• Legalization of marijuana has been an issue for some time, mostly for medicinal purposes, but because Stuka brought it up, i want to hear your opionions, should drugs be legalized?


  • Legalize pot? yes.

    Other heavy narcotics and hallucinogens? no.

    Weed is no more harmful than alchohol. How many driving incidents can you relate to marijuana as compared to booze?

    Besides, one could say that if you legalize all drugs, the weak minded will die of overdose and the strong will survive. Darwinism, right Jennifer? 😉


  • interestingly enough, i dont agree with his theory, but i do like the idea of survival of the fitest.


  • heres my whole position (keep in mind this is not based on numbers or statistics, just my own opinions, feel free to disagree)

    1. alcohol is more than just a drug, its a part of our culture, indeed, many cultures around the world. it has more significance than just getting under the influence
    2. alcohol can be used in safe, even beneficial amounts
    3. alcohol, while tied to more problems, is also far more common, as well as being legal, thus, it has the propensity to be involved in more problems
    4. marijuana is a form of smoking. it doesnt have to be, but the most common method is some kind of smoking. smoking is something which should be eliminated as well (i smoke cigars personally, but i am against smoking in general)
    5. marijuana is tied to a degenerate, delinquent culture, and so has such a negative image, whatever its benefits, its very unlikely it will ever become legalized
    6. just because something is done anyway, does not mean it should be legalized. we tried prohibition, it did not work. illegal marijuana has largely worked, there is no reason to legalize it

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    If you legalize it you’ll just create more unwanted trash on our streets. (Some of you take that as litter, the rest of you as unwanted humans. Either way, trash in your minds.)

    I’d legalize any narcotic as long as it is administered medicinally by a trained physician who has a PHD and is liscenced by a federal or state medical board and s/he has to prove to a board of directors that this is the best and safest method of treatment.

    Otherwise, keep them illegal.


  • I dunno. I voted yes, but I was thinking medical marajuna. Legal maryJ would probablly not hurt anything directly. Muddying the water would though. Hard drugs are never good. Worth noting that I am half drunk atm though, so what the heck do I know. 🙂 For the record I RARELY drink. Just the mood I was in tonight.


  • Just an fyi - this argument has been played out before to a significant extent.

    I am for the decriminalization of Marijuana. I think it’s ridiculous to jail a third of the population for using it.

    @Jennifer:

    I’d legalize any narcotic as long as it is administered medicinally by a trained physician who has a PHD and is liscenced by a federal or state medical board and s/he has to prove to a board of directors that this is the best and safest method of treatment.

    Otherwise, keep them illegal.

    WOW
    i have administered hundreds of grams of narcotics. Maybe thousands, and i don’t have a Ph.D., and i’ve never proved this was necessary before anyone.
    Is it possible that you do not know what a narcotic is?? If so, then please enlighten me as to a handier painkiller than morphine/fentanyl/codeine/etc.
    Did you not have any painkillers when you gave birth? Because i’m willing to bet that asprin just didn’t cut it.


  • most of us have smoked pot, but if we didn’t do any harder drugs, we are against their legalization.

    people are only harming themselves and that’s their right. legalize everything.


  • Look at China in it’s Opium war days. Not a pretty site. I would not want to enable that here. BTW, the Brits had their less than great moments Eh?

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    CC:

    I had a doctor administer my narcotics right before he sliced me open to reduce the chances of tearing. Faster healing he said.

    But, maybe I misworded some things. What I meant is that a doctor should sign off on the form and be held 100% responsible for what happens. (Not the hospital, not the pharmecist, not the nurse - unless s/he failed to follow directions.)

    I did not mean that the doctor should personally hand you the bill or roll the joint.


  • @Jennifer:

    CC:

    I had a doctor administer my narcotics right before he sliced me open to reduce the chances of tearing. Faster healing he said.

    are you sure? there are a few things wrong with this, but i won’t get into it right now - maybe i am misreading you again.

    But, maybe I misworded some things. What I meant is that a doctor should sign off on the form and be held 100% responsible for what happens. (Not the hospital, not the pharmecist, not the nurse - unless s/he failed to follow directions.)

    This is what currently happens (at least in Canadian hospitals).
    I am allowed to give verbal orders if i can’t come up to the ward right away, but i do have to sign that order that day.
    Now the hospital, pharmacist and nurse may be listed on a lawsuit if i give narcotics improperly to an in-patient, but this rarely happens.
    I can be prescribe narcotics and if i do this improperly, i may be sued, but again - it is a very rare occurrance to be sued for this.
    (i assume this is what you mean by being “held responsible”)


  • @Lizardbaby:

    Look at China in it’s Opium war days. Not a pretty site. I would not want to enable that here. BTW, the Brits had their less than great moments Eh?

    why are none of us at work right now?

    regardless, i find it hard to believe an educated populace would all of the sudden become opium addicts. such dangerous drugs should be highly taxed and regulated until people become immune to the idea of being responsible with their own bodies.


  • “why are none of us at work right now?”
    I am. Just being lazy while I wait for some figures to put in a fund request. I go on vacation next week and am short timing.

    “regardless, i find it hard to believe an educated populace would all of the sudden become opium addicts.”

    I don’t say they will. They did not then really. The byproducts of drug use bug me the most. Once addicted people will do anything to get more. That means crime. People that become addicts loose mental capacity, so even if cured they become less valuable to society. Maybe even a strain on our healthcare system. Oh well. None of it is good. Not to mention drugs already affect those with the least ability to make good choices about their use. Kids. Legalizing them will just make it easier to get them in kids hands. Never in favor of something that can ruin a life as it’s just starting.


  • that’s why we don’t want a universal healthcare system. it increases costs and rewards those who live in an unhealthy manner.

    Alcohol is part of our society. when the illegalized it, we still had alcoholics. thus it is legal again and we are used to the problems it puts forward.

    Making drugs legal without doubt would lead to an explosion of drug use, because it is not socially accepted yet. However, once it is, I guarentee you the drug addicts would probably be the alcoholics/smoking peopulation of today. I do not find it coincidental that people with chemical vices are all generally smoker alcoholics.


  • @HortenFlyingWing:

    that’s why we don’t want a universal healthcare system. it increases costs and rewards those who live in an unhealthy manner.

    if the first part is true, then how come the US pays a higher percentage of its GDP (14%) without universal healthcare than Canada (8%)?
    Also i do not believe that the second part of your statement is true. For example our life expectancy is longer than yours.
    People will live in an unhealthy matter regardless of the nature of the healthcare available. No one says “i will risk lung cancer because i can get the system to pay for it”. At least none of the people i’ve seen and diagnosed with lung cancer.

    Making drugs legal without doubt would lead to an explosion of drug use, because it is not socially accepted yet. However, once it is, I guarentee you the drug addicts would probably be the alcoholics/smoking peopulation of today. I do not find it coincidental that people with chemical vices are all generally smoker alcoholics.

    what drugs?
    and in my society, smoking has become socially very unacceptible. Its popularity has not been this low in many decades.
    Also marijuana is not nearly as addictive as heroin, caffeine, and nicotine is.


  • you obviously did not get the second point, so i cannot respond to it. i said that if drugs are legal, that does nbot determine whether or not they become a societal plauge.

    if the first part is true, then how come the US pays a higher percentage of its GDP (14%) without universal healthcare than Canada (8%)?

    Canada simply does not have the specialists America has and the costs of seeing these people drives up costs all together. I highly doubt the universal healthcare in canada would have diagnosed my wheat allergy…i had to on my own accord send info to a texan lab. this lab would be out of business if there was universal healthcare unless it existed outside of it. if that is true, why have universal healthcare at all if it cannot cover all our health ailments?

    Also i do not believe that the second part of your statement is true. For example our life expectancy is longer than yours.

    Canada is colder and it is documented colder areas have greater life expectency. you also lack a relatively unhealthy immigrant population comparable to America’s. Furthermore, Americans crash their cars and shoot each other at higher rates, lowering the life expectancy.

    People will live in an unhealthy matter regardless of the nature of the healthcare available. No one says “i will risk lung cancer because i can get the system to pay for it”. At least none of the people i’ve seen and diagnosed with lung cancer.

    granted, but i don’t want to pay for it.


  • @HortenFlyingWing:

    you obviously did not get the second point, so i cannot respond to it. i said that if drugs are legal, that does nbot determine whether or not they become a societal plauge.

    fair enough.
    i was curious as to which “drugs” you were referring to. I’m not being silly either - i assumed you were not referring to prescription meds, caffeine, nicotine or alcohol, but what of non-prescription narcotics vs. marijuana vs. amphetamines vs. barbiturates etc.?
    Also it is not coincidental that those with chemical dependences also are smoker/alcoholics - many of these also have psychiatric illnesses.

    if the first part is true, then how come the US pays a higher percentage of its GDP (14%) without universal healthcare than Canada (8%)?

    Canada simply does not have the specialists America has and the costs of seeing these people drives up costs all together. I highly doubt the universal healthcare in canada would have diagnosed my wheat allergy…i had to on my own accord send info to a texan lab. this lab would be out of business if there was universal healthcare unless it existed outside of it. if that is true, why have universal healthcare at all if it cannot cover all our health ailments?

    actually we do have the speciallists that America has. We have an excellent medical education system that is second to no other country.
    And i am quite certain that it would take very little to diagnose a wheat allergy. Whether it is a celiac disorder or an IgE response to wheat, these are things that could readily be determined by a Canadian trained allergist at nearly any lab in the city. We also have the most advanced level 4 virus lab in the world in my home city. Granted some metabolic tests require a Toronto lab to help diagnose, however the paediatric metabolic speciallists are quite equipped to deal with these.
    No, what you pay for are HMOs which have to pay for advertising, additional layers of management, profit holders/dividend receivers, and astronomical litigation protection fees for doctors and hospitals, not to mention much higher prices for pharmaceuticals.

    Also i do not believe that the second part of your statement is true. For example our life expectancy is longer than yours.

    Canada is colder and it is documented colder areas have greater life expectency. you also lack a relatively unhealthy immigrant population comparable to America’s. Furthermore, Americans crash their cars and shoot each other at higher rates, lowering the life expectancy.

    what does a cold country have to do with a higher life expectancy? There is no correllate between living in a cold country and health. Just because northern European countries also have universal healthcare and have higher life expectancy rates does not have much to do with cold weather.
    As for our “relatively unhealthy immigrant population” - this is an ignorant statement. Our aboriginal population is quite unhealthy with a massive amount of diabetes, HIV, CVD, etc. Also Canada has a very high proportion of immigrants - possibly as high or higher than that of the US.

    People will live in an unhealthy matter regardless of the nature of the healthcare available. No one says “i will risk lung cancer because i can get the system to pay for it”. At least none of the people i’ve seen and diagnosed with lung cancer.

    granted, but i don’t want to pay for it.

    but you may have to. Not for anything that you have done, but simply because of bad luck. The thing is, as long as you have an insurance policy, you ARE paying for it, and you are paying more than in a country with universal healthcare.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    CC:

    Yes, it was the OBGYN that gave me the shot and sliced and diced. Maybe that’s not standard proceedure though?

    And, don’t they have some extensive waiting lists for cosemetic and life-saving surgeries in Canada? At least that’s what the press is always saying down here in the States. They (the press) claims that many Canadians flock over the boarder for surgery because it’s faster (more expensive) then it is in Canada.


  • @Jennifer:

    CC:

    Yes, it was the OBGYN that gave me the shot and sliced and diced. Maybe that’s not standard proceedure though?

    it can be. Usually an anaesthetist gives an analgesic by epidural, however an obgyn may also administer iv meds.
    i just had never heard of narcotics preventing episiotomy tears.

    And, don’t they have some extensive waiting lists for cosemetic and life-saving surgeries in Canada? At least that’s what the press is always saying down here in the States. They (the press) claims that many Canadians flock over the boarder for surgery because it’s faster (more expensive) then it is in Canada.

    there are long wait lists for certain orthopaedic and other surgeries in Canada. Cosmetic surgeries are paid outside of the public system as they are “cosmetic” and i have not heard of waiting lists for them.
    As for “life-saving” surgeries - our system is based on the idea of “triage”. People who “need” the operation sooner based on their disease and health will get the operation sooner. People who otherwise have to wait but can afford the operation earlier will go to the states for it.


  • If cigarettes are legal, I don’t see a problem with pot being legal.


  • actually we do have the speciallists that America has. We have an excellent medical education system that is second to no other country.

    the truth is that I would be bounced from orthopedist to orthopedist in canada and none would have sent me to an allergist. This is a fact. my wheat problem took its face in nerve damage, especially in my right elbow and now knee. both would have been considered orthpedic problems.

    So I would have to go through years of orthopedists and still have none send me to an allergist. furthermore, being that I am young and not showing the wheat allergy in an outward fashion, a stool test would be the only working version, not the tests with pricking, blood, and what not. The limited labs that do this particular testing are in America.

    you further bring up that there are long waiting lists. You get what you pay for.

    No, what you pay for are HMOs which have to pay for advertising, additional layers of management, profit holders/dividend receivers, and astronomical litigation protection fees for doctors and hospitals, not to mention much higher prices for pharmaceuticals.

    granted, government regulations are an impediment to good healthcare and they exist in america. that is a problem. ideally, government would not mess with healthcare at all.

    I do find it silly that you mention your cheaper prices on drugs because you have price ceilings. Those drugs are made in america and sold to canada cheaper than they sell it to americans. IF America would adopt price ceilings (and not allow the monopolization of drug developments like America) American drug companies would simply stop producing the drugs they usually would and advance would stop. This would lead to not only dramatic shortages in America, but then Canada would literally get a taste of its own medicine.

    Essentially, lacking better words for it, Canada is holding up American drug companies because there is no incentive NOT to make at least some profit in Canada. However, the moment they stop ripping off Americans, Canada would face collasal drug shortages.

    what does a cold country have to do with a higher life expectancy? There is no correllate between living in a cold country and health.

    You might eb right now come to think of it. In the past, warmer climates spawned diseases and plagues from insects, scewing the statistics. I’m not sure if that is relevant today.

    Just because northern European countries also have universal healthcare and have higher life expectancy rates does not have much to do with cold weather.
    As for our “relatively unhealthy immigrant population” - this is an ignorant statement. Our aboriginal population is quite unhealthy with a massive amount of diabetes, HIV, CVD, etc. Also Canada has a very high proportion of immigrants - possibly as high or higher than that of the US.

    Okay, let me clear up a few blatantly lies.

    1. America has a very unhealthy/alcoholic Native American population. it is a sad but true fact.
    2. 1% of America’s population is native American, 13% of it is black, and about 13% hispanic. All of these ethnicities on average have lower incomes than Asians and Whites. In America, 10% of its population is foreign born according to the 1990 census.

    While America had 9 million legal immigrants (it probably actually has been double), which would account for anywhere from 3 to 6 % of America’s population.
    http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/analytic/companion/etoimm/tables/provs/immsh.cfm
    ^^^ Meanwhile in Canada, such immigrants are probably closer to 0.5% to 1.0% approximately.

    3. Canada’s population is approximately 6.3 percent non-white and asian (http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/archives/5thedition/peopleandsociety/population/mcr4189?l=5&r=0&c=2).

    but you may have to. Not for anything that you have done, but simply because of bad luck. The thing is, as long as you have an insurance policy, you ARE paying for it, and you are paying more than in a country with universal healthcare.

    If America ridded itself of its medical regulations, the stranglehold of lawyers and insurance companies would die. Smokers pay more for their insurance anyway.


  • @Drumstix:

    If cigarettes are legal, I don’t see a problem with pot being legal.

    Good point.

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    Dunno if he gave me the drugs for the episiotomy, but he did do that first. Probably because he had to do it while I was sitting up?


  • ciggarrettes are only legal because you would have 50 million very pissed off and nicotine-deprived peopel on your hands if they were made illegal, and becuase too many people cant justify denying someone else the right to ruin themselves. i think cigarrettes should be illegal, so i dont think legalizing pot is a good idea based on that. plus, its not very helpful to say “since one bad thing is legal, another should be too”


  • @Jennifer:

    Dunno if he gave me the drugs for the episiotomy, but he did do that first. Probably because he had to do it while I was sitting up?

    Ok,
    chances are that an anaesthetist gave you an epidural. They give this while you are sitting up because it has a higher specific gravity than cerebrospinal fluid. It does not prevent vaginal tearing, but makes it much less painful.

Suggested Topics

  • 155
  • 3
  • 18
  • 17
  • 2
  • 16
  • 30
  • 2
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

31
Online

15.6k
Users

36.9k
Topics

1.5m
Posts