|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:It's a bit confusing because MJ is "prescribed" medically in a number of states. Not quite. Doctors cannot prescribe marijuana, they can only recommend its use. Prescribing it would mean you could go to a pharmacy and they'd have to give you some weed.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2012 18:25 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 20:08 |
|
eviltastic posted:Apologies for snipping just a section out of a useful post, but I gotta take issue with this. It really sounds to me like you're missing potential downsides of compiling this information because the data are so useful in aggregate. It's too easy to imagine situations where the individual is prejudiced by the availability of this information to some authority figure in question, be it a boss, the police, or whoever. For example, I'd bet that the list of daily smokers becomes a prime go-to for who to check out or raid for other drug charges, whether or not its use for that purpose is officially acceptable. It's a good point and I admit to my bias. My reasoning is based on finally putting to sleep the whole argument that dope is worse in some way than alcohol or cigarettes. If I can get a reasonable sample of consistent users I can look at health outcomes more clearly but you're exactly right that the likelihood of misuse of identifying data probably outweighs the public health benefits. I'll just recruit some of the new crop of users and do the study that way! Another aspect of tracking use though is making it palatable to the people who oppose it. Like I posted a long while back in this thread, I spent election night with my county commissioner and a city council member talking about the real life implementation of 64. The city council member was working on the intoxication issue with the police and the commissioner was interested in the zoning issues. The zoning question is what I discussed with the urban planner from the post above. At the moment the consensus of the commissioners and the urban planning folks is that a dispensary is probably not a LULU right now BECAUSE of the requirement that users have a medical reason for use (however silly) and obey the laws about where and when they smoke - limited selling is politically palatable. There's also a requirement that you can only open a single dispensary I believe. Again, limitations are palatable and dispensaries have proliferated about as far as they can at present (due to zoning). Part of the "regulate it like alcohol" approach suggests that dispensaries are poised to become VERY popular and VERY profitable but also become LULUs depending on how the law is implemented. "Not in my neighborhood" is a very strong political argument. Hickenloopers' special dope task force is going to have to recommend something realistic that is politically acceptable to everyone and zoning is probably where they're going with it. That's on the supply side, the demand side needs a political solution as well and it might not be limited to >18 with valid ID (even though it's stated that way in the law). If they take the existing system and remove the physician they can still tell any opponents that users can be tracked for abuse using the cards. Like I said, I agree that this will be abused but I think that it will probably happen that way. I would LOVE to be proved wrong in that because it's just a weed but if they DO regulate it then I want the data to PROVE that it's just a weed. The thing is that none of this nit picking matters because; quote:(b) POSSESSING, GROWING, PROCESSING, OR TRANSPORTING NO MORE THAN SIX MARIJUANA PLANTS, WITH THREE OR FEWER BEING MATURE, FLOWERING PLANTS, AND POSSESSION OF THE MARIJUANA PRODUCED BY THE PLANTS ON THE PREMISES WHERE THE PLANTS WERE GROWN, PROVIDED THAT THE GROWING TAKES PLACE IN AN ENCLOSED, LOCKED SPACE, IS NOT CONDUCTED OPENLY OR PUBLICLY, AND IS NOT MADE AVAILABLE FOR SALE. As to your less speculative example; do you also present to the court the count of wine bottles in the recycling bin?
|
# ? Dec 12, 2012 18:33 |
|
SilentD posted:I wonder how long that fix will last though. Opiate based drugs aren't all that hard to make on your own. Well we are already seeing a switch to heroine since the price of a single Oxy pill is about a hundred bucks now versus 20 bucks for a hit of junk. It's going to be interesting to see how the landscape changes and what the effects are going to be. Mind you, the places where this is the most damaging are, predictably, the poorest backwardest most miserable places in the state so until something is done about that there's always going to be a substance problem, it's just a question of which substance. I honestly expect to see gas huffing take off like it did in the aborigine communities down in Australia by the time all is said and done. RichieWolk posted:Not quite. Doctors cannot prescribe marijuana, they can only recommend its use. Prescribing it would mean you could go to a pharmacy and they'd have to give you some weed. Pharmacists don't have to give you poo poo no matter what prescription you have.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2012 19:01 |
|
Rhandhali posted:Pharmacists don't have to give you poo poo no matter what prescription you have. In Washington they do.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2012 19:16 |
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:That's still a net positive because residential meth labs are serious problems for communities. You can manufacture opiate based drugs really easily if you have poppies. Which aren't hard to grow or obtain. I'm not sure of the legality of it other than it's ambiguous and caused problems. They don't want you making opium... on the other hand arresting little old ladies who don't know any better and grow them to make baked goods and flower arrangements leads to people thinking you've gone insane.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2012 19:22 |
|
That only refers to "moral or relgious" objections to filling a prescription. There's a difference between refusing to provide birth control because Ratzinger said that it makes baby jesus cry or whatever and not giving drugs to the guy who's shown up with three different oxycodone scripts this week.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2012 19:23 |
|
SilentD posted:You can manufacture opiate based drugs really easily if you have poppies. Which aren't hard to grow or obtain. A guy I knew way back when was doing his anthropology masters project on opium manufacture by doing it himself using the methods of the 1860's. He was going to extended his work by smoking his own opium and then breaking his new habit. The title was going to be something like "Opium Cultivation, Processing, Use and Addiction". When I knew him he had completed harvesting some amount of poppies and had other fields planted around the state. I don't know if he actually got enough product to get addicted but he was one friggin motivated guy so I know he tried!
|
# ? Dec 12, 2012 19:55 |
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:That's still a net positive because residential meth labs are serious problems for communities. That's just outsourcing the serious problem to another country. Not a net positive but a gross local only positive.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2012 20:44 |
|
ChlamydiaJones posted:A guy I knew way back when was doing his anthropology masters project on opium manufacture by doing it himself using the methods of the 1860's. He was going to extended his work by smoking his own opium and then breaking his new habit. The title was going to be something like "Opium Cultivation, Processing, Use and Addiction". When I knew him he had completed harvesting some amount of poppies and had other fields planted around the state. I don't know if he actually got enough product to get addicted but he was one friggin motivated guy so I know he tried! Yeah I've got a friend who decided growing poppies was a grand idea (same with mushrooms and pot), but he's pretty "out there". It's really easy to make opium, and from there morphine or whatever else you want. It just that it takes a lot of poppies to get a little morphine. In order to get any sort of volume it you'd have to grow so many of the plants someone would come pay you a visit and you'd better have a drat good excuse, like running a bagel factory or something.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2012 20:57 |
|
Rhandhali posted:A whole lot fewer here in Kentucky, ground zero of the oxycontin epidemic. Prescription opiate abuses kill just about as many people as cars do. That's a statewide statistic, county by county it can get even worse. They finally stopped with the "voluntary reporting" bullshit and now require that every prescriber and pharmacist register with KASPER, a statewide database. Every patient has a record of who writes what scripts and who filled them and when. This is a terrible and obnoxious law that treats you and your doctor like a criminal whether you're getting large amounts of schedule II oxycontin or a couple of pills of a schedule IV benzo every 6 months for occasional panic attacks. I fully expect it to be rolled back soon when state legislators start getting the third degree about their ambien prescriptions.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2012 21:01 |
|
hobbesmaster posted:This is a terrible and obnoxious law that treats you and your doctor like a criminal whether you're getting large amounts of schedule II oxycontin or a couple of pills of a schedule IV benzo every 6 months for occasional panic attacks. I fully expect it to be rolled back soon when state legislators start getting the third degree about their ambien prescriptions. I wouldn't call a 15 second records check obnoxious. This does literally nothing other than codify good prescribing practice into law and holding physicians and pharmacists to account for irresponsible prescribing behavior. And no, the legislators aren't going to reverse because they get harassed about their zolpidem. The law only applies to schedule II and schedule III drugs that have hydrocodone. Expect to see more laws like this in other states in the future.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2012 21:48 |
|
SilentD posted:It's really easy to make opium, and from there morphine or whatever else you want. It just that it takes a lot of poppies to get a little morphine. In order to get any sort of volume it you'd have to grow so many of the plants someone would come pay you a visit and you'd better have a drat good excuse, like running a bagel factory or something. There's the rub, and the reason it's only done in countries (or parts of countries) that are not subject to some sort of law enforcement. Even growing for personal use would require a field that would be a dead giveaway to any sort of overflight, or some sort of warehouse and enough power use to set off the alarm bells at your power company. Forget about doing any sort of surreptitious illicit commercial cultivation in most developed countries. So yeah, most likely all the opiate junkies who were formerly getting a regular, reasonably priced, properly manufactured supply of their drug are going to pay a ton more to get the same or turn to hard(er) to obtain, grossly overpriced, cut to poo poo heroin, and they're going to start sharing needles and whatnot because good luck setting up harm reduction operations in the states we're talking about. Good times all around!
|
# ? Dec 12, 2012 21:55 |
|
Rhandhali posted:I wouldn't call a 15 second records check obnoxious. This does literally nothing other than codify good prescribing practice into law and holding physicians and pharmacists to account for irresponsible prescribing behavior. HB1's reporting requirements applies to all prescriptions for all scheduled medicines schedules II through IV from fentanyl to ambien. Direct administration of everything but schedule II/schedule III w/hydrocodone does not have to be reported, but prescriptions certainly have to be.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2012 22:28 |
|
hobbesmaster posted:HB1's reporting requirements applies to all prescriptions for all scheduled medicines schedules II through IV from fentanyl to ambien. Direct administration of everything but schedule II/schedule III w/hydrocodone does not have to be reported, but prescriptions certainly have to be. I couldn't find any reference to schedule IV, zolpidem or any other schedule iv drugs in the KBML brief or in the text of the bill itself. It appears to be an administrative regulation that was enacted under already existing powers granted to the board of medical licensure; HB1 just gave them a mandate to establish new standards. Which they did. Oh well. About the only objectionable thing they've done is the requirement for a drug screening of chronic patients which is literally pissing money away. The only real advantage I can see is to make sure that they test positive for hydrocodone to make sure that they're not diverting their supply.
|
# ? Dec 12, 2012 23:36 |
|
Rhandhali posted:I couldn't find any reference to schedule IV, zolpidem or any other schedule iv drugs in the KBML brief or in the text of the bill itself. Looks like all the annoying stuff is in the regulations: http://www.kbml.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/E94A6AE2-1BA6-4394-BF65-D866F732D497/0/201KAR9_260E.pdf
|
# ? Dec 12, 2012 23:41 |
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:There's the rub, and the reason it's only done in countries (or parts of countries) that are not subject to some sort of law enforcement. Even growing for personal use would require a field that would be a dead giveaway to any sort of overflight, or some sort of warehouse and enough power use to set off the alarm bells at your power company. Forget about doing any sort of surreptitious illicit commercial cultivation in most developed countries. Go check the poppy tea thread in TCC, it's full of people talking about how easy it is to get controlled poppies here in the USA (to the point that you can often buy them in craft supply stores because no one actually knows what a drug poppy looks like)
|
# ? Dec 13, 2012 01:08 |
|
EBT posted:Go check the poppy tea thread in TCC, it's full of people talking about how easy it is to get controlled poppies here in the USA (to the point that you can often buy them in craft supply stores because no one actually knows what a drug poppy looks like) They are fairly easy to get, but that's not the issue. Sure, poppy tea and even opium are piss easy to produce in your own kitchen. Morphine on the other hand, still doable in your own home, but the sheer amount of poppies you'd need to make any reasonable volume of it is the problem. I'm pretty sure they're easy to get because the status on them has gone back and forth. They're widely used in decorative arrangements and opium poppies are the same ones you get poppy seeds and poppy oil from for baked goods from. Nobody wants to haul grandma off to prison for having a flower garden and baking a pastry for the grandchildren, the backlash would be insane.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2012 01:35 |
|
SilentD posted:They are fairly easy to get, but that's not the issue. Sure, poppy tea and even opium are piss easy to produce in your own kitchen. Morphine on the other hand, still doable in your own home, but the sheer amount of poppies you'd need to make any reasonable volume of it is the problem.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2012 01:49 |
|
EBT posted:Go check the poppy tea thread in TCC, it's full of people talking about how easy it is to get controlled poppies here in the USA (to the point that you can often buy them in craft supply stores because no one actually knows what a drug poppy looks like) You mean the thread full of people complaining about moldy poppies because the one or two people who were willing to skirt that grey area of the law have retired and/or moved on? It doesn't happen inany sort of widespread scale in the US, almost all of the illicit opiates used in the US are imported from Afghanistan (with a small share from SE Asia), or diverted pharmaceuticals.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2012 02:25 |
|
That's only true for the east coast and other isolated pockets. West of the Mississippi the heroin comes from Mexico/further south.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2012 04:26 |
|
Rhandhali posted:This does literally nothing other than codify good prescribing practice into law and holding physicians and pharmacists to account for irresponsible prescribing behavior. Irresponsible prescribing behaviour is what exactly? In a manner that is inconsistent with the 'opinion' of highly trained government bureaucrats, like errr... the DEA? God help the doctor who doesn't subject his patients to the requisite level of surveillance or the pharmacist that doesn't dob in the doc who doesn't: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/bush-should-feel-doctors-pain Edit: Just out of curiosity, do you think it is 'irresponsible' for a shopkeeper to sell an individual [say] 5 cases of wine and half a dozen bottles of scotch whisky? KingEup fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Dec 13, 2012 |
# ? Dec 13, 2012 07:20 |
|
Personally I think the limit has more to do with preventing trafficking out of the legalized states than anything.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2012 17:57 |
KingEup posted:Edit: Just out of curiosity, do you think it is 'irresponsible' for a shopkeeper to sell an individual [say] 5 cases of wine and half a dozen bottles of scotch whisky? I would say yes (although replace cases of wine with cases of cheap vodka or something), but I lived in a place where there were a ton of dry communities and supporting smugglers taking advantage of people seems shady to me.
|
|
# ? Dec 13, 2012 19:17 |
|
KingEup posted:Irresponsible prescribing behaviour is what exactly? Defined by the law and regulations, which you should probably read? Mostly it's about doctors enabling people who are addicted to these painkillers instead of say trying to find a way to treat the dependency.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2012 19:30 |
|
Delta-Wye posted:I would say yes (although replace cases of wine with cases of cheap vodka or something), but I lived in a place where there were a ton of dry communities and supporting smugglers taking advantage of people seems shady to me. So yes, but only because your opinion is based on something stupid? Basically it is irresponsible because prohibition makes it irresponsible.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2012 19:40 |
|
Install Gentoo posted:Defined by the law and regulations, which you should probably read? Mostly it's about doctors enabling people who are addicted to these painkillers instead of say trying to find a way to treat the dependency. Which is why they drafted regulations requiring regular medically unnecessary (and therefore not covered by insurance) urine screenings for recurring prescriptions for schedule IV substances such as ambien as well. Its not in the law, but it is in the regulations linked early.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2012 19:46 |
Warchicken posted:So yes, but only because your opinion is based on something stupid? Basically it is irresponsible because prohibition makes it irresponsible. I would posit that bootleggers and smugglers moving alcohol in alaska are more like international arms dealers than anything. They're profiting off of destruction and misery; the fact it is booze and not AKs is sort of unimportant.
|
|
# ? Dec 13, 2012 19:48 |
|
30 Q&As about Amendment 64 and what happens next: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22184944/colorado-pot-legalization-30-questions-and-answers quote:The passage and governor's proclamation of Amendment 64 on Monday, which makes Colorado one of the first two states to legalize limited possession and sales of marijuana, has prompted a flood of questions about what happens now.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2012 19:48 |
|
KingEup posted:Irresponsible prescribing behaviour is what exactly? In a manner that is inconsistent with the 'opinion' of highly trained government bureaucrats, like errr... the DEA? Probably but that is an incredibly lovely analogy. The shopkeeper's only responsibility is to sling booze only to people who are legally allowed to have it. Someone can walk in with yellow eyes and the shopkeeper's only obligation is to check their ID. And you seriously posted a link from the loving Cato institute? They're complaining about the injustice done William Hurwitz, who was convicted in a jury trial twice even after the first conviction was overturned. His own state medical board pulled his license when he killed two of his patients who overdosed. He gave prescriptions to patients in 39 states, many of whom he never even saw, examined or took a history from. He willingly took patients who are textbook drug seekers. He slung dope to people who claimed that "the only things that work are percosets", who had left other doctors because they weren't getting their opiates and who refused non opiate treatments. He was willfully blind to the fact that his patients were diverting his prescriptions which is what made him guilty. Besides, the DEA doesn't have anything to do with the KASPER initiative except for defining what drugs are on the schedule. The regulations are put in place by the state medical board, which is overwhelmingly staffed by doctors with a couple of laymen. I'll agree that the urine screens are overboard, even if they have a solid rationale behind them. Otherwise there is nothing in the regulations that is not consistent with good medical practice or that doesn't ensure good oversight that physicians themselves should be exercising. It protects physicians who can demonstrate solid evidence of good faith prescribing in the form of the KASPER report that is now part of a patient's medical record.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2012 19:57 |
|
Delta-Wye posted:I would say yes (although replace cases of wine with cases of cheap vodka or something), but I lived in a place where there were a ton of dry communities and supporting smugglers taking advantage of people seems shady to me. Without arms dealers, warring parties would likely be limited to improvised weapons, reducing the amount of harm done in a conflict. Without drug smugglers (or prescription pill pushers, since that's who the analogy is about), addicts tend to turn to whatever else they can find, whether that means moonshine instead of smuggled booze or cut to poo poo heroin instead of high quality pharmaceuticals. You don't have to look at everything so ideologically, sometimes a pragmatic approach is useful.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2012 22:28 |
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Without arms dealers, warring parties would likely be limited to improvised weapons, reducing the amount of harm done in a conflict. Without drug smugglers (or prescription pill pushers, since that's who the analogy is about), addicts tend to turn to whatever else they can find, whether that means moonshine instead of smuggled booze or cut to poo poo heroin instead of high quality pharmaceuticals. Yes, I'm sure cut-to-poo poo heroin is readily available in small rural communities in bumfuck AK. The idea of prohibition doesn't offend me when it's done at such a local level (individual communities can decide how they wish to go on this particular issue) and importing booze illegally is straight up taking advantage of the situation and the people involved. Can I not simultaneously think that people importing and distributing crack to the inner city are profitting off of spreading misery and are therefore evil, while also thinking that cocaine should be legalized?
|
|
# ? Dec 13, 2012 22:50 |
|
Rhandhali posted:Probably but that is an incredibly lovely analogy. The shopkeeper's only responsibility is to sling booze only to people who are legally allowed to have it. Someone can walk in with yellow eyes and the shopkeeper's only obligation is to check their ID. Just to clarify this first point, there are places with other responsibilities for the shopkeeper in addition to checking the age of the purchaser. For example, in Texas it is illegal for a shopkeeper to sell booze to people who are intoxicated. Which does sort of seem to enter the area of the seller making subjective judgements. The consequences of this include the seller of a drunk driver's last drink being criminally liable if that driver plows into another car and kills someone.
|
# ? Dec 13, 2012 22:54 |
Delta-Wye posted:Yes, I'm sure cut-to-poo poo heroin is readily available in small rural communities in bumfuck AK. OK so replace it with meth, which is incredibly common in rural everywhere. If prohibition is producing lovely results the scale is irrelevant. But this started off about alcohol, and how poor people are apparently exploited if they try to buy it. So I guess you're OK with things like the Australian law that determined aboriginals shouldn't be allowed to drink? Bootleggers are the bad guys there too? 312 fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
# ? Dec 14, 2012 00:56 |
|
Delta-Wye posted:Yes, I'm sure cut-to-poo poo heroin is readily available in small rural communities in bumfuck AK. So tyranny of the majority is ok as long as it is a localized majority?
|
# ? Dec 14, 2012 01:02 |
312 posted:OK so replace it with meth, which is incredibly common in rural everywhere. If prohibition is producing lovely results the scale is irrelevant. It's producing a lovely result, but is it producing more lovely results than problems it's relieving? http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Alaska-puts-damper-on-alcohol-smuggling-3298276.php Anyways, the bootleggers are bad guys there, undoubtably. This is not the same as "the Autralian law that determined aboriginals shouldn't be allowed to drink", as it is local communities defining their own rules. I don't see the situations as very similar because in one case it is a paternalistic government creating racist rules, in the other it is a small community determining their own community standards. People exploiting other people's situation for profit are still dirty bastards regardless of how "right" or "wrong" prohibition is though. Warchicken posted:So tyranny of the majority is ok as long as it is a localized majority? Delta-Wye fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
# ? Dec 14, 2012 01:11 |
|
Delta-Wye posted:How dare those people try and work to improve their communities. Keep in mind a lot of these places are ~100 people all fairly interrelated. The situation is pretty complex, and while a dry village may not be the best solution, are you going to tell them they have to sell alcohol? Why can't they have their own self-determination on this matter? If they decide fairly that their community should be dry, wouldn't people undermining their self-determination be in the wrong? No one is suggesting that businesses in dry counties HAVE to sell alcohol, only that it's wrong to say that businesses CAN'T. As a comparison, there's very few (if any) counties that totally ban cigarette sales. Even Massachusetts and San Francisco only ban cigarette sales in pharmacies. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Dec 14, 2012 |
# ? Dec 14, 2012 01:13 |
Paul MaudDib posted:No one is suggesting that businesses dry counties HAVE to sell alcohol, only that it's wrong to say that businesses CAN'T. What the gently caress does this even mean?
|
|
# ? Dec 14, 2012 01:15 |
|
Delta-Wye posted:What the gently caress does this even mean? Do I really have to explain this? Let's put it in terms of consuming alcohol instead of selling it. Making it legal to consume alcohol does not make it mandatory to consume alcohol. A man from the government isn't going to come around every day and force you to drink a Bud while he watches. Similarly, if no business owner in a county wants to sell alcohol, that's fine. It's a free country, no one is going to walk into Joe's Supermarket and order him to start carrying alcohol or get sued. But then you cross into affirmative territory, where you are telling a business owner who wants to sell alcohol that he can't. And that's a far cry from, as you said, "tell[ing] them they have to sell alcohol", which is not what blue laws are designed to prevent. Blue laws are about a majority of people telling the minority what they can and can't do with their own bodies, which is a common thread running through most of social conservatism.
|
# ? Dec 14, 2012 01:20 |
|
Delta-Wye posted:What the gently caress does this even mean? Your reasoning is literally the same argument that's used to try to pressure abortion clinics out of entire states. Why should the self-determination of the majority view be allowed to undermine or even prohibit the self-determination of the minority?
|
# ? Dec 14, 2012 01:24 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 20:08 |
Paul MaudDib posted:Do I really have to explain this? Paul MaudDib posted:a common thread running through most of social conservatism. A common thread running through most of libertarianism is dogmatically applying a political theory without consideration of the consequences. These small communities have personally weighed the pros and cons and decided the prohibition was preferable to having a wet community. I would posit that your overbearing paternalistic mindset towards this issue is more similar to the Australian law (the details of which I am ignorant of, sadly) in mindset than their decision to enact prohibition.
|
|
# ? Dec 14, 2012 01:42 |