In other news, marijuana

[This_person]

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

It's really indisputable. If it were about freedom and liberty, the potential risks of fentanyl would not be a factor, because freedom is scary and dangerous.

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.

Nothing has been shown that supports the idea pot is better or unique in it's capabilities as a prescription medicine.

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 pharmacologic compound in MJ. There 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.

And, you can literally drink sufficient water to die. It's not about the potential harm - at least not in accordance with the definitions of the Schedules.

And, you can kill yourself with a car, or a knife, or a big tall tree and a short piece of rope (according to CDB). The Schedule definitions:

Schedule I

Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:

heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote

Schedule II

Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are:

Combination products with less than 15 milligrams of hydrocodone per dosage unit (Vicodin), cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin

Schedule III

Schedule III drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence. Schedule III drugs abuse potential is less than Schedule I and Schedule II drugs but more than Schedule IV. Some examples of Schedule III drugs are:

Products containing less than 90 milligrams of codeine per dosage unit (Tylenol with codeine), ketamine, anabolic steroids, testosterone

Schedule IV

Schedule IV drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a low potential for abuse and low risk of dependence. Some examples of Schedule IV drugs are:

Xanax, Soma, Darvon, Darvocet, Valium, Ativan, Talwin, Ambien, Tramadol

Schedule V

Schedule V drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with lower potential for abuse than Schedule IV and consist of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics. Schedule V drugs are generally used for antidiarrheal, antitussive, and analgesic purposes. Some examples of Schedule V drugs are:

cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine or per 100 milliliters (Robitussin AC), Lomotil, Motofen, Lyrica, Parepectolin

As you can see, the "danger" consideration is only provided for Schedule II. This is why I suggest that - while pot is very technically accurately put in Schedule I, based on the definitions - pot would just as easily be put in Schedule III. This would still not be OTC drugs, recreational use, etc.

If one is about Freedom and Liberty, one wants every bit of this schedule-definition to go away. If one believes the government has a reasonable role in restricting the use of the drugs by having such a schedule system, then one is no longer about Freedom and Liberty, but merely negotiating how much of that freedom and liberty we are willing to give up.

This is NOT the same thing as saying a four-year-old should not have ready access to a Glock. That is absolutely true. The question is, who should regulate the four-year-old's access to the Glock? Should it be the parents, or the county sheriff, or the state legislature, or people like AOC in the national legislature? If you love Freedom and Liberty, you choose the former. If you are fine with governmental controls over your right to keep and bear arms, it's up to the latter categories.

Personally, I am fine with the Schedule definitions for drugs, because we have already given the government control over our entire incomes and simply thank them when they exercise less of it instead of control over more of it. In doing so, we have allowed the government to take our wealth and disperse it to whomever they choose, including those unwilling to work or those who incapacitate themselves with drugs and injure themselves or others - and we take care of those medical bills as well. So, limiting who gets what is fine with me as a part of limiting how much control over my wealth the government takes.

I am less inclined to willingly accept the control over my weapons, but that is a different subject altogether.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

It's really indisputable. If it were about freedom and liberty, the potential risks of fentanyl would not be a factor, because freedom is scary and dangerous.
...
This is NOT the same thing as saying a four-year-old should not have ready access to a Glock. That is absolutely true. ...

Freedom is scary and dangerous, but you believe that gun ownership could be limited because of the danger associated with it?

But it's not the same thing?

 

[This_person]

Freedom is scary and dangerous, but you believe that gun ownership could be limited because of the danger associated with it?

But it's not the same thing?

Chris, read the whole thing. I said that a 4 year-old should not have a Glock - that's just common sense. But, I also said that it is up to the parent, not any government agency to control that.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Chris, read the whole thing. I said that a 4 year-old should not have a Glock - that's just common sense. But, I also said that it is up to the parent, not any government agency to control that.

And you'll notice that I never said the government should control access to marijuana, I just said that it should be controlled (like alcohol, though I acknowlegde the govt. control of alcohol) because regulating mind altering substances is "just common sense".

One can be for liberty without advocating for anarchy or letting common sense go out the window.

 

[This_person]

And you'll notice that I never said the government should control access to marijuana, I just said that it should be controlled (like alcohol, though I acknowlegde the govt. control of alcohol) because regulating mind altering substances is "just common sense".

One can be for liberty without advocating for anarchy or letting common sense go out the window.

So, I would have the Glock be on the shelf and available for purchase. Would you have fentanyl and pot be next to the Glock?

 

[Ken King]

No study has yet to show pot has a unique or uniquely valuable use as a medical prescription

Why must it be unique, why not just a viable or alternative use? There are studies that indicate that there are viable uses for marijuana as medicine. And the lack of US sanctioned studies might have something to do with our governments deterrent to these studies. NIH has documented the barriers and challenges to medicinal marijuana research - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425757/ The WHO has called for the rescheduling of cannabis, why should we deny it?

 

[This_person]

Why must it be unique, why not just a viable or alternative use? There are studies that indicate that there are viable uses for marijuana as medicine. And the lack of US sanctioned studies might have something to do with our governments deterrent to these studies. NIH has documented the barriers and challenges to medicinal marijuana research - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425757/ The WHO has called for the rescheduling of cannabis, why should we deny it?

Because the definition of Schedule I is "drugs with no currently accepted medical use." Until there's a currently accepted medical use, there is no currently accepted medical use, and today that's where we are at, making it fit in Schedule I.

When there is an accepted medical use, then it may change to Schedule III. there's no currently accepted medical use because there's nothing that shows pot is a viable replacement or substitute or alternative to anything else. Nothing needs to be changed, so there's no need to change.

 

[Ken King]

Because the definition of Schedule I is "drugs with no currently accepted medical use." Until there's a currently accepted medical use, there is no currently accepted medical use, and today that's where we are at, making it fit in Schedule I.

When there is an accepted medical use, then it may change to Schedule III. there's no currently accepted medical use because there's nothing that shows pot is a viable replacement or substitute or alternative to anything else. Nothing needs to be changed, so there's no need to change.

Well that isn't true, From drugabuse.gov, "...scientific study of the chemicals in marijuana, called cannabinoids, has led to two FDA-approved medications that contain cannabinoid chemicals in pill form. Continued research may lead to more medications."

Edit: Of additional importance to note is that these schedules, that you clinging to, are determined by Congress and not scientists or medical professionals.

 

[This_person]

Well that isn't true, From drugabuse.gov, "...scientific study of the chemicals in marijuana, called cannabinoids, has led to two FDA-approved medications that contain cannabinoid chemicals in pill form. Continued research may lead to more medications."

Are those currently accepted for medical use, or are those in test form?

Edit: Of additional importance to note is that these schedules, that you clinging to, are determined by Congress and not scientists or medical professionals.

I'm not sure the relevance, since we are talking laws and enforcement of laws, not practice of life.

 

[Ken King]

Are those currently accepted for medical use, or are those in test form?

They have been approved as drugs by the FDA for medicinal use and it is now up to three vice two with the addition of Epidiolex. The earlier approved two were dronabinol and nabilone.

Imagine what might be found with reclassification (something Congress must do, thus the relevance) and relaxing of the barriers imposed.

 

[officeguy]

Because the definition of Schedule I is "drugs with no currently accepted medical use." Until there's a currently accepted medical use, there is no currently accepted medical use, and today that's where we are at, making it fit in Schedule I.

Again, while there is no data to support the expansive claims of benefit from the medical marijuana scamsters, there is data to support some medical uses. Some seizure disorders respond to cannabis products and it works for the treatment of some peripheral neuropathies.

The scheduling decisions by the DEA are a mix of spitballing and politics. MDMA is schedule 1 yet Meth is schedule 2. Only makes sense if you dont think about it.

 

[This_person]

Again, while there is no data to support the expansive claims of benefit from the medical marijuana scamsters, there is data to support some medical uses. Some seizure disorders respond to cannabis products and it works for the treatment of some peripheral neuropathies.

The scheduling decisions by the DEA are a mix of spitballing and politics. MDMA is schedule 1 yet Meth is schedule 2. Only makes sense if you dont think about it.

As I said, there's a great deal of subjectivity in the definitions with respect to how they are implemented.

That's what happens when you give government control over your freedom.

 

[Yooper]

I'm sure many (most?) have seen this before, but it's a good one (I think so, anyway).

--- End of line (MCP)