I'll just leave this here....

[AFK]

Yeah, I was always under the impression that the entire POINT of democracy was so that people could have the ability to use their votes to enact/repeal/change things about the system that they didn't like.

Of course.  That doesn't mean the voters don't make shitty decisions.  I'm all for democracy.  But you know, the voters are still monkeys that make hair-brained monkey decisions.  Certainly you wouldn't argue otherwise. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think beer should be illegal, because it's a really unscientific method of alcohol delivery and the alcohol content can vary so widely.

It used to be illegal, and I think voters really short-circuited science when they voted to end prohibition.

Listen, RWHN, I agree with you on one point, and that is that medical marijuana laws are a way voters are circumventing the Federal ban on marijuana, and most of them are doing it because they think pot should be legal for general consumption.

The difference between you and I is that I think they're within their rights to do so.

When did doctor's start approving alcohol as a form of medical treatment?  I missed that memo. 

Not exactly relevant to my post, but during Prohibition you could buy alcohol from the pharmacy with a prescription.

[BabylonHoruv]

I think it would be interesting to talk sometime about the strange simultaneous legality and illegality of medical marijuana in many places. That is some /weird shit/ right there. How do the states handle it? I mean, this isn't a case of where the federal government have legislated a change and the states are one by one falling in line (e.g. desegregation of schools). This is where the states are foreseeing an eventual federal change and one by one falling out of step with the federal illegalization. Do they just say to users and sellers, "It's okay with us, but watch the fuck out because we can't be held responsible if the feds get you"?

From what I understand, the Federal Government has no interest whatsoever in wasting Federal resources to go after users of medical marijuana.  It would be cost prohibitive for them to do so.  But, you are seeing in California where they are warning dispensaries that they are technically in violation of Federal Law and will be subject to enforcement of those laws.  I don't know how much teeth is behind that warning and I guess time will tell.  But they won't be going after the Grandma with glaucoma.  

No, they'll just be making sure she has to turn to the black market to get some relief. Even if she has terminal and horribly painful cancer.

Every other medicine that people are prescribed goes through a rigorous scientific process to be approved for usage.  Why shouldn't medical marijuana be subject to the same scientific rigor that Zoloft went through?  Why does it get a pass?  I'm talking philosophically, obviously it is made so by the voters. 

Because federal legislation makes doing the prerequisite medical trials legally impossible.

Not really.  I mean, there is Marinol.  Look, the reality is that smoked marijuana is a very crude delivery system for the chemicals that actually have any medical benefit.  And it requires inhaling hot tar laden smoke.  I'd rather see us develop and approve a more efficient delivery system with less negative health impacts on the patient.  

Actually you've been pretty clear that you'd rather keep it illegal, which means not developing anything.  After all, if we're looking at better delivery systems that might send the wrong message to kids.

That's kind of a nutty assumption.  I mean, have you seen me go on any screeds to have prescription opiates taken off the market?  C'mon!  I have no issues at all with developing a medicine that incorporates the medically beneficial chemicals in medical marijuana.  Every other prescription drug went through a scientifically rigorous development process and I see no reason why medical marijuana can't go through the same process.  But I think the voters fucked up by short circuiting science. 

It's much harder to rally for support for "lets allow pharmaceutical companies to test marijuana for medical possibilities"  for one thing, that isn't going to win over the pro-legalization people, while medical marijuana, in the form it has taken in many states, will.

[AFK]

I think beer should be illegal, because it's a really unscientific method of alcohol delivery and the alcohol content can vary so widely.

It used to be illegal, and I think voters really short-circuited science when they voted to end prohibition.

Listen, RWHN, I agree with you on one point, and that is that medical marijuana laws are a way voters are circumventing the Federal ban on marijuana, and most of them are doing it because they think pot should be legal for general consumption.

The difference between you and I is that I think they're within their rights to do so.

When did doctor's start approving alcohol as a form of medical treatment?  I missed that memo. 

Not exactly relevant to my post, but during Prohibition you could buy alcohol from the pharmacy with a prescription.

So your post isn't exactly relevant to the present tense.  Glad we sorted that out. 

[AFK]

It's much harder to rally for support for "lets allow pharmaceutical companies to test marijuana for medical possibilities"  for one thing, that isn't going to win over the pro-legalization people, while medical marijuana, in the form it has taken in many states, will.

That's very true.  The Medical Marijuana folks are definitely very good at marketing.  I won't argue that at all. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think beer should be illegal, because it's a really unscientific method of alcohol delivery and the alcohol content can vary so widely.

It used to be illegal, and I think voters really short-circuited science when they voted to end prohibition.

Listen, RWHN, I agree with you on one point, and that is that medical marijuana laws are a way voters are circumventing the Federal ban on marijuana, and most of them are doing it because they think pot should be legal for general consumption.

The difference between you and I is that I think they're within their rights to do so.

When did doctor's start approving alcohol as a form of medical treatment?  I missed that memo. 

Not exactly relevant to my post, but during Prohibition you could buy alcohol from the pharmacy with a prescription.

So your post isn't exactly relevant to the present tense.  Glad we sorted that out. 

Just using that whole "history" thing against you

or

[East Coast Hustle]

Sorry, Nigel, since the history of corruption and incompetence by the DEA is, apparently, not valid then I wouldn't expect any other history to be accepted as valid either.

[AFK]

Context, how does it work? 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Sorry, Nigel, since the history of corruption and incompetence by the DEA is, apparently, not valid then I wouldn't expect any other history to be accepted as valid either.

You just can't compare things that happened in the past to things that are happening in the present. It's apples and oranges!

[East Coast Hustle]

the cynic in me says shit like "Oh, so we have the DEA go in and just collect a shit-ton of drugs from people and nobody thinks there's anything fishy about that?"

Of course, the cynic in me has all kinds of firsthand experience with the integrity of individual DEA agents, if not with the organization as a whole.

but, of course, first-hand accounts of things are worthless without studies and links. I'm probably just making them up, unlike, say, RWHN's degree.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

the cynic in me says shit like "Oh, so we have the DEA go in and just collect a shit-ton of drugs from people and nobody thinks there's anything fishy about that?"

Of course, the cynic in me has all kinds of firsthand experience with the integrity of individual DEA agents, if not with the organization as a whole.

but, of course, first-hand accounts of things are worthless without studies and links. I'm probably just making them up, unlike, say, RWHN's degree.

Shhhh. Our government is doing what's best for us, we shouldn't question it.

[AFK]

Well, for starters, the actual collection of drugs is coordinated by local police agencies and coalitions.  The DEA handles the disposal.  In Maine, the drugs go to Massachusetts where they are incinerated.

Per DEP regulations, Maine doesn't have any facilities in-state where the incineration can happen.  Though, currently Maine is doing an experiment where they are going to compost some medications in a few barrels and study how they break down.  I'm skeptical that they will break down in a manner that will be acceptable for environmentally safe disposal in Maine, but if it works, it would save a shit ton of money.  It costs something on the order of $2000 just to dispose of 350lbs of meds.  When you are collecting 14,000 statewide, that becomes a hefty price tag.  

Of course the ideal would be the pharmaceutical companies stepping up to the plate and chipping in to help fund the disposal.  

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Yes.

Technically, ECH was wrong because the DEA doesn't themselves collect the drugs from people, they just coordinate the collection and then they take the drugs and... dispose of them.

[East Coast Hustle]

And, of course, RWHN has witnessed this supposed incineration for himself. And it doesn't matter if he hasn't because the DEA is infallible, just like all federal agencies, and we should stop with this insolent questioning of our betters.

[Triple Zero]

In Maine we have Drug Courts, we have diversion programs, we have an educational program called SIRP that kids might be eligible for.  The judges here will look for anyway to keep a kid out of jail.  Obviously, if they commit a violent crime, or there is another associated crime those chances go way down.  But if it is simple possession, unless they tell the judge to fuck off, they won't be going to jail.

So, that thread I bumped in Apple Talk.  That was from a time I facilitated these little discussion groups with some high school kids down in Southern Maine.  I came in with some questions and asked them to share their thoughts and experiences.  The day we talked about marijuana I had a girl flat out tell me that she smokes marijuana and her mom can't do anything about it because she smokes marijuana too.  And if mom says anything, she'd be a flat out hypocrite.

Did you explain her it's really not a fair comparison, because if her mom got caught she'd be in really big trouble and would go to jail, while the girl would just get a diversion?

That is the message that system is sending currently. The exact opposite of the stated goal. It's completely messed up.

Kids aren't stupid. How in the hell are you going to convince them not to smoke pot at a young age if there's literally less consequences for doing so than there is in adulthood?

Over here we got a sort of wishy-washy-sorta legal status for adults and a we-fine-you-to-bankruptcy-and-take-away-your-license status for letting a kid so much as lean over the doorstep of a coffee shop, plus all sorts of local ordinances of not letting them set up shop near schools etc, plus a bit of honest education material treating kids like adults written from the viewpoint of "we know we can't stop you from doing what you want, but know this" about dangers of (psychological) addiction and effect on brain development of pot and some other drugs. And on top of that there's a bunch of special programs for problematic areas/demographics, but I'm not really familiar with those.

Now this seems to me very sensible, but I was actually a bit surprised when I looked up the hard data:


(like that graph? made it myself! you can use it in a powerpoint if you want, data comes from here, figured as I was translating, might as well plot it too)

It's the green line "used in the past month" that's really important. I wouldn't expect kids to get brain damage from just trying it once (they shouldn't do that of course, but it's not the end of the world either--except for them when their parents find out).