In other news, marijuana

[officeguy]

I skipped a number of parts because I can't link the entire article. Not sure what's funny about it, but the idea that taxpayers are footing the bill is incorrect. Colorado is doing just fine.

The cost is just not carried by the state. It is carried by employers and the health insurance system. If you go to the hospital because you are paranoid and your heart is racing, its your health insurer that picks up the tab. If you wreck your car because you are high, its not the state that picks up the bill, its the pool of others that pay premiums towards your car insurance.

 

[officeguy]

I can go to CVS and buy fentanyl?

Sure. If your doc writes you a triplicate for it, you can get a fentanyl patch or liquid fentanyl for a pump.

Heck, you can get a script for cocaine.

Btw. heroin is incorrectly scheduled. It's a great pain killer, no reason to have regular morphine and hydromorphone available but diamorphine is somehow evil.

 

[This_person]

Should pot, what? Be sold next to aspirin? No.

If I described what it's like today we wouldn't be commenting in a thread about legalizing marijuana.

I'm sure I disagree with both. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I can tell you that what we've been doing, ain't working, by any metric.

So, it's ok for drugs to not be available to the public (controlled)….That's exactly what it is today. Your concern is over what you view as a particular mis-Scheduling of a particular drug, with no good reason for that because it currently fits the current Schedule definition. You just want pot legal, and uncontrolled - even though you fully accept that drugs can and should be controlled.

You're not for freedom or liberty, you're for the recreational use of pot. If you were for freedom and liberty in the way you say, you would want fentanyl to be uncontrolled just like pot. you don't. You like the status quo, just not for pot.

It's not about freedom and liberty, it's not about the waste that is the war on drugs....it's about legal pot.

This is why people think this is the libertarian position - because when push comes to shove, it's exactly what you back.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

So, it's ok for drugs to not be available to the public (controlled)….That's exactly what it is today. Your concern is over what you view as a particular mis-Scheduling of a particular drug, with no good reason for that because it currently fits the current Schedule definition. You just want pot legal, and uncontrolled - even though you fully accept that drugs can and should be controlled.

You're not for freedom or liberty, you're for the recreational use of pot. If you were for freedom and liberty in the way you say, you would want fentanyl to be uncontrolled just like pot. you don't. You like the status quo, just not for pot.

It's not about freedom and liberty, it's not about the waste that is the war on drugs....it's about legal pot.

This is why people think this is the libertarian position - because when push comes to shove, it's exactly what you back.

I want it avilable to the public in a controlled environment. Like alcohol. I said that multiple times, so I'm not sure how you read that as " want it uncontrolled".

I fully recognize that it is a mind altering substance that should not be avilable on a shelf "next to aspirin".

Part of my concern is mis-scheduling, sure, but it's the fact that's it's scheduled at all, not that it's "mis" scheduled.

I can be for freedom and liberty and have an understanding that mind altering substances should not be readily available to any and everyone. I'm sure there are libertarians/anarchists that believe what you states, but it's not me.

I recognize the need for some government.

Portugal decrminalized all drugs and they aren't readily open and available to the public, so it's possible.

Call it whatever you want. Paint me into whatever you want. It's my opinion, my position, and I'll stick to it.

 

[This_person]

I want it avilable to the public in a controlled environment. Like alcohol. I said that multiple times, so I'm not sure how you read that as " want it uncontrolled".

I fully recognize that it is a mind altering substance that should not be avilable on a shelf "next to aspirin".

Part of my concern is mis-scheduling, sure, but it's the fact that's it's scheduled at all, not that it's "mis" scheduled.

I can be for freedom and liberty and have an understanding that mind altering substances should not be readily available to any and everyone. I'm sure there are libertarians/anarchists that believe what you states, but it's not me.

I recognize the need for some government.

Portugal decrm,inalzed all drugs and they aren't readily open and available to the public, so it's possible.

So, I ask you again: Would you put fentanyl and pot in the same category: like alcohol, on the shelf next to the aspirin but you need an ID card that says you're a certain age to obtain it?

You don't seem to be saying that in previous statements, so I am trying to see if you think fentanyl and pot are to be treated exactly the same way.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

So, I ask you again: Would you put fentanyl and pot in the same category: like alcohol, on the shelf next to the aspirin but you need an ID card that says you're a certain age to obtain it?

You don't seem to be saying that in previous statements, so I am trying to see if you think fentanyl and pot are to be treated exactly the same way.

And since you agree with the DEA's scheduling of marijuana, I asked you if a host of drugs are "better" or "safer" than marijuana because they are scheduled lower....with no answer.

I think they should be treated the exact same way.

When citizens think of drug use, what do they think/see? They see costs. They think of the human and economic costs of drug use. Society as a whole says "we don't want to bear these costs" and makes drugs illegal. This ignores the fact that it's not a problem until people misuse the substance. But that'strue for a host of things. Food, cars/vehicles, etc. are all things that can be, and are, misused by the public and imposing costs on the same public. Are drugs any different that those things in that respect?

If we are worried about the negative side effects, then why make it illegal? Medical professionals, and I suspect many-a-heroin users, know the effects of fentanyl because it's quality controlled in a lab environment. We, as a society, have made drugs illegal but it has resulted in a black full of violence, corruption, and a market devoid of quality control increasing the chances of misuse or accidents. Civil liberteries are infringed, racial profiling exists, SWAT raids, civil asset forefiture, etc are all the direct result of this "war on drugs". So, what's worse, the cost of treatment, or the cost of prohibition policy?

Drugs are just another economic good and there's a misconception that drug users are not rational in their decision making. Are some not? Absolutely, but research exists that lead us to believe that people behave similar with respect to drugs as they do with many other things. Decisions about doing the drug, where to buy it, reliable sources, etc. are all decisions made by users. Prohibiton makes it tough for rational decision to be be made because of lack of options. In a legal marketplace, you know what it is. While some choose to misuse or overconsume, naive users fall victim in a black market where drugs are more likely to poison you.

Basic economics show us that when people want something, and it's hard to get or illegal, there will be a black market. I heard on a podcast once that, "no one will care if they ban broccoli ice cream because no one eats it. You ban chocolate ice cream and there will be a black market".

Obviously, marijuana is not deadly. The lethal dose is beyond human conumption abilities and no one has died from it directly, so of course the risks associated with it are lower than, say, cocaine. But what about the many legal products that, if consumed in excess, can be lethal? "You take 30 advil and it'll be your last headache", stand out to me. But so do things that are FDA-approved. Xanax is legally prescribed, but take too many and you die. Same, obviously, with fentanyl. I think people assume that because it's govt.-approved, it's "safe". There is a disproportionate amount of time and energy spent on illegal drugs and the dangers associated with them.

Why should policy dictate the legality of some pleasures (getting drunk or "buzzed" from alcohol, for example) over others (getting high on heroin)? Playing football is dangerous. Driving fast is dangerous. As is drug use.

When it comes to taxing substandes, I don't like the idea of a so-called "sin tax", or an additional tax on certain goods because the line of thinking that led to that tax can be applied elsewhere on other goods. There's an alcohol tax and people will often say that alcohol is dangerous because some folks may drive drunk and cause accidents. Is late night TV dangerous since people could stay up too late and be tired driving to work in the morning? Is food dangerous since peopel can overeat, thus causing excessive public healthcare expenditures? If we have a sales tax, everything should be subject to it and not have things carved out because politicians think those things are somehow more dangerous than others.

I tend to think that overall, people do reasonable things. Not everyone, but most people. Most people don't want to get into an accident or hurt themselves or deal with the consequences of a DWI so they do things to mitigate that risk via cab or UBER or car ride from a friend. Because of that, most people would not likely start doing heroin if it were decriminalized tomorrow.

So, yes, they should be treated the same because, like many things in our lives, they both carry some level of risk. We made alcohol legal, but put up with (and even celebrate it) despite the violence, domestic abuse, drunk driving, and all sorts of irresponsible behavior that comes with it. The issue is how do we mitigate those risks? If fentanyl was sold in a legal/controlled market, it would help those people with chronic pain. It was made for a reason, and it's pain relief. There are people very much in need of it, and a hdnaful of people who committed suicide because their doctor cut them off from the prescription pain meds they were on due to pain. If there is a demand for fentanyl (and it's derivatives), maybe there would be less of a deman for it people were able to get morphine in known doses? Maybe a legal market would package it in a way that makes it hard to OD (ever tried getting NyQuil out of its packaging)?

The biggest benefit I see when it comes to decrminalization is having and improving services available to help users without stigma attached to admitting to illegal drug use or locking someone up for use/possessing.

If fentanyl or heroin were sold next to aspirin, it may make some people essentially zombies (as they are now, I guess) but on the flip side, the direct costs of infringing on civil liberites, reducing crime, corruption, and the host of other things that come with prohibition are avoided.

But note that I've been saying decriminalization. Not full legalization. The downside of decriminalization is that you essentially legalize the demand side while acknowledging the supply side but keep it illegal. From an economic standpoint (and logical consistency) should they both be legal? You're still enforcing laws on the supply side, thus likely to see the same problems mentioned above about prohibition anyway but without collecting tax revenue; while still having quality control issues, and the crime and corruption. I imagine most places that have decriminalized drugs have quasi-stopped enforcing the supply side.

 

[This_person]

And since you agree with the DEA's scheduling of marijuana, I asked you if a host of drugs are "better" or "safer" than marijuana because they are scheduled lower....with no answer.

I did answer. I said that I think pot is in the wrong schedule, but it is not appropriate to take off of the schedule process.

When citizens think of drug use, what do they think/see? They see costs. They think of the human and economic costs of drug use. Society as a whole says "we don't want to bear these costs" and makes drugs illegal. This ignores the fact that it's not a problem until people misuse the substance. But that's true for a host of things. Food, cars/vehicles, etc. are all things that can be, and are, misused by the public and imposing costs on the same public. Are drugs any different that those things in that respect?

Yes. Drugs are both physically and psychologically addictive to a large swath of the population, and the results cause far more issues than psychological addictions to food or cars.

If we are worried about the negative side effects, then why make it illegal? Medical professionals, and I suspect many-a-heroin users, know the effects of fentanyl because it's quality controlled in a lab environment. We, as a society, have made drugs illegal but it has resulted in a black full of violence, corruption, and a market devoid of quality control increasing the chances of misuse or accidents. Civil liberties are infringed, racial profiling exists, SWAT raids, civil asset forfeiture, etc. are all the direct result of this "war on drugs". So, what's worse, the cost of treatment, or the cost of prohibition policy?

You're not making an argument against making drugs illegal, you are making an argument about policy on implementing drug laws. Racial profiling is arguable, but not provable. Civil asset forfeiture is a policy issue that has to do with a lot more than drugs. SWAT raids were implemented on political figures just recently having nothing to do with drugs. Civil liberties are not infringed based on drugs, they're infringed based on elected representatives making laws that do so in a plethora of ways that just happen to include drugs followed by the population voting those people back into office.

Quality control is an issue that is antithetical to freedom if you want the government to supply it.

You're not making a cogent argument about freedom, you're trying to suggest pot should be legal. You're making my point.

Drugs are just another economic good and there's a misconception that drug users are not rational in their decision making. Are some not? Absolutely, but research exists that lead us to believe that people behave similar with respect to drugs as they do with many other things. Decisions about doing the drug, where to buy it, reliable sources, etc. are all decisions made by users. Prohibition makes it tough for rational decision to be made because of lack of options. In a legal marketplace, you know what it is. While some choose to misuse or overconsume, naïve users fall victim in a black market where drugs are more likely to poison you.

So, if we just regulate it enough, government will protect us from ourselves? Is that really you're point? That's not a point for freedom, that's a point for higher quality, better regulated pot.

Basic economics show us that when people want something, and it's hard to get or illegal, there will be a black market. I heard on a podcast once that, "no one will care if they ban broccoli ice cream because no one eats it. You ban chocolate ice cream and there will be a black market".

And, if you punish purchasers instead of sellers, you will end the market. The problem, again, is about how the war on drugs is executed, not that there is a war on drugs.

Obviously, marijuana is not deadly. The lethal dose is beyond human consumption abilities and no one has died from it directly, so of course the risks associated with it are lower than, say, cocaine. But what about the many legal products that, if consumed in excess, can be lethal? "You take 30 advil and it'll be your last headache", stand out to me. But so do things that are FDA-approved. Xanax is legally prescribed, but take too many and you die. Same, obviously, with fentanyl. I think people assume that because it's govt.-approved, it's "safe". There is a disproportionate amount of time and energy spent on illegal drugs and the dangers associated with them.

Because there's no point in re-proving the unnecessary. But, again, you're talking about levels of regulation, not freedom. You simply want pot legal because you, personally, perceive it as a lower risk. "Risk", unless I'm mistaken, is not part of the definition of the various Schedules. You are in favor of having the various schedules, it seems, since you are in favor of regulation. You simply want pot regulated differently because you believe it is on the wrong schedule. You're making not a single argument in favor of having fentanyl available to the general population without prescription, like alcohol or Advil. You're saying "that's ok to be only available if a person approved by the government tells me it's okay to have it" with respect to fentanyl, but, "Pot's safe, cuz my buddy never died from it, so I don't need nobody to tell me I can't have it."

Why should policy dictate the legality of some pleasures (getting drunk or "buzzed" from alcohol, for example) over others (getting high on heroin)? Playing football is dangerous. Driving fast is dangerous. As is drug use.

Driving fast is regulated. Playing football professionally is regulated. Getting drunk, it seems you think, must need to be regulated?

When it comes to taxing substances, I don't like the idea of a so-called "sin tax", or an additional tax on certain goods because the line of thinking that led to that tax can be applied elsewhere on other goods. There's an alcohol tax and people will often say that alcohol is dangerous because some folks may drive drunk and cause accidents. Is late night TV dangerous since people could stay up too late and be tired driving to work in the morning? Is food dangerous since peopel can overeat, thus causing excessive public healthcare expenditures? If we have a sales tax, everything should be subject to it and not have things carved out because politicians think those things are somehow more dangerous than others.

A great tangent, having nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I tend to think that overall, people do reasonable things. Not everyone, but most people. Most people don't want to get into an accident or hurt themselves or deal with the consequences of a DWI so they do things to mitigate that risk via cab or UBER or car ride from a friend. Because of that, most people would not likely start doing heroin if it were decriminalized tomorrow.

The same thing was said about pot use. Recent history in places like Colorado prove that line of thinking false.

So, yes, they should be treated the same because, like many things in our lives, they both carry some level of risk. We made alcohol legal, but put up with (and even celebrate it) despite the violence, domestic abuse, drunk driving, and all sorts of irresponsible behavior that comes with it. The issue is how do we mitigate those risks? If fentanyl was sold in a legal/controlled market, it would help those people with chronic pain. It was made for a reason, and it's pain relief. There are people very much in need of it, and a handful of people who committed suicide because their doctor cut them off from the prescription pain meds they were on due to pain. If there is a demand for fentanyl (and it's derivatives), maybe there would be less of a demand for it people were able to get morphine in known doses? Maybe a legal market would package it in a way that makes it hard to OD (ever tried getting NyQuil out of its packaging)?

So, fentanyl on the counters next to NyQuil? I've already asked you that, and you said that you don't' think that's how it should be. Pick a side.

The biggest benefit I see when it comes to decriminalization is having and improving services available to help users without stigma attached to admitting to illegal drug use or locking someone up for use/possessing.

The biggest drawback I see to decriminalization is removing the stigma.

If fentanyl or heroin were sold next to aspirin, it may make some people essentially zombies (as they are now, I guess) but on the flip side, the direct costs of infringing on civil liberites, reducing crime, corruption, and the host of other things that come with prohibition are avoided.

But note that I've been saying decriminalization. Not full legalization. The downside of decriminalization is that you essentially legalize the demand side while acknowledging the supply side but keep it illegal. From an economic standpoint (and logical consistency) should they both be legal? You're still enforcing laws on the supply side, thus likely to see the same problems mentioned above about prohibition anyway but without collecting tax revenue; while still having quality control issues, and the crime and corruption. I imagine most places that have decriminalized drugs have quasi-stopped enforcing the supply side.

If we could get government out of the business of giving people money for not working, giving health-care providers money to take care of people with insufficient money, etc., etc., I would be far better off. It would make for a far more dangerous society, but freedom is not safe. But, so long as my money, taken from me by force by the government, is given to people for those things, I don't want drugs readily available to make more people on the taking side.

 

[Merlin99]

I still believe it should be legal. Not because it's good for you, simply because the 'war on drugs' is doing more damage than the drug itself.

I'm in this camp, I'm kind of tired of everything having to be either outlawed or mandatory. The govt. really doesn't need their fingers in everything. It might be different if they didn't have a track record of ****ing up almost every project they get involved in.

 

[officeguy]

You're not for freedom or liberty, you're for the recreational use of pot. If you were for freedom and liberty in the way you say, you would want fentanyl to be uncontrolled just like pot. you don't. You like the status quo, just not for pot.

I dont know how hard that is to understand. There is a difference in relative harm from fentanyl and pot. You mess up the drops of hash-oil in your brownies, you get a bit buzzed and jittery. You mess up the dosage of fentanyl to inject, you die.

Again, I dont argue that the stuff is good for you and should be available on the health foods counter. I am saying that ungodly amounts of police and court time are wasted on 'detecting the odor of burnt marijuana' and processing people through the system. Making it legal will increase consumption but decrease societal harm.

I actually think that some injectable opiates should be available at low cost for the treatment of opiate addiction. Morphine and fentanyl are not all that expensive. Right now, it is not legal for a prescriber to write someone a triplicate for injectable fentanyl to use 'as needed' for the treatment of his drug withdrawal symptoms. If the junkies could pay $50 and pick up a bottle of morphine and a pack of syringes, the number of opiate deaths would go down dramatically.

 

[Merlin99]

Now you know why I say it is about pot, not "freedom" or "liberty" or anything else.

If it was about "freedom and liberty", you would be calling the exact same thing for heroin and cocaine and crystal meth and fentanyl. You're not. It's about pot.

If it was about just putting pot where it belongs, you'd be all for making it a Schedule III (or something close). You're not. It's about pot.

This is why I say Libertarians are just about legalizing pot, not about "freedom" and "liberty", and why I don't take Libertarians as a party seriously. Libertarians are not about freedom and liberty - they're about getting high. This proves it to me.

Not necessarily, it's more like not taking things to extremes. I'm all for the second amendment, but I'm not in favor of giving a four year a glock. In the same vein I'm not thrilled with the idea of just anybody having unfettered access to high explosives. You can be libertarian without permanently parking your brain.

 

[This_person]

I dont know how hard that is to understand. There is a difference in relative harm from fentanyl and pot. You mess up the drops of hash-oil in your brownies, you get a bit buzzed and jittery. You mess up the dosage of fentanyl to inject, you die.

Again, I dont argue that the stuff is good for you and should be available on the health foods counter. I am saying that ungodly amounts of police and court time are wasted on 'detecting the odor of burnt marijuana' and processing people through the system. Making it legal will increase consumption but decrease societal harm.

I actually think that some injectable opiates should be available at low cost for the treatment of opiate addiction. Morphine and fentanyl are not all that expensive. Right now, it is not legal for a prescriber to write someone a triplicate for injectable fentanyl to use 'as needed' for the treatment of his drug withdrawal symptoms. If the junkies could pay $50 and pick up a bottle of morphine and a pack of syringes, the number of opiate deaths would go down dramatically.

But, then what YOU are saying is that controlling substances is ok. So, for you, it's also not about freedom and liberty, it's about pot.

No study has yet to show pot has a unique or uniquely valuable use as a medical prescription. Many studies have been done, and none show it. Chris will tell you that the studies just weren't good enough, though he has no objective quality evidence to back that up - he merely speculates that it must be better than the studies show (in his mind).

So, in every technical way, Schedule I is where it belongs. That does not mean it is not mis-Scheduled in a subjective way, and since the Schedule definitions include subjectivity it is certainly reasonable to suggest still that it is not Scheduled correctly. That said, it would only move down a little bit, and therefore still not be legally available as a recreational drug.

The Libertarian argument, when you point out what I say in the last paragraph, is that it is about Freedom and Liberty. Except, they don't agree with Freedom and Liberty when it comes to fentanyl, and therefore it's not really about Freedom and Liberty, it's about legally getting high.

 

[This_person]

Not necessarily, it's more like not taking things to extremes. I'm all for the second amendment, but I'm not in favor of giving a four year a glock. In the same vein I'm not thrilled with the idea of just anybody having unfettered access to high explosives. You can be libertarian without permanently parking your brain.

I get that. I think you can be libertarian, just not Libertarian. Like, I believe in democratic principles, but not Democrat principles.

What bothers me is when Libertarians say they are libertarian, because they clearly are not.

 

[TCROW]

I get that. I think you can be libertarian, just not Libertarian. Like, I believe in democratic principles, but not Democrat principles.

What bothers me is when Libertarians say they are libertarian, because they clearly are not.

Few Libertarians are libertarian. They're disaffected Republicans who think they'll find another home with another dumb political party and infect it with their dumb ideas.

 

[This_person]

Few Libertarians are libertarian. They're disaffected Republicans who think they'll find another home with another dumb political party and infect it with their dumb ideas.

Personally, I'm not in a party. I'm a conservative.

But, what ideas do you consider dumb that disaffected Republicans are bringing to the Libertarian Party?

 

[TCROW]

Personally, I'm not in a party. I'm a conservative.

But, what ideas do you consider dumb that disaffected Republicans are bringing to the Libertarian Party?

Any of 'em. To a libertarian the idea of associating with an upper-case party is antithetical to the very idea of libertarianism. Therefore, no idea is a good idea. I've been unaffiliated for 30 years or so.

 

[Yooper]

Few Libertarians are libertarian. They're disaffected Republicans who think they'll find another home with another dumb political party and infect it with their dumb ideas.

That's an interesting take. Doesn't match my experience....

When I was considering registering with the Libertarian Party I was told that most "Capital L" libertarians were of the "left side of the aisle" variety. And when I read through the Party's platform it did so seem to reflect that.

So the problem with libertarianism as a movement may be that the classic literature of libertarianism is classic conservatism/Right, but the political movement is more of the liberal/Left sort. As a result, the party can't move forward because it has a split personality.

And this is why I could never get motivated to vote for any libertarian candidate: while my libertarianism reflected the "right" variety the candidates generally espoused the "left" sort.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[TCROW]

That's an interesting take. Doesn't match my experience....

When I was considering registering with the Libertarian Party I was told that most "Capital L" libertarians were of the "left side of the aisle" variety. And when I read through the Party's platform it did so seem to reflect that.

So the problem with libertarianism as a movement may be that the classic literature of libertarianism is classic conservatism/Right, but the political movement is more of the liberal/Left sort. As a result, the party can't move forward because it has a split personality.

And this is why I could never get motivated to vote for any libertarian candidate: while my libertarianism reflected the "right" variety the candidates generally espoused the "left" sort.

--- End of line (MCP)

Therein lies the curse of the libertarian or classical liberalism framework. In my milieu, those who identify right of center perceive libertarianism to be radical left. Those who identify left of center perceive libertarianism as radical right.

The thing is frameworks don’t really migrate; people’s perception does. Classical liberalism has always been what it is. This is mostly due to mass media in my view. Contrast that with formal national parties to include Libertarians — their platforms and “framework” is constantly changing to attract money and votes.

 

[jrt_ms1995]

https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/

 

[Yooper]

https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/

View attachment 136138

Great post. DL'd and saved. Thank you.

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[officeguy]

But, then what YOU are saying is that controlling substances is ok. So, for you, it's also not about freedom and liberty, it's about pot.

Repeating a specious argument doesn't make it any truer.

No study has yet to show pot has a unique or uniquely valuable use as a medical prescription. Many studies have been done, and none show it.

That statement in its absolute phrasing is simply incorrect.

What is certainly correct is that there is very little data to support the claims of wide ranging benefits that got the medical marijuana scam passed in so many states.

The Libertarian argument, when you point out what I say in the last paragraph, is that it is about Freedom and Liberty. Except, they don't agree with Freedom and Liberty when it comes to fentanyl, and therefore it's not really about Freedom and Liberty, it's about legally getting high.

Again, how hard is this to understand ? The physical harm from MJ if all the criminal justice issues are removed is quite limited and certainly not worse than alcohol and nicotine. You can drink yourself to death, its near impossible to kill yourself using the parmacologic compound in MJ. There have have been people who have come to grief after extremely high doses, but that's the 'I believe I can fly' stuff you see with alcohol every day. Yes, there is a single digit percentage risk of suffering a psychotic episode after high doses of THC, but that's not on par with the risk of death from fentanyl or predictable cardiac damage from stimulants.