What's new
By:

Legalize marijuana?

freakazoid said:
I took offense to several of your posts, and don't pretend you didn't do the same. Never the less, I would rather get back to a real discussion, for the purpose of educating ourselves as well as others. You said you were trying to learn and were keeping an open mind, so I propose we move on. Agreed?
Click to expand...

Agreed. Lets move on.
 
LazyD said:
I can respect that. I'm all for legalizing everything.
Click to expand...

dis is nuts doe.

I love my state involvement. I'd get my country to tax large soft drinks, energy drinks, and high glucose products if I could #commieDal
 
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/26/painkiller-overdose-medical-marijuana_n_5711425.html

Fewer Pain Pill Overdoses In States With Legal Medical Marijuana
-
The study reveals that states with legal medical marijuana had a 24.8 percent lower annual average painkiller overdose death rate than states without those laws. It also shows that in the years following the legalization of medical cannabis, the association was stronger over time -- in the first year of legalizing medical cannabis, painkiller overdose deaths were nearly 20 percent lower in states with the laws than without, and nearly 34 percent lower five years later, on average.

"It's important to note that this isn't a 25% decrease in rates, but a 25% lower rate than was expected," Dr. Marcus Bachhuber, the study's lead author and a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, told The Huffington Post.

About 60 percent of all opioid overdose deaths occur in patients who have legitimate prescriptions for the drugs, according to the CDC. In 2009, overdoses from prescription pain relievers resulted in the deaths of more than 15,000 people in the U.S.

"The proportion of people receiving prescription opioids to treat pain has almost doubled in the past 10 years," Bachhuber said. "Chronic or severe pain is the main reason for which people report taking medical marijuana in states that make this information public."
Click to expand...

The part in red is significant, IMO. Marijuana is providing an alternative to drugs that are HIGHLY addictive and potentially deadly, and it's not just people who abuse that are benefitting.
-
Medical pot is still kind of a joke, however, at least in Wa. To get a card here, you have to prove that you've tried everything else and it wouldn't work. Which means the law actually forces people to try synthetic heroin, before they can use pot medicinally. This is a perfect example of how completely upside down thinking can result from social stigma. This law is a truth so completely ****ed up, it boggles the mind that it could exist for any amount of time in a modern civilization.
-
Hard to believe that in a state where pot is legal, the medicinal laws are so strict as to force people to use opiates before pot, even though pot can be bought(for around 300% more money) legally with no script. These things need changing ASAP.
 
Last edited:
Hantlers said:
Dude...no. No, no, no.
Click to expand...

Teehee ;)

ur right, let's keep letting the US spend 18% of their GDP on health-care, and let people decide to control their diets themselves. It's been working pretty well so far.

-Comrade Dal
 
dalamon said:
Teehee ;)

ur right, let's keep letting the US spend 18% of their GDP on health-care, and let people decide to control their diets themselves. It's been working pretty well so far.

-Comrade Dal
Click to expand...

I believe some refer to that as natural selection…and yes, it is working quite well so far.
 
Hantlers said:
I believe some refer to that as natural selection…and yes, it is working quite well so far.
Click to expand...

Yeah, can't wait till American health care costs hit 1 trillion dollars by 2030, and like 85% of the nation has Type II Diabetes.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hantlers said:
It won't tho! We gots dat obamacare.
Click to expand...

It will as long as pharmacies sell patients patented clones of drugs that already exist, and cost 1/9th of the price.

American health-care is broken. Needs to be nuked, and built from ground-up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dalamon said:
It will as long as pharmacies sell patients patented clones of drugs that already exist, and cost 1/9th of the price.

American health-care is broken. Needs to be nuked, and built from ground-up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I do agree with this. A lot. I question if it will ever happen though.
 
Hantlers said:
I do agree with this. A lot. I question if it will ever happen though.
Click to expand...

It probably won't. Too much to lose, from the perspective of medical professionals and pharmaceutical industries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hantlers said:
I would argue that one beer isn't going to impact me the same way that a bowl or joint would.
Click to expand...

Fyi you shouldn't compare one beer with a whole bowl or a joint.

You should compare it with one hit..... maybe
 
LazyD said:
I think I'd go crazy if I couldn't unwind every once in a while and smoke the sweet leaf. Life is depressing thinking about death and **** all the time. Somebody saying I should not be able to sit at home and smoke some weed because they wouldn't do it is pretty dumb. What right of theirs am I infringing upon?
Click to expand...
Weed is fun
 
heyhey said:
In my experience this is how I would rate the addictions that I have dealt with.(totally anecdotal and just my experience)

From least to most addictive.

Pot-Smoked for like 3 years. 1 day I realized that I didn't even really like it. I quit cold turkey and haven't used it in over a decade.
Refined Sugar-Pretty addictive but I could probably cut it out if I wanted to.
Caffeine-Honestly might be more addictive than alcohol. I've never tried to cut it out but too long without it and I will get quite the headache.
Alcohol-It was very hard for me to cut out liquor. I still rely on beer to keep me from going and getting a fifth. The first few days of shakes really suck.
Nicotine-I'll probably die a smoker
Click to expand...
I was puffing tough on the herb erry day for years. Had to get a drug test for a job so I quit.
Still have to worry about randoms so I still don't smoke.

No withdrawls whatsoever.
I agree with you
 
dalamon said:
Teehee ;)

ur right, let's keep letting the US spend 18% of their GDP on health-care, and let people decide to control their diets themselves. It's been working pretty well so far.

-Comrade Dal
Click to expand...

I hate this cynical argument for 2 reasons.

1-It's cynical.

2-It's wrong. People that die early suppress healthcare costs. Should we subsidize smoking, drinking, and refined sugar for the purpose of saving money? No, but that is what we should do if we are to make these decisions based on healthcare costs.

Bonus: The US could save Trillions if the average lifespan were reduced to 65 from social security alone.


Again, I don't support making decisions based off this but it is the reality.
 
heyhey said:
I hate this cynical argument for 2 reasons.

1-It's cynical.

2-It's wrong. People that die early suppress healthcare costs. Should we subsidize smoking, drinking, and refined sugar for the purpose of saving money? No, but that is what we should do if we are to make these decisions based on healthcare costs.

Bonus: The US could save Trillions if the average lifespan were reduced to 65 from social security alone.


Again, I don't support making decisions based off this but it is the reality.
Click to expand...

People that "die early" suppress healthcare costs, sure. But people that live with ongoing chronic illnesses have their own economic impacts that result in huge costs to the American economy as well. Healthcare is necessary, and your argument does little to debunk it.
 
dalamon said:
People that "die early" suppress healthcare costs, sure. But people that live with ongoing chronic illnesses have their own economic impacts that result in huge costs to the American economy as well. Healthcare is necessary, and your argument does little to debunk it.
Click to expand...

Yes they are more likely to live with chronic illness but that is outweighed by not being alive for their 70's & 80's. People beyond 65 are rarely productive and insanely expensive. My argument does very much to debunk it.

The costs of being obese or being a smoker are largely bore by the individual not by the system, the state, or the economy (unless you are counting the lost jobs due to needing fewer medical workers).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top