In other news, marijuana

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
From the editorial, “One comprehensive study — needing to be replicated, but still persuasive — concluded that “for every dollar gained in tax revenue, Coloradans spent approximately $4.50 to mitigate the effects of legalization” That lines up with what Ive been looking for. The windfall tax increases, where are they? This suggests that the taxpayers are subsidizing the program which would not surprise me.
Taxpayers got a check in the mail because Colorado made TOO MUCH tax money from the sale of recreational and medical marijuana.

It does not suggest taxpayers are doing anything because the study clearly points out costs to private individuals/companies as well.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Accepting the downsides of the 'war on drugs' to keep a lid on the proliferation of opiates is worth it considering the danger from the drug category itself. For pot, its just not worth it.
So, legally, pot is a Schedule I drug. Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. The abuse rate is a determinate factor in the scheduling of the drug; for example, Schedule I drugs have a high potential for abuse and the potential to create severe psychological and/or physical dependence.

What part of that legal definition from the DEA is not accurate?
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
The Marijuana horse is out of the barn, and there is no getting it back in.
Just come up with a test so those using it and driving, can be charged, and legalize it.
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
So, legally, pot is a Schedule I drug. Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. The abuse rate is a determinate factor in the scheduling of the drug; for example, Schedule I drugs have a high potential for abuse and the potential to create severe psychological and/or physical dependence.

What part of that legal definition from the DEA is not accurate?
I disagree with the DEA.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
how about cocaine? Fentanyl? Methamphetamines? Heroine? Opioids? Scopolamine? Crystal meth? Morphine?
Ironically (?), prior to the Harrison Act (1914) all of this sort of stuff was legal. (Edit) Well, probably better to say, "wasn't illegal/controlled."

No war on drugs until then....

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Last edited:

officeguy

Well-Known Member
Gotcha. With what part of their definition do you have a disagreement?
The high potential for abuse. Plenty of people who smoked two or three joints in college, said 'meh' and never had any desire to further pursue it. Different from opiates, stimulants and alcohol, there is very little physical addiction to the substance.

There is good reason to believe that the listing of cannabis on schedule I was done for political reasons, not because it fits the formal criteria for the category.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
The high potential for abuse. Plenty of people who smoked two or three joints in college, said 'meh' and never had any desire to further pursue it. Different from opiates, stimulants and alcohol, there is very little physical addiction to the substance.

There is good reason to believe that the listing of cannabis on schedule I was done for political reasons, not because it fits the formal criteria for the category.
There are a lot of people who take opiates, stimulants, and alcohol a few times and say "meh", too.

You're neglecting the psychological dependence. "High potential for abuse" does not mean it is critical that every person ever abuses it. Do you think there is abuse of pot?
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
There are a lot of people who take opiates, stimulants, and alcohol a few times and say "meh", too.

You're neglecting the psychological dependence. "High potential for abuse" does not mean it is critical that every person ever abuses it. Do you think there is abuse of pot?
You can be psychologically dependent on twinkies, sex and affirmation by your peers. Doesn't mean we need the government to get in the middle of that either.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
There are a lot of people who take opiates, stimulants, and alcohol a few times and say "meh", too.

You're neglecting the psychological dependence. "High potential for abuse" does not mean it is critical that every person ever abuses it. Do you think there is abuse of pot?
Would you agree that marijuana is worse (for the reasons you mention above) than fentanyl? Oxycontin, Cocaine, PCP, or Ketamine?

Because all those things are Schedule II and III drugs. According to the govt., marijuana is worse than all those things, including (funny enough) Marinol (a synthetic form of marijuana).
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
You can be psychologically dependent on twinkies, sex and affirmation by your peers. Doesn't mean we need the government to get in the middle of that either.
But, if it were a drug that has a high potential for abuse of that, and for that to exist, then it would be a Schedule I drug.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Would you agree that marijuana is worse (for the reasons you mention above) than fentanyl? Oxycontin, Cocaine, PCP, or Ketamine?

Because all those things are Schedule II and III drugs. According to the govt., marijuana is worse than all those things, including (funny enough) Marinol (a synthetic form of marijuana).
I have not done the study to determine which is worse, and I am not ready to take my anecdotal evidence as sufficient to make that determination.

Would you be equally fine with marijuana being a schedule III or IV drug - still illegal for recreational use, but available by prescription for the things it has been shown to be valuable for (which, ironically, is "nothing")?
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
:cheers: I've seen the ads for elixers.

But, the question is, should they be legal or not?
Two points.

First, to your point. I'm more interested in consequences of decisions rather than the govt telling me what my "decisions range" is. I realize that it's not that simple, but that's my starting point.

Second, the period the Harrison Act was passed is also instructive for us today. Though the issues are somewhat different the "puritan" urge to control is very similar. The mindset of Wilson's Progressivism (especially, the eugenics rage) is very similar to that of the Left today.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I have not done the study to determine which is worse, and I am not ready to take my anecdotal evidence as sufficient to make that determination.

Would you be equally fine with marijuana being a schedule III or IV drug - still illegal for recreational use, but available by prescription for the things it has been shown to be valuable for (which, ironically, is "nothing")?
But you've done studies to determine the lack of efficacy marijuana has medically?
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
But, if it were a drug that has a high potential for abuse of that, and for that to exist, then it would be a Schedule I drug.
I dont think it has a high potential for abuse.

I also dont believe that the DEAs stance that there is no accepted medical use for the substance is correct. It can be used to stimulate appetite and there is data to support that it reduces symptoms in some peripheral neuropathy patients. The listing on schedule I is simply not supported by the facts.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
But you've done studies to determine the lack of efficacy marijuana has medically?
No, I've looked at the studies that were done that show they are somewhat effective on some things, but virtually always there is something better that already exists out there.

Would you be equally fine with marijuana being a schedule III or IV drug - still illegal for recreational use, but available by prescription if they come up with something useful for it?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I dont think it has a high potential for abuse.

I also dont believe that the DEAs stance that there is no accepted medical use for the substance is correct. It can be used to stimulate appetite and there is data to support that it reduces symptoms in some peripheral neuropathy patients. The listing on schedule I is simply not supported by the facts.
Would you be equally fine with marijuana being a schedule III or IV drug - still illegal for recreational use, but available by prescription if they come up with something useful for it?
 

nutz

Well-Known Member
Not sure what your point is. I simply stated my opinion on why I believe it should be legal. Its harmful, just as large sugary drinks, smoking, drinking in excess and not getting enough fiber. But we dont lock people up for doing those things, only if they harm others.
None of the things listed other than marijuana are illegal. That’s the point, do stuff thats illegal, bad things (jail) can happen.
 

nutz

Well-Known Member
Taxpayers got a check in the mail because Colorado made TOO MUCH tax money from the sale of recreational and medical marijuana.

It does not suggest taxpayers are doing anything because the study clearly points out costs to private individuals/companies as well.
Got a link?
 
Top