What good is legalizing weed if you can't use it?

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by john70t

That pertains to current Schedule 1 classification, and whether the real life drug attributes fulfill all the categories required to remain mis-classified as such.
The government is supposed to treat all drugs equally and from a purely scientific perspective.

That pertains to whether it should be legalized/prescribed in some instances.
Only one legitimate scenario is required to prove its efficacy.

Apparently not everyone shares your opinion that is misclassified.

[gordner]

Obviously not everyone does agree it is misclassified, but certainly more and more do everyday. And if you look into the history you’ll find it landed on schedule one for all the wrong reasons. Mostly due to the cotton industries fear of replacement by hemp.
At the end of the day it’s all about money, it has little to nothing to do with the benefits or detriments to society. When you look at the various scheduled drugs and what falls in what level it becomes very hard for any thinking person to defend the schedule one classification. Heroin is schedule 2! Think about how that might have come to be.
It never should have been illegal in the first place.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by gordner

Obviously not everyone does agree it is misclassified, but certainly more and more do everyday. And if you look into the history you’ll find it landed on schedule one for all the wrong reasons. Mostly due to the cotton industries fear of replacement by hemp.
At the end of the day it’s all about money, it has little to nothing to do with the benefits or detriments to society. When you look at the various scheduled drugs and what falls in what level it becomes very hard for any thinking person to defend the schedule one classification. Heroin is schedule 2! Think about how that might have come to be.
It never should have been illegal in the first place.

I am pretty sure we documented the classification history different in the other MJ thread and that is just some stoner propaganda.

Why would heroin not be schedule 2? Of course, it is also level 1.

[fintstone]

While it is intuitive that all government action is somewhat political, I have seen no evidence that Schedule has anything to do with politics or competing industries. If you have such evidence, please present it.

The problem is largely because you have created your own definition for Schedule 1 and because you compare it with other drugs (which is not part of assigning a category). That said, we can address both.

Per the DEA:

The schedule is assigned depending upon the drug’s acceptable medical use and the drug’s abuse or dependency potential. "The abuse rate is a determinate factor in the scheduling of the drug; for example, Schedule I drugs are considered the most dangerous class of drugs with a high potential for abuse and potentially severe psychological and/or physical dependence."

There is little "acceptable medical use" as compared to Sched 2 drugs like methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin...much less Schedule 3-5. And, clearly the abuse or dependency potential of Marijuana is very high. IMHO, it is used/abused more than any other scheduled drug.

There is a lot of fact regarding the harmful effects of heavy marijuana usage. We have reviewed many of those in this and other threads in PARF. It seems to me that other drugs really do not have any bearing on recreational marijuana as far as I know. Let them be considered for their own merits/danger.

There seems to plenty of factual basis for it to be illegal (once again, throughout this thread and others). For example, most anything that reduces a person's IQ by 8 points would be considered pretty detrimental. Folks would be clamoring to put anyone in jail that sold a substance that did the same (if they had not already smoked it and lost the 8 points).

[john70t]

Originally Posted by fintstone

There is little "acceptable medical use" as compared to Sched 2 drugs like methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin...much less Schedule 3-5. And, clearly the abuse or dependency potential of Marijuana is very high. IMHO, it is used/abused more than any other scheduled drug.

Patients of various ailments would disagree.
They choose that drug over others because it works. Occams Razor.

Would not a dying man's need for comfort outweigh all other technical considerations?

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by john70t

Patients of various ailments would disagree.
They choose that drug over others because it works. Occams Razor.

Would not a dying man's need for comfort outweigh all other technical considerations?

I personally have no problem with legitimate medical use...but I also understand why it is level one (and believe most "medical" use is a farcical means to legally use an illegal drug).

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by dewolf

Even Ricky thinks my play on your name 'Heel N Turd' is funny.

Deflection. Awesome.

[gordner]

Why eight iq points now when you’ve said five for so long? And why not be accurate and state that fact only holds true in those that abuse mj at an early age (lower than proposed legal consumption ages). I don’t see any body supporting abuse in underaged users, so that “fact” is one of little relevance.
As to medical, like almost any subject you could find a plethora of studies to support or deny its medical uses. What I know is that cancer patients find relief from its use, and don’t just use that as an excuse for abuse. I have seen its effect on ms patients first hand and it is astounding.
Bs the scheduling is not political, it is lawmaking, all lawmaking is political by definition. You have not disproved any “origin” story as bunk to my satisfaction surely, and I have read much on the subject that supports the political and financial drives behind the ban.
You are one of the few here that does not see the relevance of alcohol legislation as it relates to mj. You are very ignorant of many of the facts surrounding MJ and a myriad of the other subjects you purport to have knowledge of in this board and display an extreme degree of arrogance in your posts.
It’s an argument you will lose as it will inevitably be federally legalized in good time.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by gordner

Why eight iq points now when you’ve said five for so long? ...

It depends on the study and the sample. The NZ study says 8 (8 points is from average to dumber than dirt):
https://today.duke.edu/2012/08/potiq

"About 5 percent of the study group were considered marijuana-dependent, or were using more than once a week before age 18. A dependent user is one who keeps using despite significant health, social or family problems.

At age 38, all of the study participants were given a battery of psychological tests to assess memory, processing speed, reasoning and visual processing. The people who used pot persistently as teens scored significantly worse on most of the tests. Friends and relatives routinely interviewed as part of the study were more likely to report that the persistent cannabis users had attention and memory problems such as losing focus and forgetting to do tasks.

The decline in IQ among persistent cannabis users could not be explained by alcohol or other drug use or by having less education, Moffitt said.

While 8 IQ points may not sound like a lot on a scale where 100 is the mean, a loss from an IQ of 100 to 92 represents a drop from being in the 50th percentile to being in the 29th, Meier said. Higher IQ correlates with higher education and income, better health and a longer life, she said. "Somebody who loses 8 IQ points as an adolescent may be disadvantaged compared to their same-age peers for years to come," Meier said."

Originally Posted by gordner

... And why not be accurate and state that fact only holds true in those that abuse mj at an early age (lower than proposed legal consumption ages)...

That is exactly what I posted.

Originally Posted by gordner

... I don’t see any body supporting abuse in underaged users, so that “fact” is one of little relevance...

But throughout this thread it has been volunteered that it is easier buy than bubblegum. You made a big point that you could buy it on Craigslist anywhere in the nation because you knew the secret code words. sounds like it is accessible to kids now...and legalization will only increase availability...just as it has in CO.

Originally Posted by gordner

...As to medical, like almost any subject you could find a plethora of studies to support or deny its medical uses. What I know is that cancer patients find relief from its use, and don’t just use that as an excuse for abuse. I have seen its effect on ms patients first hand and it is astounding...

No one said it had no possible medical use...however, if you can find a current study that says it is harmless...please post it. Remember, the schedule is assigned depending upon the drug’s acceptable medical use and the drug’s abuse or dependency potential.

Originally Posted by gordner

...You are one of the few here that does not see the relevance of alcohol legislation as it relates to mj. You are very ignorant of many of the facts surrounding MJ and a myriad of the other subjects you purport to have knowledge of in this board and display an extreme degree of arrogance in your posts.
It’s an argument you will lose as it will inevitably be federally legalized in good time.

What exactly does alcohol have to do with marijuana? If you "see" relevance, why can't you tell us what it is? I am waiting. Are you claiming that using both together is healthy/safer? LOL.

[fintstone]

Legalizing MJ is just another way to separate the poor and their money...just like cigarettes, cheap beer and lottery tickets:
https://nypost.com/2016/08/20/legalized-pot-is-making-americas-lower-class-poorer-and-less-responsible/

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by fintstone

Legalizing MJ is just another way to separate the poor and their money...just like cigarettes, cheap beer and lottery tickets:
https://nypost.com/2016/08/20/legalized-pot-is-making-americas-lower-class-poorer-and-less-responsible/

The best way is the lottery. Selling that dream of mega payouts. The lottery is just a tax on math challenged idiots. I am sure more than a few have spent all their welfare money on lottery tickets, beer or booze, cigarettes, and junk food.

I remember my days of living paycheck to paycheck. I ate a lot of rice and potato soup that I made at home. I was spending less that 25 cents per day on food. No dating, no cable TV. I saved enough in two years to put a down payment on a house. My social life sucked, but it was better than living in a crappy apartment.

I have wasted a lot of money on beer in my life, but it was all money I had earned at a job.

[jwasbury]

Originally Posted by fintstone

What exactly does alcohol have to do with marijuana?

Uh...Are they not both psychoactive drugs?

Long-term/heavy usage of either can have negative side effects, including death (in the case of alcohol) and ruining you and/or your family's life. Both have some potential benefits. One is grouped along with Heroin, Coke, Meth, Crank, Crack, etc. The other sponsors the Superbowl.

I can't fathom how one can be so rigidly opposed to legalization of MJ, yet so willing to declare a cease fire in the war on drugs vis-à-vis alcohol. You must agree that prohibition should be reinstated. We need to make booze illegal to protect the children and poor, right?

In an earlier post you expressed concern about massive amounts of money being spent effectively "advertising" pot. Meanwhile you are unconcerned about BILLIONS of dollars being legally spent marketing booze because:

"I am pretty sure they are advertising legal product to an audience of legal age...but at least they are not touting it as medicinal and harmless."

Surely no-one of less than legal drinking age sees TV commercials of how great life is when you're partying with Bud Light, or Johnny Black. True that its not touted as medicinal, but there is nothing in the marketing of booze that warns of its highly addictive properties and ability to destroy lives and families. With cigarettes we're at least getting some honesty...nothing like the honesty you get in Europe where there are absolutely disgusting photos of diseased lungs on every pack of smokes.

[Mark Henry]

To me booze and gambling is way more distructive than MJ. Same with opiods legal or not.

I know many who use or have used MJ recreationally and are very successful both in biz and their relationships. A large percentage do not drink or gamble.
I personally know the CEO of a very successful company that partakes in his down time.
I also have a HS buddy who was a stoner, quit when he became a cop. Now retired he has many many problems from injuries playing and coaching FB and has taken to MJ for pain. His POV is it's better than using percocet.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by jwasbury

Uh...Are they not both psychoactive drugs?...

So the legality of one has nothing to do with the legality of the other.

Originally Posted by jwasbury

...I can't fathom how one can be so rigidly opposed to legalization of MJ, yet so willing to declare a cease fire in the war on drugs vis-à-vis alcohol. You must agree that prohibition should be reinstated. We need to make booze illegal to protect the children and poor, right? ...

i have not made any argument to make alcohol legal. Are you making the argument to make it illegal. Making rape legal because murder is worse does not seem like a wise idea. If alcoholism as bad as you claim and MJ is simply not quite so bad...why would you want to add another? One intoxicant is not enough?

Originally Posted by jwasbury

...In an earlier post you expressed concern about massive amounts of money being spent effectively "advertising" pot. Meanwhile you are unconcerned about BILLIONS of dollars being legally spent marketing booze because:

"I am pretty sure they are advertising legal product to an audience of legal age...but at least they are not touting it as medicinal and harmless."...

One is legal and the other is not. It seems that massive advertising to commit a crime is a bit worse than doing so for a legal substance. Most of the MJ propaghanda misrepresents the dangers and safety of the substance. I do not see anyone doing so with cigarettes or alcohol.

Originally Posted by jwasbury

...Surely no-one of less than legal drinking age sees TV commercials of how great life is when you're partying with Bud Light, or Johnny Black. True that its not touted as medicinal, but there is nothing in the marketing of booze that warns of its highly addictive properties and ability to destroy lives and families. With cigarettes we're at least getting some honesty...nothing like the honesty you get in Europe where there are absolutely disgusting photos of diseased lungs on every pack of smokes.

I see a big difference between companies not actively advertising well know dangers of their product and ones who constantly produce/distribute false information misrepresenting the danger of theirs. Don't you?

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by Mark Henry

To me booze and gambling is way more distructive than MJ. Same with opiods legal or not...

So is your point that booze, gambling and legal pain killers should all be made illegal because you deem them worse than MJ...or are you making the case that anything you deem less bad than something legal should also be made legal (regardless of the dangers or new problems created)?

[Norm K]

Originally Posted by fintstone

So is your point that booze, gambling and legal pain killers should all be made illegal because you deem them worse than MJ...or are you making the case that anything you deem less bad than something legal should also be made legal (regardless of the dangers or new problems created)?

I think it more likely that he's making a point that's lost on no one here (well, almost no one).

_

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by Norm K

I think it more likely that he's making a point that's lost on no one here (well, almost no one).

_

What would that be?

[Khal]

Originally Posted by fintstone

Because most folks who use it are mislead about the effects from a vey young age...and now, massive amounts of money are being sent to blanket the media, internet, etc. with advocacy (essentially commercials for the drug) so they can profit on the young, poor, and stupid. Most folks have enough trouble navigating life sober. More recreational drugs are the last thing this country needs.

There aren't any poor people buying weed at $400 a ounce. This is the same stupidity that believes people will buy weed candy at skyhigh prices and then give it away at Halloween.

[Khal]

Originally Posted by fintstone

No one is trying to legalize alcohol.

You might also want to point out nobody is trying to legalize murder with chainsaws.
Also nobody is trying to rename the planet from Earth to rock #2.

[fintstone]

Originally Posted by Khal

There aren't any poor people buying weed at $400 a ounce. This is the same stupidity that believes people will buy weed candy at skyhigh prices and then give it away at Halloween.

Apparently they do buy it. I can't believe you are claiming that only the wealthy and successful smoke pot. LOL.

Did you choose not to read the article I posted citing the RAND study:

"But legalization and our growing cultural acceptance of marijuana have disproportionately affected one group in particular: the lower class.

A recent study by Steven Davenport of RAND and Jonathan Caulkins of Carnegie Mellon notes that “despite the popular stereotype of marijuana users as well-off and well-educated . . . they lag behind national averages” on both income and schooling.

For instance, people who have a household income of less than $20,000 a year comprise 19 percent of the population but make up 28 percent of marijuana users."