It’s the right thing to do because the government shouldn’t have a place telling me what I can and cannot do when it doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s personal liberty.
So, how do you feel when someone drives under the influence and causes an accident?
thats…racist!
clearly there are laws that do and should cover this. haven’t seen a good personal responsibility vs top-down retardation debate here in a while. Please, continue.
I’m arguing because people act like it’s a settled issue when it’s far from it. Sure, marijuana and derivatives might have benefits-- far from proven. Most epilepsy reports are anecdotal (bottom of the barrel evidence in the scientific community). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3639568/
Marijuana is also linked to increase the risk of seizures. Do you know why? It’s suspected, not proven, that cannabidiol (not psychoactive) reduces the risk of seizures while THC (psychoactive) increases the risk of seizures. The epilepsy cases are supported by patients receiving cannabidiol (which I believe was in much higher proportions in “Charlotte’s Web” in comparison to THC).
About the schedule I comment: this was my point about the medical community requesting it be knocked down so they can get good evidence (so maybe they can say there is causal effects…). I think there should be some mechanism for there to be randomized controlled trials for this stuff and derivatives, however the reported agents so far are not psychoactive (so my guess is that many people would stop arguing for general public use if those were the only approved thing). There as some cases where THC containing substances are approved increase appetite such as cachectic cancer or AIDS patients (some of these cases its eat, or you can’t continue fighting).
You’re making the exact argument I said before was problematic: in spite of evidence, people are trying to claim “proof.” I’m saying we should enable the researchers to acquire evidence through high quality trials and then go from there.
I do agree with personal responsibility, but I do think the government needs to step in for some cases because we don’t live in a perfect world (I’m generally much against government involvement outside a short list such as helping the military protect our country and rights as well as enforcement of laws, maybe some infrastructure, too). As you said, it’s like drinking and driving laws, you can drink legally, but getting behind the wheel is a problem. Same could be done with MJ if it were legal, but I’m curious if STLs statement extends to an action you take on your own that may end up endangering others (to fully see STLs point of view).
So, let’s see here. I’m not going to debate the medical issue with you because 1) you know enough to think you know what you’re talking about but you’re wildly off; and 2) because it’s a moot point anyway. As I said, it should be legal regardless.
To answer you question on laws pertaining to protect others…of course. Those are pretty much the only laws that matter. Booze is legal. Killing someone or damaging their property is illegal. Pretty simple.
This is very basic, core libertarianism.
+1 STL gets it. The medical issue is secondary to the fact it should be legal. To ban a substance shouldnt the govt have to prove the harm? Its pretty evident to anyone who has been alive during the last 50 years to see that pot really isnt causing the harm it was sold as, and we also know we were basically duped into the current state we are in. Obviously driving while intoxicated is already illegal & it shouldnt be done and should be a punishable offense. Just like in public, you cant drink it public. The laws governing pot should be identical to booze as they are very similar.
-1 Yayy still don’t get it.
so you disagree the govt should have to provide evidence of harm before banning something? Put your pants back on Turd, idk why you insist on coming here to rub one out
no i disagree that the government has any business banning any substance that individuals choose to use for their own purposes. see, you don’t get it. stop trying to be a pro-liberty lefty. there’s no such thing.
The “pot smoking dildo throwers” (this title has been contested) are falling right into the trap…
Libs melt down, break laws, universities don’t allow free speech, cities don’t follow rules, gov employees don’t follow orders…creating the legal right for him to enforce law…say hello to the force of government funding, law making, and the military. Libs lose.
To be clear, are you saying you believe I’m “wildly off” as in missing your point, or that what I believe to be true isn’t accurate? If it’s the former, I’d agree, I did get slightly off topic. The main point of me providing that extra background was to show why YayWork’s comment was pretty silly (that people against it are uninformed). If it’s the latter, I suggest you go to PubMed and look at a bunch of studies; you’ll see that this is why my information comes from, and I’d trust their research over any tabloid. If it’s neither of those, feel free to clarify or correct me where you think I’m “wildly off.”
I can respect that opinion since you’re drawing a line where government should or shouldn’t be involved. Again, my disagreement was YayWork mis-characterizing a group of people without any real support for doing so (he or she mentioned a few times benefits, to which I reported there’s a paucity of evidence for those).
Do you think that prescription medication should be available only on prescription? This, to me, seems like an extension from the idea that things like heroin shouldn’t be illegal.
[quote=“Yayyywork”]
+1 STL gets it. The medical issue is secondary to the fact it should be legal.
[quote]
If you go back to what I said originally, I brought the medical aspect into the discussion because you said anyone against it is uninformed and a dope. I used that part of the discussion to illustrate to you that your statement was baseless, but as we continued on, that point seemed to be lost. That was the only point I intended to make, until you were citing benefits, for which you can look at scientific literature and see that the evidence isn’t there, so you shouldn’t be claiming “proof” of most of these things (but certainly don’t rule it out).
Again, do you feel the same way about new medications? Should they just be available to the public right off the bat? You can look at the literature and see there are risks associated with smoking pot long term (links to schizophrenia, for example), but the evidence for this is just as poor as for the benefits (all we have a links and associations at this point).
I think that’s a pretty reasonable idea.
im with tickersu.
Regarding the weed, do not think it will be good for 'Merika, they are already asleep at the wheel.
When I was just back there, everyone was smoking (smelled it everywhere)…but I was in one of the “dilldo throwing” lib cities.
Starting from the top down:
You’re “wildly off” on your assumptions about the medicinal uses of marijuana. You are somewhat informed though, so you literally know just enough to be dangerous. And I do mean literally. My son has epilepsy so I’m reasonably sure I’ve forgotten more about the effects of THC/CBD on controlling seizures in children than you’ll ever know. Therefore, I’m not willing to engage in a debate on the merits of pot’s medical uses (remember, as a Schedule I drug the government is saying marijuana has no - exactly zero - medical benefits) without educating you more on the matter…and I’m not up to that today. Suffice it to say, there is plenty of evidence to show CBD (and more now with THC) does help control seizures. The issue is finding out how it interacts with other anti-seizure meds, controlling the amount of CBD/THC in each dose, and finding the right dose. That’s what’s holding it up. Not whether or not it’s actually effective. There aren’t many neurologists left saying it’s not at least very promising.
No comment on the middle part.
Regarding prescription drugs: Are we talking about in my ideal libertarian paradise or if I could change the law tomorrow? Ideally, long-term, our society should move in a direction that gives more freedom of choice to the individual. In other words, I’m all for legalizing all drugs. That would include prescription drugs but people would obviously still want to see a doctor to be sure they’re getting the right medicine at the right dosage.
Fair enough, and I agree my original statement was too strong, but I still would have to say the burden would be on the govt to prove harm. Its not a medication though so it shouldnt be treated as such (although it might have medical uses, and those should go through rigorous scientific studies before any doctor would advise you to take them) but just look at what happened a few years back when vaping popped up. It didnt have to go through rigorous medical checks before being sold. There are some health concerns with it and obviously abstaining is the healthiest choice anyone could make but its a similar argument.
I think PubMed has an array of articles on both sides. However, the research as to treating neurological disorders focuses on administering a therapeutic dosage. The research as to cannabis as the cause of a neurological disorder is in significant excess and repeated use. These two differences are important. Dosage is critical as STL said for legalization and regulation, just like any other drug. Most drugs have therapeutic and toxic levels.
However, cannabis does not have an LD50. It won’t kill you. Any adverse neurological reaction is most likely not solely due to excess cannabis use, but requires an array of contributing neurological factors. Also, it is pretty difficult to reach a significant excess dosage relative to other types of substances. Many with excess dosage issues experience no more than sleepiness and higher tolerance over time.