What is your take on H.R. 5843

[Sparda29]

HR 5843: To eliminate most Federal penalties for possession of Marijuana.

H.R. 5843 is described as an "Act to Remove Federal Penalties for Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults". The bill has been introduced by US Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) and co-sponsored by US Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX). If passed, this legislation would legalize the possession, use and non-for-profit of up to 100 grams (3.5 ounces) of Marijuana. Under this legislation, adults who consume Marijuana would no longer face arrest, prison or civil fines.

Latest Major Action: 4/17/2008: Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

Alright, we all know that marijuana is quite safe compared to other drugs, such as tobacco, alcohol, antidepressants, etc.

But, if we know that, why is marijuana illegal? Unless you are a ****** and you go out driving right after smoking, it is a safe drug.

Tobacco, alright it won't slow down your reaction times while driving and cause car accidents, but it sure as hell will kill you eventually.

Alcohol, enough said, you can overdose on it pretty quickly and kill yourself. You can get very dependent on it. You can kill yourself in a car accident.

Heroin, don't get me started, pretty bad stuff here.

Marijuana. Alright, to overdose on this, you would have to ingest 1/3 of your body weight in 15 minutes, or smoke 2/3 of your body weight in 15 minutes. Not going to happen.

THC, kills tumors according to studies by Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA, who is the leading researcher on that topic.

The only way marijuana is gonna kill you is if you smoke it while being stupid. Obviously, don't smoke it when you're near cars or weapons, you'll be pretty safe.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Knickerbocker]

You can kill yourself in a car accident.

Drunk drivers usually kill other people and themselves walk away relatively unharmed.

People are ridiculously irresponsible and are in dire need of guidance from somebody (such as the government). IMO, all vehicles should have those breathalyzer ignition devices.

 

[mrblah]

Alright, we all know that marijuana is quite safe compared to other drugs, such as tobacco, alcohol, antidepressants, etc.

But, if we know that, why is marijuana illegal? Unless you are a ****** and you go out driving right after smoking, it is a safe drug.

Tobacco, alright it won't slow down your reaction times while driving and cause car accidents, but it sure as hell will kill you eventually.

Alcohol, enough said, you can overdose on it pretty quickly and kill yourself. You can get very dependent on it. You can kill yourself in a car accident.

Heroin, don't get me started, pretty bad stuff here.

Marijuana. Alright, to overdose on this, you would have to ingest 1/3 of your body weight in 15 minutes, or smoke 2/3 of your body weight in 15 minutes. Not going to happen.

THC, kills tumors according to studies by Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA, who is the leading researcher on that topic.

The only way marijuana is gonna kill you is if you smoke it while being stupid. Obviously, don't smoke it when you're near cars or weapons, you'll be pretty safe.

Thanks for spewing the typical stoner rhetoric, it was really informative.

Your argument is going down a "slippery slope". So you are saying because marijuana is "safer" than all the other known "drugs" out there that we should make it legal to own marijuana? Thats a pretty absurd argument, and many people can argue against that.

As for the tumor study, it's far from proven. Preliminary studies have shown that THC may kill tumors but these studies have never moved past the preliminary stage. Show me some hard data done in human trials other than what you've read in some cannabalis magazine.

Lastly, there are medical alternatives to marijuana, for various ailments that make legalizing the ownership of marijuana a hard sell.

I am currently happy with the current legislation against marijuana ownership, and see no reason for me to support any repeal of our current legislation. I agree with Knick, there are far too many people who will put other people at risk for their own expense (my personal opinion only).

 

[Pharmpills]

HR 5843: To eliminate most Federal penalties for possession of Marijuana.

H.R. 5843 is described as an "Act to Remove Federal Penalties for Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults". The bill has been introduced by US Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) and co-sponsored by US Presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX). If passed, this legislation would legalize the possession, use and non-for-profit of up to 100 grams (3.5 ounces) of Marijuana. Under this legislation, adults who consume Marijuana would no longer face arrest, prison or civil fines.

Latest Major Action: 4/17/2008: Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

Alright, we all know that marijuana is quite safe compared to other drugs, such as tobacco, alcohol, antidepressants, etc.

But, if we know that, why is marijuana illegal? Unless you are a ****** and you go out driving right after smoking, it is a safe drug.

Tobacco, alright it won't slow down your reaction times while driving and cause car accidents, but it sure as hell will kill you eventually.

Alcohol, enough said, you can overdose on it pretty quickly and kill yourself. You can get very dependent on it. You can kill yourself in a car accident.

Heroin, don't get me started, pretty bad stuff here.

Marijuana. Alright, to overdose on this, you would have to ingest 1/3 of your body weight in 15 minutes, or smoke 2/3 of your body weight in 15 minutes. Not going to happen.

THC, kills tumors according to studies by Dr. Donald Tashkin of UCLA, who is the leading researcher on that topic.

The only way marijuana is gonna kill you is if you smoke it while being stupid. Obviously, don't smoke it when you're near cars or weapons, you'll be pretty safe.

Marijuana leads to the use of other drugs and is just a stepping stone to other hard drugs. I don't like when u said don't be near guns or cars if u smoke it bc what if someone is near them then RUN.

 

[medicalCPA]

Marijuana leads to the use of other drugs and is just a stepping stone to other hard drugs. I don't like when u said don't be near guns or cars if u smoke it bc what if someone is near them then RUN.

Depends on who you talk to. Those who oppose marijuana legalization say this, but supporters say that it is not true.

 

[sammi345]

This is a very interesting topic.
I have never heard of marijuana being used to treat tumors. However, I have read about numerous studies that correlate marijuana use to psychiatric disorders later on in life.

I think most marijuana users don't even think they have a problem because they don't even consider marijuana to be a drug. I have a few friends that smoke marijuana and they think there is nothing wrong with it.

Anyways, I am very much against the legalization of marijuana.

 

[medicalCPA]

This is a very interesting topic.
I have never heard of marijuana being used to treat tumors. However, I have read about numerous studies that correlate marijuana use to psychiatric disorders later on in life.

I think most marijuana users don't even think they have a problem because they don't even consider marijuana to be a drug. I have a few friends that smoke marijuana and they think there is nothing wrong with it.

Anyways, I am very much against the legalization of marijuana.

It also provides pain relief to terminally ill patients, and can help cancer patients deal with the side effects of chemo (if they don't respond to other antiemetics). I don't want it legalized for "recreational" smokers, but if it has a health benefit, especially for terminally ill patients, then they should be able to legally use it.

 

[Psycho_Hedgehog]

I am currently happy with the current legislation against marijuana ownership, and see no reason for me to support any repeal of our current legislation. I agree with Knick, there are far too many people who will put other people at risk for their own expense (my personal opinion only).

You are definitely right that people put others at risk, but this is also done with alcohol and prescription medication all the time. Legalization wouldn't change this, if you are going to do idiotic things while it is illegal, of course you will when it is legal. No one is debating that. The issue there comes down to how we control it.

Personally, I believe in legalization of marijuana for several reasons. One is that is saves money and time on law enforcement on a drug that is of a similar if not lower "danger" level of drugs we already legalize. Secondly, the revenue created from the sale of marijuana through legal means, both for whatever company produces it and in taxes, can't be ignored.

Then take into account that most marijuana then gets removed from drug culture. If it is something that one can buy quite legally, then no one has to end up trying to locate a drug dealer, and going through those channels. Then they do not become comfortable with that environment, moving on to more dangerous drugs, which removes a lot of the "gateway drug" effect. Also, most of the problem with marijuana now is the addition of other drugs to the mix, which is something that can be removed when it is actually regulated.

I would at least like to see it legalized for medicinal use, because it is a much less habit forming alternative to some of our current prescription medications, that is continually ignored because many pharmaceutical and tobacco companies really don't want the competition. If it can help people, especially the terminally ill, with pain and other issues with less complications, we should be researching the use and effects, not throwing it out. It is not something to be done lightly, but with all due care and caution.

And no, I don't smoke anything, I don't use drugs, and refuse prescription pain killers if I don't feel I need them. I just happen to be of this opinion for the above reasons. This is definitely one of those very divisive issues, and one that merits serious debate. I hope we all treat it that way, and not as something to attack each other over, which is another outcome of this type of discussion. I am always interested to hear other opinions.

 

[Knickerbocker]

I don't think it will ever be legalized for recreational use in this country.

Reason? A certain fraction of users become lazy potheads. They are bad for the economy with their non-productive lifestyles.

 

[Allright]

lol i doubt more people will start smoking if it became legal..

what are the statistics of people in jail for minor marijuna offences..

legalise it the drug dealers are out of business and the atf can consentrate on more serious drugs like meth

 

[Sparda29]

This country has failed the War on Drugs. The country would be making more money by legalizing recreational drugs (and taxing them), rather than having to maintain the DEA.

I mean, if you're gonna make these illegal, why not make alcohol and tobacco illegal then? That's where I see the hypocrisy in this government.

Violence would go down. Instead of people going to shady parts of the inner city to buy drugs, just walk down to your local pharmacy and buy them legally. The drug dealers have no reason to smuggle drugs anymore. Gang problems that result from drugs would go down as well.

When something is done legally, it can be done a lot cheaper.

Other than that, this country has the most people in jail. If you start eliminating offenses for drug violations, less money that has to be paid to maintain the jails.

 

[mrblah]

You are definitely right that people put others at risk, but this is also done with alcohol and prescription medication all the time. Legalization wouldn't change this, if you are going to do idiotic things while it is illegal, of course you will when it is legal. No one is debating that. The issue there comes down to how we control it.

Personally, I believe in legalization of marijuana for several reasons. One is that is saves money and time on law enforcement on a drug that is of a similar if not lower "danger" level of drugs we already legalize. Secondly, the revenue created from the sale of marijuana through legal means, both for whatever company produces it and in taxes, can't be ignored.

Then take into account that most marijuana then gets removed from drug culture. If it is something that one can buy quite legally, then no one has to end up trying to locate a drug dealer, and going through those channels. Then they do not become comfortable with that environment, moving on to more dangerous drugs, which removes a lot of the "gateway drug" effect. Also, most of the problem with marijuana now is the addition of other drugs to the mix, which is something that can be removed when it is actually regulated.

I would at least like to see it legalized for medicinal use, because it is a much less habit forming alternative to some of our current prescription medications, that is continually ignored because many pharmaceutical and tobacco companies really don't want the competition. If it can help people, especially the terminally ill, with pain and other issues with less complications, we should be researching the use and effects, not throwing it out. It is not something to be done lightly, but with all due care and caution.

And no, I don't smoke anything, I don't use drugs, and refuse prescription pain killers if I don't feel I need them. I just happen to be of this opinion for the above reasons. This is definitely one of those very divisive issues, and one that merits serious debate. I hope we all treat it that way, and not as something to attack each other over, which is another outcome of this type of discussion. I am always interested to hear other opinions.

HOLD ON. You are arguing for control of legal distribution of marijuana, and then you are arguing for " legalization of marijuana". Thats two different arguments.

To regulate marijuana does not mean marijuana has to be legalized. Any type of control or regulation of marijuana will cost the tax payers. Otherwise, you are expecting the so-call marijuana producers to foot the bill, which is unlikely (look at phillip n Morris, RJ reynolds, big pharma, and even microsoft), no company goes out of its way to encourage government oversight, let alone do payout unless forced to. Secondly, if there is regulation, that means there will be people growing it illegally (without oversight), and that means there still will be law enforcement issues to contend with, and guess what, new penalties for new crimes. Thirdly, there is no guarantee where the money will go to if marajuana is regulated or legalized. Yes there is enormous tax revenue to be made, but where will the bulk of the profits go to, back to the community? I highly doubt that, it will probably go to the now legal suppliers (who were probably the same illegal suppliers prior to legalization).

Legalization of a drug does not remove it from the drug culture. People abuse Xstacy/marijuana as much as they abuse adderall/ritalin/vicodin, and people will always abuse alcohol/smoke cigarettes/sniff glue. Point is, legality of a drug will not remove it from the drug culture, and may even encourage it (pure speculation on my part).

In regards to medicinal use of marijuana, again there are other alternatives than marijuana. You can even be prescribed marinol for pain management. You argue that marijuana is less habit forming against what medication? To make this argument stick, you need to tell me what treatments require the use of marijuana. Obviously, marijuana will be less habit forming than morphine, but then again, that argument can't be made for people using marijuana to relieve ailments that don't require the use of addictive opiates as treatment options (such as migraines, menstraul cramping, elevation of blood pressure, blah blah blah (gotta love stoners hailing maryJ as the wonder drug)). Also, in most cases, marijuana is not an affective treatment alternative to the addictive opiates.

Btw, big pharma are some greedy SOB's, if there was money to be made they will be the first to push it through. I'm sure big pharma has conducted maryJ research, and probably still does overseas. They just can't do it in the US without government or DEA oversight. Trust me, these companies don't ignore a good thing, they will be the first to try and monopolize it. Because you don't hear anything from big pharma, doesn't mean they are ignoring it. Also, research is being conducted all over the world, just not openly in the US for obvious reasons, and this has been the case since the beginning of time. If big pharma knew something that we didn't, they would be the first to patent, market, synthesize it, grow it, lobby the government, and collect our money.

Lastly, in regards to the terminally ill argument. You are aware they are dying. If you've ever seen someone with advanced stages of lunk cancer or any type of cancer in which they are on hospice care, they are in so much pain they can't sleep, eat, or move. They want the hardcore stuff, because the pain is unbearable. Marijuana isn't going to improve their chances of survival, nor will it relieve their pain to the extent of the opiates that are given to them.

Unless there is a specific medical justification (i.e. marijuana will cure ED) then I'm all for research and quite possibly classification as a c2 narcotic, but until then, I'm happy with legislation the way it is.

disclaimer: i'm not trying to change your opinion or viewpoints. Actually, marijuana regulation is a moot point in my life. It doesn't affect me, bother me, etc. I have friends who slang, toke out, drop X, whatever. I'm their friend, not their moral compass.

To sparda: Are you on drugs or are you trolling as usual.

 

[fiteOFFurDEMONS]

This debate will most likely not be decided on in the near future. It has been a topic of debate since the late 70's - early 80's. Enter Scarface scene when Tony's in that jacuzzi and watching the TV.... hehe

 

[fiteOFFurDEMONS]

Here's an interesting article I found on US News & World Report:
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/080427/an-alternative-to-medicinal-marijuana.htm

And this is the paper it's referring to:
http://www.nature.com/nchembio/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nchembio.86.html

Apparently, it's a really good field to do more research in!
Sparda29, become a chemist and find us a new drug! hehe

 

[mrblah]

This debate will most likely not be decided on in the near future. It has been a topic of debate since the late 70's - early 80's. Enter Scarface scene when Tony's in that jacuzzi and watching the TV.... hehe

totally agree with you. If I ever hear another argument on abortion, gun control, religion, and marijuana I think I want to die. I think undergraduates are getting less and less creative these days when it comes to debating certain topics.

 

[dopamine]

Your argument is going down a "slippery slope". So you are saying because marijuana is "safer" than all the other known "drugs" out there that we should make it legal to own marijuana? Thats a pretty absurd argument, and many people can argue against that.

Marijuana's illegal status has absolutely ruined countless lives of those who have used it LEGALLY even.
http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking08/WA-RefusedLiver.html<--This guy is now dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_McWilliams

Why should we preserve drug laws that prevent patients from getting a safer and more effective treatment? Why don't the drug laws regulate substances that HAVE been proven to be harmful? Alcohol and cigarettes continue to kill millions of people each year, no one bats an eye. Safety obviously doesn't matter, so what does? Why are we so afraid of cannibis legalization? Because it represents change.

In general, does it make sense for (non-violent) addicts of controlled substances to be incarcerated, abused in prisions like violent offenders, only to be released with a stigmatized criminal record that prevents them from securing employment and financial aid for college? Does anyone here consider this rehabilitation?

As for the tumor study, it's far from proven. Preliminary studies have shown that THC may kill tumors but these studies have never moved past the preliminary stage. Show me some hard data done in human trials other than what you've read in some cannabalis magazine.

I guess the Journal of Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, Journal of Neuro-Oncology, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, and countless others are just "Stoner Literature."
http://www.cpmc.org/professionals/research/programs/science/sean.html
These studies are EXTREMELY difficult to get approved or paid for because of it's political sensitivity. Most studies have JUST been given the go-ahead to start human trials, others continue to be post-poned for years.

For some professionals, participation in some of these organizations can be out-right career suicide.

If an anticancer agent was found, in any other plant than one which is a 'controlled substance,' there would be absolutely NO objection or delay in advancing these studies. It is for political reasons alone, that we are ignoring a very promising cure for the greatest epidemic in the world.

Human Trials Starting:
http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/bp/2008_Winter/BP_2008Winter_research_news.pdf

 

[laimyours]

I think some good points were made, and Sparda shouldn't be chastised for his beliefs. Saying he is on drugs, or is a pothead, is really asinine. Personally, I am all for legalization of drugs. Not just marajuana, all of them. Why? I have a million reasons... and no, i don't use drugs.
I believe as long as you're not harming other people you should be free to do what you want. As long as you're not sticking my arm with heroin go ahead do it. You're an idiot, and maybe the gene pool is better off without you. There would be less crime if they were legal. Drug related crimes, such as robbery and murder, mostly happen because they are illegal (even the pope agrees with me on that one). Most teenage kids start using drugs because they are illegal and doing illegal things is "cool". OxyContin is basically legal heroin. I hate hearing people bitch because I need to scare their I.D. for the to buy pseudophedrine. I hate that pharmacies end up dealing with fraudulent rxs, shady doctors, and robberies because getting prescription narcotics is easier than the illegal drugs. Child molesters get let out of prison because there isn't enough room in there. Why? Because we fill up prisons with drug addicts and dealers.
Take a look at Holland. They have legal drugs and less crime than we do. It's interesting to think about.

 

[mrblah]

Marijuana's illegal status has absolutely ruined countless lives of those who have used it LEGALLY even.
http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking08/WA-RefusedLiver.html<--This guy is now dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_McWilliams

Why should we preserve drug laws that prevent patients from getting a safer and more effective treatment? Why don't the drug laws regulate substances that HAVE been proven to be harmful? Alcohol and cigarettes continue to kill millions of people each year, no one bats an eye. Safety obviously doesn't matter, so what does? Why are we so afraid of cannibis legalization? Because it represents change.

In general, does it make sense for (non-violent) addicts of controlled substances to be incarcerated, abused in prisions like violent offenders, only to be released with a stigmatized criminal record that prevents them from securing employment and financial aid for college? Does anyone here consider this rehabilitation?



I guess the Journal of Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, Journal of Neuro-Oncology, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, and countless others are just "Stoner Literature."
http://www.cpmc.org/professionals/research/programs/science/sean.html
These studies are EXTREMELY difficult to get approved or paid for because of it's political sensitivity. Most studies have JUST been given the go-ahead to start human trials, others continue to be post-poned for years.

For some professionals, participation in some of these organizations can be out-right career suicide.

If an anticancer agent was found, in any other plant than one which is a 'controlled substance,' there would be absolutely NO objection or delay in advancing these studies. It is for political reasons alone, that we are ignoring a very promising cure for the greatest epidemic in the world.

Human Trials Starting:
http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/bp/2008_Winter/BP_2008Winter_research_news.pdf

wow, you quoted wikipedia, and have impressive google skills. You were even able to misinterpret my quotes, good for you. My first post was in response to sparda's post. As for the second quote, thanks for validating it for me, as you are right there is very little research done on it, except for preliminary studies.


As for the rest of your post, I've already addressed it in psycho's response.

As for me flaming sparda it was for this post, but then again, in most of his posts, he is in his own world.

This country has failed the War on Drugs. The country would be making more money by legalizing recreational drugs (and taxing them), rather than having to maintain the DEA.

I mean, if you're gonna make these illegal, why not make alcohol and tobacco illegal then? That's where I see the hypocrisy in this government.

Violence would go down. Instead of people going to shady parts of the inner city to buy drugs, just walk down to your local pharmacy and buy them legally. The drug dealers have no reason to smuggle drugs anymore. Gang problems that result from drugs would go down as well.

When something is done legally, it can be done a lot cheaper.

Other than that, this country has the most people in jail. If you start eliminating offenses for drug violations, less money that has to be paid to maintain the jails.

 

[dopamine]

More interesting research being conducted... studies of which have been published in Discover Magazine.
http://www.maps.org/research/cluster/psilo-lsd/

Reasons if you are considering a medical profession WHY you should be concerned about the drug war:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133204,00.html

 

[mrblah]

I think some good points were made, and Sparda shouldn't be chastised for his beliefs. Saying he is on drugs, or is a pothead, is really asinine. Personally, I am all for legalization of drugs. Not just marajuana, all of them. Why? I have a million reasons... and no, i don't use drugs.
I believe as long as you're not harming other people you should be free to do what you want. As long as you're not sticking my arm with heroin go ahead do it. You're an idiot, and maybe the gene pool is better off without you. There would be less crime if they were legal. Drug related crimes, such as robbery and murder, mostly happen because they are illegal (even the pope agrees with me on that one). Most teenage kids start using drugs because they are illegal and doing illegal things is "cool". OxyContin is basically legal heroin. I hate hearing people bitch because I need to scare their I.D. for the to buy pseudophedrine. I hate that pharmacies end up dealing with fraudulent rxs, shady doctors, and robberies because getting prescription narcotics is easier than the illegal drugs. Child molesters get let out of prison because there isn't enough room in there. Why? Because we fill up prisons with drug addicts and dealers.
Take a look at Holland. They have legal drugs and less crime than we do. It's interesting to think about.

Actually you are right, people can do whatever they want. Thats why I dont care that my buddies smoke out or do whatever. It doesn't affect me and doesn't bother me, I can only do so much and after that, its their life. The only thing I worry about is the consequences of drug abuse (not talking about marijuana here), and the costs on society (drunk driver kills a innocent family, junky robs a convenience store), but then I'm going off topic.

Again my original response was towards sparda, if he is going to defend marijuana, tell me something new, share something with me other than the standard rhetoric bs (the "yea, what he said" argument). As fitofffurdemons noted, this debate will wage on until hell freezes over.

btw dopamine: sorry if i came off rude, can't tell if you are seriously debating or pulling smoke out of thin air. Interesting links.

 

[dopamine]

wow, you quoted wikipedia, and have impressive google skills. You were even able to misinterpret my quotes, good for you. My first post was in response to sparda's post. As for the second quote, thanks for validating it for me, as you are right there is very little research done on it, except for preliminary studies.


As for the rest of your post, I've already addressed it in psycho's response.

As for me flaming sparda it was for this post, but then again, in most of his posts, he is in his own world.

I'm sorry you're having such trouble opening links and reading complete articles! Try this one out if the wikipedia one isn't good for you:
http://www.petermcwilliams.org/articles/november_coalition_prisoner_of_the_drug_war.html

Your ignorance is key in preventing possible treatments to be found, researched, and implemented. You've denied the suffering of countless others to preserve a viewpoint that opposes proven research. Personally, I'd like you to tell me why.

[Edit:] Did anyone read the article about the man who was on the liver transplant list who was taken Off the list because he was prescribed medicinal marijuana? This is the stigma I am talking about that comes with drug legality. People's minds need to be changed and informed more than anything else.

To mrblah: It was impossible to respond to your post in any way other than offensively. Which I'm sure you understand.

 

[mrblah]

I'm sorry you're having such trouble opening links and reading complete articles! Try this one out if the wikipedia one isn't good for you:
http://www.petermcwilliams.org/articles/november_coalition_prisoner_of_the_drug_war.html

Your ignorance is key in preventing possible treatments to be found, researched, and implemented. You've denied the suffering of countless others to preserve a viewpoint that opposes proven research. Personally, I'd like you to tell me why.

Ok, yea, wikipedia is the most reliable source of information, and the november coalition is a very good nonbiased source of information, that was some purely objective reporting done on that website. I really hope your kidding.

Your posts have not showed me anything new. You posted links of showing that research either A. hasn't begin. or B. in its preliminary stages. You don't even know who is funding the research or if they have a corporate agenda (to be honest I didn't read all the info from the links past the first paragraph, its 12am and i'm lazy). You post some links from god knows where you found on the internet.

Now you accuse me of this: "I've denied the suffering of countless others to preserve a viewpoint that opposes proven research". Damn, I feel like George Bush now. Ok I take back my previous apology, and any future apologies I may give out to you. Geez, i can't believe I made so many people suffer, now if they would only give me a dollar for every one person that I've caused suffering. I might be rich!!!

You can be offensive all ya like, where not getting graded on this, and I'm sure neither of us is going to lose sleep over it so....no biggy.

 

[dopamine]

[To mrblah:] I guess I'll have to spoon feed you. The facts are all there:

Peter McWillams was terminally ill with cancer and AIDs. He was an affluent writer and a prominent supporter of medical marijuana. He was raided by the DEA for possessing marijuana and proported as a "drug king pin" because of his wealth. As terms for his bond (during which proceedings he was vomiting frequently), he had to switch to Marinol.

Days after making the switch he was found dead in his apartment where he had choked on his own vomit.

Your viewpoints support these kinds of actions.

Please offer more intelligent responses, rather than pathetic, un-based criticisms.

 

[mrblah]

[To mrblah:] I guess I'll have to spoon feed you. The facts are all there:

Peter McWillams was terminally ill with cancer and AIDs. He was an affluent writer and a prominent supporter of medical marijuana. He was raided by the DEA for possessing marijuana and proported as a "drug king pin" because of his wealth. As terms for his bond (during which proceedings he was vomiting frequently), he had to switch to Marinol.

Days after making the switch he was found dead in his apartment where he had choked on his own vomit.

Your viewpoints support these kinds of actions.

Please offer more intelligent responses, rather than pathetic, un-based criticisms.

What facts? You have no facts. You post links from biased sources, you post links from wikipedia. You post one or two links that show that marijuana has some promise, but the research hasn't actually been carried out. yeah, they are considered facts, right? Try to post any of this in a academic setting, and see what response you get.

I refrained from commenting on that poor guys fate, but you leave me no choice. So let me get this straight, are you a doctor? Have you seen his chart. Do you know what treatments or medication he tried and failed. Are you a medical examiner? Do you have access to his autopsy report. Do you know if he was doing chemo. Just because you read from a online publication on some sensational story, you can pass judgement on what caused his fate? If he was on chemo, if he was on his deathbed, a day that goes by that he doesn't vomit, would be considered a good day, but then again, you knew that right. Do you even have access to his records? Did the editors have any evidence? Probably not. Only the doctors involved in this case have anything to say or are priveleged to this information (including the immediate family). Unfortunately, you aren't one of them. So seriously tell me what makes you an authority on his death? Because you were able to google his name?

So your response to me is that I'm ignorant because I didn't comment on his fate, well to be honest, I don't have any reason to comment on his fate. I can't justify if marijuana would have saved his life, because I am not a doctor, nor am I a researcher but you in your infinite wisdom can? Problem is you will never know if marijuana would have stopped him from vomiting at that particular instance, you want to know why, because he's dead. The story only speculates that marijuana might have prevented his death, but noone really knows. However, you can speculate all you want what caused his vomiting or what would have prevented it. I choose not to and will not say if changing his drug to marinol was the right or wrong choice, because i would be ignorant if i did.

My viewpoints don't support anything. I have not tied any of my posts to anything "factual" or tried to prove any of my points. My posts reflect my opinion only. I'm not dumb enough to even bother trying to do so because it's a waste of my time to do so on the internet. However, you are the one posting whimsical information and sensational news stories as factual information to justify your own claims and beliefs. So who's the ignorant one?

So keep accusing me of ignorance, calling me names, or how my viewpoints bring death, and keep telling me that "I bring unbearable suffering to people", call my arguments pathetic and un-based. I rather be accused of ignorance than sound like a ignorant fool.

You should seriously consider becoming a religious fundamentalist/fanatic, they believe all sorts of stories, and love to tell people that they bring enormous suffering if you don't believe in their brand of religion. Its right up your alleyway. Have a good night

 

[two scoops]

You can kill yourself in a car accident.

Drunk drivers usually kill other people and themselves walk away relatively unharmed.

People are ridiculously irresponsible and are in dire need of guidance from somebody (such as the government). IMO, all vehicles should have those breathalyzer ignition devices.

It is thoughts like these that have eroded our civil liberties over the past 100 years.

Here's a crazy thought, I think crime will go down once marijuana is leagalized. The "war on drugs" is one of the most ludicrous policies to ever come out of the seventies.

If you want stories about the war on drugs and people's civil rights being infringed upon please read Radley Balko's blog at www.theagitator.com

A person should be punished for any act of harm they cause another human, but to abolish the action that *might* cause harm to another human is the grossest misuse of law ever conceived.

 

[Sparda29]

Yes, mrblah I am on drugs. I have been on 3 grams of caffeine for the last 2 days. Would you say that I should be driving right now?

 

[dopamine]

Alright, now this is something I REALLY didn't want to do: Complete and utter dissection.

What facts? You have no facts. You post links from biased sources, you post links from wikipedia.

I posted scholary articles, news sources (Fox News - How much more conservative a source could I find??), and politically driven media. You cannot discount opinionated sources if backed up by evidence--this is called a "good argument." I posted ONE Wiki link; really this is the cornerstone of your argument, and I expect you to continue to repeat it.

You post one or two links that show that marijuana has some promise, but the research hasn't actually been carried out. yeah, they are considered facts, right? Try to post any of this in a academic setting, and see what response you get.

Research is being carried out, Some human studies have been given the green light. I answered this in my first post, which you obviously didn't read, or prefer to ignore. So here it is again:

These studies are EXTREMELY difficult to get approved or paid for because of it's political sensitivity. Most studies have JUST been given the go-ahead to start human trials, others continue to be post-poned for years.

For some professionals, participation in some of these organizations can be out-right career suicide.

In an academic setting, what intelligent person would ignore a study that has proven a certain chemical can destroy incurable brain tumors in rats? Do you think they'd all ignore it on the basis that this chemical was derived from Cannabis like you've done?

I refrained from commenting on that poor guys fate, but you leave me no choice. So let me get this straight, are you a doctor? &#8230; Only the doctors involved in this case have anything to say or are priveleged to this information (including the immediate family). Unfortunately, you aren't one of them. So seriously tell me what makes you an authority on his death? Because you were able to google his name?

The information of Peter McWilliams' death is no secret, nor a "wiki-conspiracy." His family and friends are the ones that continue to run his website, including the second link I gave you about it that detailed his memorial and life's work. When you make such statements, or suggestions of possibility, you back them up with information that you didn't just directly pull out of your *ss. Your unwillingness to consider other opinions in the presence of strong evidence to the contrary, is the embodiment of ignorance.

So your response to me is that I'm ignorant because I didn't comment on his fate&#8230;

I'm calling you ignorant because you fail to even READ the links I post. You seem to have no problem continuing to spew this garbage, that's based solely on the seat of your pants.

Exhibit A:

...to be honest I didn't read all the info from the links past the first paragraph, its 12am and i'm lazy)

My viewpoints don't support anything. I have not tied any of my posts to anything "factual" or tried to prove any of my points. My posts reflect my opinion only.

Finally, we agree on something! Your opinions are dangerous because they aren't based on fact. So where did you get them from, why do you have them, and why on Earth do you cling to them so desperately?

My viewpoints don't support anything. I have not tied any of my posts to anything "factual" or tried to prove any of my points. My posts reflect my opinion only. I'm not dumb enough to even bother trying to do so because it's a waste of my time to do so on the internet. However, you are the one posting whimsical information and sensational news stories as factual information to justify your own claims and beliefs. So who's the ignorant one?

Okay, at this point I'm a little horrified. You claim to not be "dumb enough" to "bother" trying to support your opinions with facts. I really am astounded by this, and I couldn't encourage you more to read, Read, READ much more than you do. Here's the thing, don't keep opinions that may be to the detriment of others if you don't have it in you to consider other opinions and evidence on either side first. You're better off being opinion-less than ignorantly opinionated. You're staying the course, without considering other (and possibly better) courses, for the sake of keeping the original course. (I'll spare you the definition of this.)

You've labeled all of my information as "whimsical" and "sensational" without actually reading it, and without doing any counter-research to disprove the credibility of my sources. In the process you've called every news outlet or journal that I've suggested to be phony and contrived.

Debate 101: To make a claim, support that claim. Calling a source phony is not an "opinion," that is a statement, one which must be backed up in order to be worth anything.

So keep accusing me of ignorance, calling me names, or how my viewpoints bring death, and keep telling me that "I bring unbearable suffering to people", call my arguments pathetic and un-based. I rather be accused of ignorance than sound like a ignorant fool.

I never said "you personally are causing others to suffer." I said you are propagating suffering by supporting legislation based on your un-informed, naive opinions that resist change that could very well benefit millions of people. That last line gives you the title, ignorant hypocrite. Sorry for the name calling, I find ignorance intolerable.

You should seriously consider becoming a religious fundamentalist/fanatic, they believe all sorts of stories, and love to tell people that they bring enormous suffering if you don't believe in their brand of religion. Its right up your alleyway. Have a good night

Now this is some of the most ironic **** I've ever seen, and further strengthens your latest title of ignorant hypocrite. This was a lame attempt to knock my character by comparing me to fundamentalists. Definition Time&#8230; Fundamentalism: strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.

I presented you with evidence to the contrary of your "basic set of ideas" and you "strictly adhered" to them. Your inability to confront or consider information that challenges your ideas, could quite easily be adapted to a personal type of fundamentalism.

Present me with a good argument, that CHALLENGES my ideas, that is free of repetitions, that acknowledges points I have already made, and that is also BACKED UP BY EVIDENCE, and I'll acknowledge your response in a civil and open manner. Continue to speak through your *ss, and you'll get more of this.

 

[FruitFly]

The prevention of drug diversion and a knowledge of the controlled substances is important to the practice of pharmacy and to anyone working in a pharmacy, so we wanted to see where this thread would go. But the arguments in this debate thread appear to be exhausted. We have a "Sociopolitical" forum and an "Issues in Medicine" forum which you may wish to visit if you are interested in these sorts of topics.

The Pre-pharmacy forum is more about day to day admissions and issues specific to your future profession of pharmacy.

Closing and good luck to all.