the predicted social ills of legalized pot previously denied

[rocket surgeon]

Awesome story!

Edit:  you should try to vape.

thanks for the advice, but the days of those mind altering "things" for this dude are but some pleasant and becoming more distant memories by the day.  growing up was a blast with some bumps in the road.  if we didn't learn from those "bumps" we wouldn't be where we are today

[MarquetteDano]

A massive opioid epidemic in the country and this is what people are worried about?  Legalized marijuana.  Seems like a strange time to focus on this problem.

[rocket surgeon]

A massive opioid epidemic in the country and this is what people are worried about?  Legalized marijuana.  Seems like a strange time to focus on this problem.

i think we have room to worry about both.  i don't believe this is a one or the other.  how about we multi-task.  everyone here knows i'm for limited government, but this is one area where i believe we could use more resources-putting more money toward drug rehabilitation and AODA personnel.  i'm pretty sure we could find some inefficient government program to cannibalize and forage some funds from.  the ill effects from ALL drug abuse reach far and wide and cost this country A LOT of money-public safety, health and welfare, child abuse, education and employment 

[GGGG]

i think we have room to worry about both.  i don't believe this is a one or the other.  how about we multi-task.  everyone here knows i'm for limited government, but this is one area where i believe we could use more resources-putting more money toward drug rehabilitation and AODA personnel.  i'm pretty sure we could find some inefficient government program to cannibalize and forage some funds from.  the ill effects from ALL drug abuse reach far and wide and cost this country A LOT of money-public safety, health and welfare, child abuse, education and employment

Ah yes.  The myth that "my program can be funded through cutting another one because I don't want to pay more taxes" continues...

[MarquetteDano]

i think we have room to worry about both.  i don't believe this is a one or the other.  how about we multi-task.  everyone here knows i'm for limited government, but this is one area where i believe we could use more resources-putting more money toward drug rehabilitation and AODA personnel.  i'm pretty sure we could find some inefficient government program to cannibalize and forage some funds from.  the ill effects from ALL drug abuse reach far and wide and cost this country A LOT of money-public safety, health and welfare, child abuse, education and employment

I get you are worried.  I am not.  64,000 overdose deaths in 2016.  How many of those attributable to marijuana?  My cousin is an addiction specialist and says about 2% of her patients come in for CBD/THC problems.  Despite much more widespread use than other drugs sans alcohol.  Just seems like a blip on a radar of our drug problems.

[rocket surgeon]

Ah yes.  The myth that "my program can be funded through cutting another one because I don't want to pay more taxes" continues...

  there ya go whining about taxes again-you said it, i didn't

[rocket surgeon]

I get you are worried.  I am not.  64,000 overdose deaths in 2016.  How many of those attributable to marijuana?  My cousin is an addiction specialist and says about 2% of her patients come in for CBD/THC problems.  Despite much more widespread use than other drugs sans alcohol.  Just seems like a blip on a radar of our drug problems.

we can only help so many of those 64k people who overdosed.  first, start with a good education program.  we have already put some safety checks in the way of legitimate Rx prescribing.  there is a national data base we can log in to and far better records are being kept of each individual persons prescriptions filled and by what doc.

    ok, back to those 64k overdoses-it's very sad.  it is a basterd of a drug to quit.  the withdrawal is tortuous.  then the support to stay clean is tough.  my concern here is how many chances to we give people?  the first big step needs to come from the abuser-the system can only begin to help those who want to help themselves.  what is the percentagte? 5-10% 

i know a lot of people want to blame the Rx companies and a prior fill in the blank injury, surgery, etc.  bottom line-either the person taking the drug wasn't informed properly on how to take the schedule II's or there was another underlying problem, i.e. the patient took advantage of the drug's side effects-the buzz-to "feel good" and threw all caution to the wind

[GGGG]

  there ya go whining about taxes again-you said it, i didn't

You were the one bringing up how to pay for treatment.  Your idea that you can fund something like that by simply finding waste in other programs is a line that's been used for 30+ years. 

[rocket surgeon]

You were the one bringing up how to pay for treatment.  Your idea that you can fund something like that by simply finding waste in other programs is a line that's been used for 30+ years.

nothing the matter with that-maybe we could steal a little from the $3.1 billion we spend on gov. employees on administrative leave?  or the $283,000 spent on dept. of defense bird watching or the $406,000 spent on studying if the media causes polarization or does polarization cause media choice? 

  just saying, we could find some money to spend a little more wisely-anything wrong with that?

[Hards Alumni]

nothing the matter with that-maybe we could steal a little from the $3.1 billion we spend on gov. employees on administrative leave?  or the $283,000 spent on dept. of defense bird watching or the $406,000 spent on studying if the media causes polarization or does polarization cause media choice? 

  just saying, we could find some money to spend a little more wisely-anything wrong with that?

Or maybe we defund the hell our of our bloated military.  Maybe just a couple of jets.

[rocket surgeon]

Or maybe we defund the hell our of our bloated military.  Maybe just a couple of jets.

#44 already did a pretty good number on that.  our air force has been absolutely decimated and don't tell anyone, but there's a dude name kim jung fat-so threatening to send some fireworks our way. 

  better place to get some cash to save lives from drug abuse?  sanctuary cities harboring criminals-perfect, problem solved!

[GGGG]

nothing the matter with that-maybe we could steal a little from the $3.1 billion we spend on gov. employees on administrative leave?  or the $283,000 spent on dept. of defense bird watching or the $406,000 spent on studying if the media causes polarization or does polarization cause media choice? 

  just saying, we could find some money to spend a little more wisely-anything wrong with that?

Thanks for proving my point regarding the absurdity of your suggestion.

[forgetful]

I find it interesting that we have one thread where two arguments are made. 

1.  We shouldn't make laws to restrict access to X, which is causing a significant numbers of deaths, because there already is so much X on the streets that it wouldn't make an impact. 

2.  In the early 1900's, X was completely legal and we didn't have the same problems, so the issue is bad people, not X. 

Then here, the same people come to the opposite conclusions.  That we need to make Y illegal, because it is causing so many problems in society and deaths, despite the fact that:

1.  There is so much Y on the streets that new laws would have zero impact on access to Y.  After all, I can make Y easily by buying things that are perfectly legal. 

2.  In the early 1900's, Y was completely legal and we didn't have the same problems. 

Why isn't the problem here also bad people, not Y itself?  Most people that use Y are causing zero problems to society.

[rocket surgeon]

I find it interesting that we have one thread where two arguments are made. 

1.  We shouldn't make laws to restrict access to X, which is causing a significant numbers of deaths, because there already is so much X on the streets that it wouldn't make an impact. 

2.  In the early 1900's, X was completely legal and we didn't have the same problems, so the issue is bad people, not X. 

Then here, the same people come to the opposite conclusions.  That we need to make Y illegal, because it is causing so many problems in society and deaths, despite the fact that:

1.  There is so much Y on the streets that new laws would have zero impact on access to Y.  After all, I can make Y easily by buying things that are perfectly legal. 

2.  In the early 1900's, Y was completely legal and we didn't have the same problems. 

Why isn't the problem here also bad people, not Y itself?  Most people that use Y are causing zero problems to society.

sounds like apples and space shuttles again, but if "Y" is referring to mariju-ahhna, it is still illegal according to the feds and most states.  we do have laws on the books re: "Y" i think.  "Y" is still considered a schedule   I drug as well. 

 if "X" is referring to guns...here we go again

either one of them, by themselves are inanimate objects.  by themselves, they do no harm.

    when someone consumes "Y", they can become bad people through actions if deemed to be caused by "Y"; unless of course you want to include the fact that they(consumers of "Y") would also be indirect contributors to all the violence that can occur including, but not limited to the manufacture and sale of "Y".

    you of course know that "X" by itself does no harm, but when put into operation against another for nefarious reasons, the operator becomes a bad person

[forgetful]

sounds like apples and space shuttles again, but if "Y" is referring to mariju-ahhna, it is still illegal according to the feds and most states.  we do have laws on the books re: "Y" i think.  "Y" is still considered a schedule   I drug as well. 

 if "X" is referring to guns...here we go again

either one of them, by themselves are inanimate objects.  by themselves, they do no harm.

    when someone consumes "Y", they can become bad people through actions if deemed to be caused by "Y"; unless of course you want to include the fact that they(consumers of "Y") would also be indirect contributors to all the violence that can occur including, but not limited to the manufacture and sale of "Y".

    you of course know that "X" by itself does no harm, but when put into operation against another for nefarious reasons, the operator becomes a bad person

The fact is, people use the same arguments to argue against Y, but in favor of X.  That is illogical.  Making Y illegal has harmed more lives and caused more problems for this nation than those who consume it. 

[rocket surgeon]

The fact is, people use the same arguments to argue against Y, but in favor of X.  That is illogical.  Making Y illegal has harmed more lives and caused more problems for this nation than those who consume it.

i don't know if cannibis was ever really "legal. regulation of and labeling certain drugs and narcotics in the early 1900's were meant to close labeling "loopholes" in the poison laws.  cannabis never really was legal but was considered "fashionable" in the mid 1800's but no mention of it's legality or not.  i would gather, as our society started to demand standards, it was just included in the poison laws and never removed

  so to say making it illegal is misleading.  they labeled it as such reflecting the values of their times, not ours.  how wise they were back then; there are some lessons in history we should probably take better note of.  they aren't called "wise old men" for nothing

[forgetful]

i don't know if cannibis was ever really "legal. regulation of and labeling certain drugs and narcotics in the early 1900's were meant to close labeling "loopholes" in the poison laws.  cannabis never really was legal but was considered "fashionable" in the mid 1800's but no mention of it's legality or not.  i would gather, as our society started to demand standards, it was just included in the poison laws and never removed

  so to say making it illegal is misleading.  they labeled it as such reflecting the values of their times, not ours.  how wise they were back then; there are some lessons in history we should probably take better note of.  they aren't called "wise old men" for nothing

It was made illegal out of fear of Mexican immigrants and the view that they were racially inferior.  It was designed to punish mexican immigrants that people thought were stealing their jobs during the great depression. 

[jesmu84]

i don't know if cannibis was ever really "legal. regulation of and labeling certain drugs and narcotics in the early 1900's were meant to close labeling "loopholes" in the poison laws.  cannabis never really was legal but was considered "fashionable" in the mid 1800's but no mention of it's legality or not.  i would gather, as our society started to demand standards, it was just included in the poison laws and never removed

  so to say making it illegal is misleading.  they labeled it as such reflecting the values of their times, not ours.  how wise they were back then; there are some lessons in history we should probably take better note of.  they aren't called "wise old men" for nothing

https://youtu.be/CJlqsdezhhk

[TSmith34, Inc.]

that was NOT your father's maryjane i'm telling you right now.

There have been a few enhancements.

New Weed vs. Old Weed