No, I just have a different opinion formed from experience.
Vermont- 9th state to legalize weed
- Thread starter ThroughBlue
- Start date
No, I just have a different opinion formed from experience.
a best friend of mine was diagnosed with MS at 29. Now 39 he showed me an entire pill cabinet regiment he replaced and no longer takes because marijuana helps him much better.
I like your posts Bill, you seem like a good dude, but your are extremely biased here for whatever reason. Marijuana has a lot of medicinal qualities and can help a lot of people with far less side effects than what big pharma provides. Why do you think they and the govt have had such a huge push back against weed all these years.
I’ve got no problem with medicinal marijuana when genuinely prescribed.
My issue was with the poster or posters that think marijuana is going to solve the pill crisis.
It won’t, they’re trying to use a serious issue, pills, to legalize marijuana for recreational use.
I don’t think more people walking around chemically enhanced because they can’t deal with reality is progress. It stunts the maturation cycle, and learning to cope.
I do. Why are doctors prescribing it for conditions when there is no test data to support its use in those conditions?
And anecdotes such as the one above don't count as data, needless to say.
We need to pressure our own freaking government to allow proper studies to be done to see what conditions it can legitimately be used for.
Until then, all we have is claims that it can treat every condition under the sun.
Got to cover the budget somehow. Trump keeps spending money left and right while cutting taxes, watching out budget deficit further balloon.
Regardless of the medicinal qualities it’s a damn plant that shouldn’t be illegal. It’s no different than planting a tobacco plant or a tomato plant
Lol...I've had some damn good tomatoes but never one that stimulated my mind or affected my mood. But yeah, tomatoes are just like pot plants.
WildcatfaninOhio
All-American
Why on earth would you care if a doctor prescribes it to his patient? I’d say it’s none your goddamn business.
He pretty clearly stated there was no test data for it.
It wasn’t any of our business when Drs prescribed pain pills like candy either. Then it became a national epidemic.
WildcatfaninOhio
All-American
Makes no difference. Unless you’re such a busybody you can’t keep your nose out of other people’s business. To the point of wedging your own personal prejudices into a private decision between doctor and patient.
Sorry, chemo patient! Your doctor feels that pot can help relieve your nausea so you can eat and maintain a healthy weight. But Bill Derington hasn’t seen the test data. Until he gives the go-ahead you’re just going to have to suffer.
Bill, I understand where you're coming from but people have been altering their minds since the dawn of time and will continue to do so. We spend billions both trying to prevent it from hitting the streets and locking people up because they've used or possess some drug we deem as "bad". As a result the cartels and criminal underworld of society are more than happy rake in literally billions, trillions of dollars to provide for the demand. We'd literally be better off giving the drugs away for free and spending our money on rehab and treatment facilities for those who abuse them.
It's not that I haven't seen the data, if the poster is correct there is no data.
I don't think you realize the damage addiction does, not only to the person, families, and society as a whole. The first trip to rehab has about a 10% chance of success.
I don't think it's ethical, nor right for the Govt to legalize the certain death and mental anguish that legalizing drugs for the sake of tax revenue would cause.
to @Bill Derington or anyone else on here, when was the last time you turned on the tv or the computer and heard a story about someone overdosing and dying from pot???
you haven't because you can't.
I've been through chemo, pot, in particular edibles, but still smoked it, was by far better than any pill they prescribed me for nausea or creating an appetite. I don't need big pharma and the govt to give me "data" to prove that point. Kentucky is not a medicinal state, I had to get it on my own. It's a damn plant. It works. It shouldn't be illegal. It should be my choice whether i partake or not.
you haven't because you can't.
I've been through chemo, pot, in particular edibles, but still smoked it, was by far better than any pill they prescribed me for nausea or creating an appetite. I don't need big pharma and the govt to give me "data" to prove that point. Kentucky is not a medicinal state, I had to get it on my own. It's a damn plant. It works. It shouldn't be illegal. It should be my choice whether i partake or not.
Addiction happens regardless if it is legal or not. Virtually all drugs are legal in the Netherlands and their rate of addiction changed very little from the time it was illegal and now that it is all legal. Addicts are able to seek treatment earlier because they aren't hiding in the shadows because they fear the legal consequences of their addiction. Addicts don't die from tainted drugs that have been cut with poisons they bought from some guy standing on the corner. They don't contract hepatitis and spread HIV, AIDS and other blood born illnesses from dirty needles because there is always access to clean needles. They aren't spending billions of dollars locking up people who's crime is doing damage to themselves.
I'm well aware of the consequences of addiction. My argument is that addicts will find their vice regardless of the legality.
There are 2.3 million people locked up in the US. 1 in 5 of those people are on drug related charges...that's 460,000 people. At an average of $32,000/yr to lock someone up that's $14.7 billion being spent annually to warehouse these people.
What is the added cost to society for those 460,000 families that lose a father, mother, sister or brother for on average of 3 yrs followed by a life time of being labeled as a felon reducing their ability to earn a living?
These are three chief lessons the Netherlands learned after decades of evolving drug policy:
- Decriminalization doesn’t increase drug use.
- You can successfully separate drug markets.
- Commitment to public health-driven drug policy contributes to reduction of drug-related harm.
I’m not saying addicts won’t their vices, they absolutely will. I’m saying the Govt doesn’t need legalize drugs, that would undoubtedly raise the number of addicts. It isn’t worth it, nor is it sound policy for a nation.
That fact that that dumbish still thinks weed is on the same level as other drugs is an absolute joke. Dude is totally ignorant. Reminds me of the drug czar that said heroin and crack was just as bad as weed.
When was the last time someone got high and got in a bar fight? Or overdosed? Or spent a ton of money and done remember?
There is a huge difference between weed and other drugs. It's a crime that it's even catagorized as a drug, as it does infinitely more help than harm.
Why would you want a plant that helps children with seizure disorders and a multitude of other issues to be banished?
Awful. Just awful. Dude probably has a daughter in college right now smoking a blunt.
When was the last time someone got high and got in a bar fight? Or overdosed? Or spent a ton of money and done remember?
There is a huge difference between weed and other drugs. It's a crime that it's even catagorized as a drug, as it does infinitely more help than harm.
Why would you want a plant that helps children with seizure disorders and a multitude of other issues to be banished?
Awful. Just awful. Dude probably has a daughter in college right now smoking a blunt.
Bill, the evidence from the Netherlands and Portugal says that you're wrong. There was no increase in addiction and addicts got better treatment.
I'll repost what was found..."Although a favored argument by those who hail the deterrent from criminalization, decriminalization fueling an increase in drug usage isn’t consistent with the results of countries that have actually decriminalized drugs. Based on a paper by Cato Institute on Portugal’s decriminalization, it was found “In almost every category of drug, and for drug usage overall, the lifetime prevalence rates in the pre-decriminalization era of the 1990s were higher than the post- decriminalization.” It should be underscored this includes a decrease in drug use among the two critical age groups (13-15 and 16-18) of teens, an important statistic since these are the formative years for brain development and a primary concern from those who claim tolerant drug laws will equate with increased usage among young people. It seems that more tolerant laws coupled with honest education is proving to be the way to go. Studies regarding decriminalization in the Netherlands have echoed Cato’s findings about usage not increasing."
Much is to be gained by retreating from the status quo. The Netherlands gained control of their hard drug problem in a couple decades and now boast one of the lowest rates of hard drug use in the European Union because of honest education and government information, and have the healthcare system to take care of the now aging addicts. Also, the “Netherlands consistently features low prevalence of HIV among drug users, reads the Introduction to the OSF report, “cannabis use among young people on par with the European average and a citizenry that has generally been spared the burden of criminal records for low-level, non-violent drug offenses.”
Nobody cares if coke/crack/heroin stays illegal. This is about weed, which is more of a medicine than many of the medications prescribed on a regular basis by our medical system. What are the negative aide effects of weed? You stay home and watch television? Eat too much? Etc...
You don’t want data or research on what a dr prescribed you? Is that all medicines or simply ones you want to take?
I will never agree that legalizing drugs is a sound policy, it simply isn’t. It’s short sighted, and detrimental to society. That’s my opinion based on experience, you don’t have to agree, and that’s perfectly fine.
Anyone who thinks that weed should be in the same category as heroin and crack are just lying to themselves and it proves blind hate.
You are conflating a conversation I was having with Fuzz, to your argument.
problem is, as far as the prescription drug industry and the govt is concerned, you cannot grow tylenol or prozac in your basement or backyard. you have to mozy your ass to the pharmacy to buy them. so does anyone really believe the ones who profit off of our conditions and control the medicines are actually interested in telling you that something you can grow on your own can have the same effect as the pills they are selling you? thus reducing drastically their ability to profit off of said products?
Then stop smoking it, it’s against the law, detrimental to work, and brain functionality.
Just stop smoking it.
Look how defensive you guys are over a drug, simply because I disagree with you.
Like you guys have said over and over, it’s simply a plant.
Like you guys have said over and over, it’s simply a plant.
And one that you've ignored the data that's been put before you.
I haven’t ignored anything Fuzz, I simply think it’s wrong. I think they wanted to reach an outcome.
Please explain how it’s even plausible that 13-18 year olds dug use would go DOWN if it was legal. Why is “honest” education only possible if it’s legal, seems like that would be paramount.
That line of thought is ignorant, take a look at opioid pills. Did usage go down or up when docs started overprescribing? Do you think legalizing it would cause that number to drop?
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
@Bill Derington you are so conservative on the political board yet so polar opposite on this issue. you prefer more govt intrusion into our lives based on the same govt scaring you about this particular topic?
coca cola, fine. bud light, fine. tylenol, advil, fine. crispy creme fine. McDonalds on every street corner, fine. a plant that has never caused one single over dose in thousands of years of usage and has medicinal qualities, oh hell freaking no. the govt said it was bad?
coca cola, fine. bud light, fine. tylenol, advil, fine. crispy creme fine. McDonalds on every street corner, fine. a plant that has never caused one single over dose in thousands of years of usage and has medicinal qualities, oh hell freaking no. the govt said it was bad?
Kids do things to rebel, being taboo is part of the appeal and it's quite possible that because it's legal there aren't "pushers" trying to get kids to try something they may not be ready to try.
Pot can also work as a pain killer in some cases. Were it legal and where appropriate it could be substituted for opioids thus eliminating the need to prescribe the potentially addictive opioid. Also, while some become addicted to prescribed pills at some point the doc stops writing those prescriptions and the addict turns to the black market to get their fix instead of continuing to see their physician and seeking treatment earlier than is currently happening.
Explain this...
The new federal data shows that adolescent marijuana use fell nationwide in 2016. In no states did the share of teens using pot increase by a significant amount, and in a number, including California, Colorado, Maryland, New Jersey and Texas, rates of teen marijuana use fell considerably.
Use is up, however, among young adults age 18 to 25 and adults age 26 and up. Alcohol use, meanwhile, is falling across the board, according to the federal survey data.
In Colorado, for instance, the number of 18-to-25-year-olds using alcohol on a monthly basis fell by four percentage points between 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. That's the group with the highest propensity to use marijuana, suggesting that a number of young adults are opting to smoke weed instead of get drunk now that the option is available to them.
It’s not because the Govt says it’s bad, it’s because I have seen first hand what long term use does. I don’t think more people walking around chemically imbalanced is a good thing, call me crazy.
Once you open Pandora’s box, you can’t close that box.
Kids do things to rebel, being taboo is part of the appeal and it's quite possible that because it's legal there aren't "pushers" trying to get kids to try something they may not be ready to try.
Pot can also work as a pain killer in some cases. Were it legal and where appropriate it could be substituted for opioids thus eliminating the need to prescribe the potentially addictive opioid. Also, while some become addicted to prescribed pills at some point the doc stops writing those prescriptions and the addict turns to the black market to get their fix instead of continuing to see their physician and seeking treatment earlier than is currently happening.
Explain this...
The new federal data shows that adolescent marijuana use fell nationwide in 2016. In no states did the share of teens using pot increase by a significant amount, and in a number, including California, Colorado, Maryland, New Jersey and Texas, rates of teen marijuana use fell considerably.
Use is up, however, among young adults age 18 to 25 and adults age 26 and up. Alcohol use, meanwhile, is falling across the board, according to the federal survey data.
In Colorado, for instance, the number of 18-to-25-year-olds using alcohol on a monthly basis fell by four percentage points between 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. That's the group with the highest propensity to use marijuana, suggesting that a number of young adults are opting to smoke weed instead of get drunk now that the option is available to them.
Hold up, you specifically said all drugs should be legal, or did I misunderstand you?
The issue was docs didn’t stop prescribing them, that’s why you had an opioid epidemic.
Only recently did they start reigning them in, you can pinpoint the date to when heroin use started rising.
Take an honest look at that graph Fuzz. So you honestly think Pot being legal causes teen use to drop, really?
In KY, right now, drs can prescribe marijuana in Pill form. So the poster above that said he needed pot during cancer treatment so he could eat, the pill form was available.
My mother died May 15th at 62, she had been on opioids for 15 years and her body and life had deteriorated to the point she didn’t leave the house. She lived for taking a pill every 4 hours. The past year they started making it harder to get, she smoked Pot to try slow her use, it did no good.
What my original post in this thread was about, was disingenuously using other people’s suffering in order to legalize getting high.
Marijuana will be legal soon, I simply don’t think it will be a good thing, carry on gentlemen.
For the record, I’m not anywhere close to 60.
Last edited:
Lmao everyone do yourself a favor and block this idiot.
I don’t need tests to tell me that weed makes people want to eat. I’ve smoked it and seen countless other people smoke it and everyone wants to eat.
How many times have you ever smoked any pot?
What are you talking about? You’re not setting a very good example for the in favor crowd.
