so change your ruling."?
    When the government is the body is paying for research, you think they're researching the positive benefits of a drug they've tried their damndest to keep illegal for some 40 years at the expense of taxpayers (among others)? If you wanted to keep something illegal, would you want to tout how helpful it is?

    I will say that you are right. The DEA had a chance to reschedule marijuana but don't have enough evidence to support the idea that it has tangible medical benefits. Why is that? Why is there such little research of the benefits of this substance that's literally been around for thousands of years? One thing they did though, was open researching up to more than one government-approved facility and research team. Hopefully we'll see something soon enough, but I'm sure you'd agree that government typically isn't on the forefront of any new or explosive information.
    Crybaby Cripplecrow Hanging on a Monkey's Toe Club

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris0nllyn View Post
    When the government is the body is paying for research, you think they're researching the positive benefits of a drug they've tried their damndest to keep illegal for some 40 years at the expense of taxpayers (among others)? If you wanted to keep something illegal, would you want to tout how helpful it is?
    The assumption here (and I'm not denying the potential it is accurate) is that there is some interest in keeping marijuana illegal on the part of the DEA. In my view of how government should work, that should not be a consideration. It should be "what it is is what it is" and be done.

    I will say that you are right. The DEA had a chance to reschedule marijuana but don't have enough evidence to support the idea that it has tangible medical benefits. Why is that? Why is there such little research of the benefits of this substance that's literally been around for thousands of years?
    There has been quite a bit of study on pot, and the main thing I saw with respect to actually providing superior benefits to any other available drug was for MS. Why MS? There's been virtually no research into how to help those with MS except for pot, and pot didn't actually help with the medical issue, it helped the patient deal with the medical issue.

    One thing they did though, was open researching up to more than one government-approved facility and research team. Hopefully we'll see something soon enough, but I'm sure you'd agree that government typically isn't on the forefront of any new or explosive information.
    They are more than you'd think (would we have microwaves, or velcro, or a plethora of other things without them?), but maybe not in the areas everyone wants (that would be pretty much impossible). I would say once a drug is considered "bad", it's next to impossible to get it "good" again. Think DEET, or saccharin, or whatever. It is pretty much incumbent upon those who believe previous research invalid to prove the previous research invalid.
    There are only two possibilities; one is that we are alone in the universe, the other is that we are not.
    Both are terrifying.

  9. #19
    my war Hank's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 2011
    Location
    beer
    Posts
    17,932
    Quote Originally Posted by Hijinx View Post
    I like it, and I agree.
    figures

  10. #20
    Registered User
    Member Since
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    22,243
    Quote Originally Posted by Hank View Post
    figures
    As does your post.

Members who have read this thread: 1

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search:     Advanced Search
Search HELP

| Home | Help | Contact Us | About somd.com | Privacy | Advertising | Sponsors | Newsletter |

| What's New | What's Cool | Top Rated | Add A Link | Mod a Link |

| Announcements | Bookstore | Cafe | Calendar | Classifieds | Community |
| Culture | Dating | Dining | Education | Employment | Entertainment |
| Forums | Free E-Mail | Games | Gear! | Government | Guestbook | Health | Marketplace | Mortgage | News |
| Organizations | Photos | Real Estate | Relocation | Sports | Survey | Travel | Wiki | Weather | Worship |