Drug legalization thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Drug legalization thread

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

quote:

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.

Wait, what? Dry counties are more similar to something other than prohibition? You're going to have to expound on that a little more, because dry counties are literally prohibition. That's what defines a "dry county" - banning alcohol.

Apart from that, perhaps you missed the whole American experiment with prohibition (banning alcohol, if you will). It didn't result in a net decrease in alcohol consumption, but boy howdy was it a massive funding source for organized crime and man a lot of people sure did gently caress up their bodies consuming unsafe substances ("bathtub gin"). Of course, this damage is actually a desired outcome for many social conservatives, which is why they oppose things like clean-needle swaps in the modern equivalent to prohibition, which has overcrowded our prisons and turned Mexico into a wild-west madhouse.

I'm also seriously amused at being called a libertarian. I guess anyone who doesn't support prohibition and traditional marriage is a libertarian around here nowadays? And somehow the guy arguing against the majority being able to dictate how a minority lives their lives is the "overbearing paternalistic" one? :lol:

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Dec 14, 2012

# ? Dec 14, 2012 01:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 13:28

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

Paul MaudDib posted:

Wait, what? Dry counties are more similar to something other than prohibition? You're going to have to expound on that a little more, because dry counties are literally prohibition. That's what defines a "dry county" - banning alcohol.

Apart from that, perhaps you missed the whole American experiment with prohibition (banning alcohol, if you will). It didn't result in a net decrease in alcohol consumption, but boy howdy was it a massive funding source for organized crime and man a lot of people sure did gently caress up their bodies consuming unsafe substances ("bathtub gin"). Of course, this damage is actually a desired outcome for many social conservatives, which is why they oppose things like clean-needle swaps in the modern equivalent to prohibition, which has overcrowded our prisons and turned Mexico into a wild-west madhouse.

I'm also seriously amused at being called a libertarian. I guess anyone who doesn't support prohibition and traditional marriage is a libertarian around here nowadays? And somehow the guy arguing against the majority being able to dictate how a minority lives their lives is the "overbearing paternalistic" one?

I don't know if you noticed, but I have been shying away from the term "dry county" because I'm not talking about counties. I'm talking about a collection of villages that are very small and very remote, mostly in the unorganized borough. It's an area the size of France and Germany combined with ~90k people living within it's bounds. The largest city there is 6k people, and the larger communities aren't really the issue at hand.

Who are you to tell the 500 residents of Pilot Station or the 200 residents of Atqasuk that they can't have self-determination?
http://juneauempire.com/stories/042003/sta_dryvillage.shtml
Or do they have to continue to deal with this in perpetuity to satisfy you?

quote:

Pilot Station, a village of 550 people, had been dry since 1985. Last summer, a group of residents asked for another referendum, and in October voters overwhelmingly favored going damp.

That new freedom came with a cost, said Abe Kelly, the Pilot Station postmaster and City Council member. Some parents were drinking up the family's food budget, he said, and teenagers went to community functions drunk. The village public safety officer quit because so many people were calling for help. Two tribal village police officers were fired for drinking on the job.

The number of sexual assault cases rose from "maybe one or less a month to sometimes three in a week," said Alaska State Trooper Brian Miller. Fights and beatings increased as well, as people from surrounding dry villages came to Pilot Station for booze.

# ? Dec 14, 2012 02:22

empty whippet box: Jun 9, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

So the individual living in those small places who wants to, can't because a bunch of assholes were alcoholics that should've gotten treatment for their disease?

# ? Dec 14, 2012 02:24

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

Warchicken posted:

So the individual living in those small places who wants to, can't because a bunch of assholes were alcoholics that should've gotten treatment for their disease?

Yes! Precisely! Welcome to the real world where idealism has to be put aside in the interest of pragmatism from time to time.

Is it ideal that these people got hosed over? No, I agree that it is lovely to strip personal liberty in the interest of community benefit. Is it pragmatically a good idea? I would, and have been trying to, argue yes. These communities decided that preventing responsible use of alcohol is pragmatically less important than destroying their communities.

EDIT: This is a bit of a derail, the original comment I made is that people who take advantage of alcoholics to provide them alcohol at really (3000x markup!) high prices are bad people. I think people who sell caseloads of booze to such a smuggler are being morally irresponsible in doing so as they are complacent in the original issue, which is taking advantage of people. Price gouging, while good business, is rarely moral in my opinion; this is regardless of whether the possibility for price gouging comes from supply shortage, natural disaster, or prohibition.

Delta-Wye fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Dec 14, 2012

# ? Dec 14, 2012 02:29

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

Delta-Wye posted:

EDIT: This is a bit of a derail, the original comment I made is that people who take advantage of alcoholics to provide them alcohol at really (3000x markup!) high prices are bad people. I think people who sell caseloads of booze to such a smuggler are being morally irresponsible in doing so as they are complacent in the original issue, which is taking advantage of people.

Right, but that's the entire problem with prohibition. It doesn't make the underlying problem of alcoholism go away, it merely forces people to deal with criminals and expose themselves to additional health risks (bathtub gin) and financial strain caused by their disease.

I really have no idea how you can claim I'm the paternalistic one since your entire argument literally is "the majority of Pilot Station thinks that they know better than the minority and should be able to ban alcohol to protect them". That is the core of any paternal argument and the exact thing that inspired prohibition in the first place.

I hate to say "when you outlaw responsible use of alcohol people will only use it irresponsibly" but that's basically what prohibition has boiled down to every time it's been tried. Evidence supports the treatment of such problems as medical rather than legal issues, such as Portugal decriminalizing not just marijuana but all drugs including hard ones. It resulted in a massive drop in usage rates across the board, as well as an increase in the number of people in treatment. The legal approach to these issues has been definitely shown to be the wrong one, no matter how appealing it may be to think you can stamp it out.

# ? Dec 14, 2012 02:41

Knifefan: Nov 5, 2008; JEALOUS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEX

Rhandhali posted:

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.

This isn't true everywhere, and I am not even sure it is true anywhere. Pharmacists have the right to call the provider and inform them of the situation, but they are not allowed to selectively fill prescriptions. Boards of Pharmacy recognize that Pharmacists do not have the training to execute clinical judgement in the vast majority of cases and require deference to the actual provider. The moral or religious objections that you cite as exceptions are just that, narrow exceptions to the professional rules of conduct about filling valid prescriptions. Violation of these rules isn't against the law, and a first violation wouldn't likely result in even a sanction, but a trend of refusals could result in disciplinary action.

# ? Dec 14, 2012 02:49

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

This is your ideal:

Paul MaudDib posted:

I hate to say "when you outlaw responsible use of alcohol people will only use it irresponsibly" but that's basically what prohibition has boiled down to every time it's been tried. Evidence supports the treatment of such problems as medical rather than legal issues, such as Portugal decriminalizing not just marijuana but all drugs including hard ones. It resulted in a massive drop in usage rates across the board, as well as an increase in the number of people in treatment. The legal approach to these issues has been definitely shown to be the wrong one, no matter how appealing it may be to think you can stamp it out.

This is how it turns out:

quote:

The number of sexual assault cases rose from "maybe one or less a month to sometimes three in a week," said Alaska State Trooper Brian Miller. Fights and beatings increased as well, as people from surrounding dry villages came to Pilot Station for booze.

Are you claiming that sexual assaults (three in a week in a community of five hundred!) is pragmatically better than no access to booze?

I'm literally posting a story about a couple communities going from dry->wet, as you're suggesting, and things got really bad really fast. This isn't a hypothetical, this isn't a "well, I think Portugal is different because...", I'm telling you that you are literally choosing sexual assault as a lesser evil over prohibition. Is that your actual position?

The thread is about the legalization of marijuana. An argument that federal level legalization is a net good is possible, and I think it could even be very compelling. The argument that turning Pilot Station into a wet community is a net good is... quite difficult, considering.

EDIT:

quote:

I really have no idea how you can claim I'm the paternalistic one since your entire argument literally is "the majority of Pilot Station thinks that they know better than the minority and should be able to ban alcohol to protect them".

I really have no idea how you can claim I'm the paternalistic one since your argument literally is "I think that I know better than the majority of the elders in Pilot Station and they should be forced to allow alcohol in their village".

Delta-Wye fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Dec 14, 2012

# ? Dec 14, 2012 02:52

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

"My ideal" is people getting raped? You need to calm down there, buddy, and stop putting words in my mouth. I'm also not going to deny that alcohol has a high social cost in comparison to marijuana. Nevertheless, we can see what happens when prohibition is practiced on a large scale.

quote:

Prohibition had an impact on the crime rate of America. According to a study taken in 30 US cities, there was a 24 percent increase in crime rate between 1920 and 1921. The rate of arrests on account of drunkenness rose 41 percent, and arrests for drunken driving increased 81 percent. Thefts rose 9 percent, and assault and battery incidents rose 13 percent. Before Prohibition, there had only been 4000 federal convicts, and less than 3000 were housed in federal prisons. By 1932, the number of federal convicts had increased 561 percent and the federal prison population increased by 361 percent. Over 2/3 of all prisoners in 1930 were convicted on alcohol and drug charges.

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00492/Crime_Rate.htm

Similarly, we see the exact same thing in Mexico, which prohibition has turned into a literal warzone. People get murdered constantly, and half the time it's police doing it because prohibition has made the drug trade so profitable that cartels can literally buy police. The exact same thing happened during the 20s, the only modern equivalents to Al Capone are drug cartels, and that's no coincidence.

# ? Dec 14, 2012 02:59

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

Delta-Wye posted:

EDIT:
I really have no idea how you can claim I'm the paternalistic one since your argument literally is "I think that I know better than the majority of the elders in Pilot Station and they should be forced to allow alcohol in their village".

It's because your argument is a paternal one. You think that the elders in Pilot Station know what's good for their citizens better than the citizens themselves and should be allowed to restrict their activities because of it. Arguments against prohibition are paternalistic only in the sense that any policy disagreement is paternalistic (i.e. my policy proposal would work better than your policy proposal). The policy of prohibition is itself paternalistic because it involves a majority controlling the actions of a minority, regardless of whether the individuals of the minority have acted wrongly or not. Banning sales of alcohol to drunk drivers or perpetrators of domestic violence? Whatever. But society-wide prohibition carries immense costs that don't directly surface in the crime statistics of Bumfuck Alaska.

Why are you forcing the elders of Pilot Station to allow sodomy in their village? Do you think you know better than them? They have identified numerous problems resulting from homosexual conduct such as the spread of disease. If you prevent them from enacting such measures you are paternalistically telling them that you know what's good for their citizens better than they do. How can they not have a right to say what goes on in their own community!?

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Dec 14, 2012

# ? Dec 14, 2012 03:07

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

Paul MaudDib posted:

Why are you forcing the elders of Pilot Station to allow sodomy in their village? Do you think you know better than them? They have identified numerous problems resulting from homosexual conduct such as the spread of disease. If you prevent them from enacting such measures you are paternalistically telling them that you know what's good for their citizens better than they do. How can they not have a right to say what goes on in their own community!?

While I appreciate your :a2m:

analogy, we're not talking about theoretical "legislated forced buttsex for all". You dance around the reality of the situation because the evidence clearly shows that in Pilot Station, being wet was socially expensive, more so than the costs of prohibition.

Do you think that Pilot Station should not be allowed to choose to be dry?

# ? Dec 14, 2012 03:16

Cromulent_Chill: Apr 6, 2009

Delta-Wye posted:

While I appreciate your analogy, we're not talking about theoretical "legislated forced buttsex for all". You dance around the reality of the situation because the evidence clearly shows that in Pilot Station, being wet was socially expensive, more so than the costs of prohibition.

Do you think that Pilot Station should not be allowed to choose to be dry?

Root causes are usually reasons people drink, not that alcohol is available. Social problems don't arise out of ease or accessability to self destruction but a compulsion to cause self destruction due to (usually) negative external factors. You have highlighted a community in need of serious social changes over and above alcoholism and the problems it causes.

# ? Dec 14, 2012 03:25

Rhandhali: Sep 7, 2003; This is Free Trader Beowulf, calling anyone...; Grimey Drawer

Knifefan posted:

This isn't true everywhere, and I am not even sure it is true anywhere. Pharmacists have the right to call the provider and inform them of the situation, but they are not allowed to selectively fill prescriptions. Boards of Pharmacy recognize that Pharmacists do not have the training to execute clinical judgement in the vast majority of cases and require deference to the actual provider. The moral or religious objections that you cite as exceptions are just that, narrow exceptions to the professional rules of conduct about filling valid prescriptions. Violation of these rules isn't against the law, and a first violation wouldn't likely result in even a sanction, but a trend of refusals could result in disciplinary action.

I was under the impression that pharmacists were allowed to refuse to dispense prescriptions based on professional judgement and weren't just pill counting robots. Good to know!

# ? Dec 14, 2012 03:26

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

Killin_Like_Bronson posted:

Root causes are usually reasons people drink, not that alcohol is available. Social problems don't arise out of ease or accessability to self destruction but a compulsion to cause self destruction due to (usually) negative external factors. You have highlighted a community in need of serious social changes over and above alcoholism and the problems it causes.

Hey, welcome to rural Alaska. Either have some sort of... trail... and force everyone to move to Anchorage (where there are jobs and things to do) or put up with the fact that living out there will push a man to drinkin'.

# ? Dec 14, 2012 03:27

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Knifefan posted:

This isn't true everywhere, and I am not even sure it is true anywhere. Pharmacists have the right to call the provider and inform them of the situation, but they are not allowed to selectively fill prescriptions. Boards of Pharmacy recognize that Pharmacists do not have the training to execute clinical judgement in the vast majority of cases and require deference to the actual provider. The moral or religious objections that you cite as exceptions are just that, narrow exceptions to the professional rules of conduct about filling valid prescriptions. Violation of these rules isn't against the law, and a first violation wouldn't likely result in even a sanction, but a trend of refusals could result in disciplinary action.

The real trouble comes when a pharmacy orders and stocks a given drug but then refuses to dispense. A pharmacy can give you quite the runaround on not filling a prescription if they don't order the drug until someone shows up to get it.

# ? Dec 14, 2012 03:28

Cromulent_Chill: Apr 6, 2009

Delta-Wye posted:

Hey, welcome to rural Alaska. Either have some sort of... trail... and force everyone to move to Anchorage (where there are jobs and things to do) or put up with the fact that living out there will push a man to drinkin'.

I'm from Canada. We have our own record of treating Aboriginals terribly and have issues in both dry and damp reserves, but the end of it (reasons for abuse) is their situation in life, not that booze is available.

e: clarity
e2: the biggest problem with dry reserves have been gas huffing by youth. Frankly I'd rather they drink booze.

Cromulent_Chill fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Dec 14, 2012

# ? Dec 14, 2012 03:40

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

Delta-Wye posted:

While I appreciate your analogy, we're not talking about theoretical "legislated forced buttsex for all". You dance around the reality of the situation because the evidence clearly shows that in Pilot Station, being wet was socially expensive, more so than the costs of prohibition.

Do you think that Pilot Station should not be allowed to choose to be dry?

We're not legislating "forced alcohol for all" for either. If that's what you think is going on, you're simply wrong.

You also don't understand what the term paternalistic means, despite literally using its original context. You know those elders you were referencing? That's literally where the term "paternalism" come from, the root means father. Listen to your elders, they know best. This is kind of ironic from someone who was being all pedantic earlier.

It's nice that you can come up with a cherrypicked village in Bumfuck Alaska, but remember: we tried your idea already, it got us Al Capone and wars over who got to make the money from illicit alcohol trafficking. We have the same thing now with drug cartels. Your ideas simply don't work on a large scale, and they were so bad that we passed a Constitutional amendment to get rid of them. You can't eradicate drug usage, only drive it underground and make the trade immensely profitable.

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Dec 14, 2012

# ? Dec 14, 2012 03:45

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

Paul MaudDib posted:

We're not legislating "forced alcohol for all" for either. If that's what you think is going on, you're simply wrong.

You also don't understand what the term paternalistic means, despite literally using its original context. You know those elders you were referencing? That's literally where the term "paternalism" come from, the root means father. Listen to your elders, they know best. This is kind of ironic from someone who was being all pedantic earlier.

It's nice that you can come up with a cherrypicked village in Bumfuck Alaska, but remember: we tried your idea already, it got us Al Capone and wars over who got to make the money from illicit alcohol trafficking. We have the same thing now with drug cartels. Your ideas simply don't work on a large scale, and they were so bad that we passed a Constitutional amendment to get rid of them. You can't eradicate drug usage, only drive it underground and make the trade immensely profitable.

What exactly is "my idea"? I think you're arguing against something that doesn't exist.

My original point basically is that Al Capone is a terrible person.

# ? Dec 14, 2012 03:52

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

Delta-Wye posted:

What exactly is "my idea"? I think you're arguing against something that doesn't exist.

My original point basically is that Al Capone is a terrible person.

Why don't you tell me? It's not my job to make your argument for you. So far the best you've done is that if you are against dry counties you are for literally forcing alcohol down the throat of every citizen.

You also dodge any responsibility for the consequences of a wet/dry intermix. Maybe the reason drunk driving went up is that people from all those towns don't actually agree with their elders and want to drink, but now have to drive a significant distance to reach an establishment that will serve them, whereas if they were wet towns they could walk or purchase packaged alcohol to drink in their own homes. Does this podunk town have any form of mass transit, or subsidized taxi services, or any of the other basic social services proven to reduce drunk driving? Does it have adequate access to psychiatric and social services to reduce the kinds of things that make people's lives suck normally and drive them to drink and harm each other? Or, let me guess, they're against harm reduction too?

Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Dec 14, 2012

# ? Dec 14, 2012 03:58

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

Paul MaudDib posted:

Why don't you tell me? It's not my job to make your argument for you.

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?

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.

There, that is the post that started this nonsense. Al Capone is a lovely person, and the Canadians who were selling him booze were also lovely people. I wish bush communities didn't have the issues they have, but they do. Smuggling booze in takes a lot of wealth out of the community and causes a lot of grief, exacerbating the original problem. Therefore, the bush pilots who fly in the booze are lovely people, and any liquor store employees that knowingly sell them liquor for this purpose are also being lovely.

If someone thinks prohibition is unjust and it doesn't matter how small the group making the decision is or how bad the consequences of rescinding prohibition are, fine. If someone thinks that the village/town shouldn't have the option to go dry, fine. I disagree, but whatever. If someone doesn't think Al Capone is a terrible person taking advantage of a lovely situation, then they are also a bad person with a terrible set of morals.

Paul MaudDib posted:

You also dodge any responsibility for the consequences of a wet/dry intermix. Maybe the reason drunk driving went up is that people from all those towns want to drink, but now have to drive a significant distance to reach an establishment that will serve them, whereas if they were dry towns they could walk or purchase packaged alcohol to drink in their own homes. Does this podunk town have any form of mass transit, or subsidized taxi services, or any of the other services proven to reduce drunk driving?

Where the gently caress are you going to drive? These DUIs are probably on ATVs.

No road, no jobs, no hope. Rural Alaska. Zoomed out a bit:

And before you go all :nyd:

that you aren't talking about bumfuck alaska, great awesome have at it; however, I am, and have since the beginning of this conversation. I've tried to be very specific and clear about this.

Delta-Wye fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Dec 14, 2012

# ? Dec 14, 2012 04:07

Spoondick: Jun 9, 2000

Knifefan posted:

This isn't true everywhere, and I am not even sure it is true anywhere. Pharmacists have the right to call the provider and inform them of the situation, but they are not allowed to selectively fill prescriptions. Boards of Pharmacy recognize that Pharmacists do not have the training to execute clinical judgement in the vast majority of cases and require deference to the actual provider. The moral or religious objections that you cite as exceptions are just that, narrow exceptions to the professional rules of conduct about filling valid prescriptions. Violation of these rules isn't against the law, and a first violation wouldn't likely result in even a sanction, but a trend of refusals could result in disciplinary action.

Per the California Board of Pharmacy Law Book:

quote:

733. Dispensing Prescription Drugs and Devices
(a)
No licentiate shall obstruct a patient in obtaining a prescription drug or device that has been legally prescribed or ordered for that patient. A violation of this section constitutes unprofessional conduct by the licentiate and shall subject the licentiate to disciplinary or administrative action by his or her licensing agency.
(b)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a licentiate shall dispense drugs and devices, as described in subdivision (a) of Section 4024, pursuant to a lawful order or prescription unless one of the following circumstances exists:
(1)
Based solely on the licentiate's professional training and judgment, dispensing pursuant to the order or the prescription is contrary to law, or the licentiate determines that the prescribed drug or device would cause a harmful drug interaction or would otherwise adversely affect the patient's medical condition.
(2)
The prescription drug or device is not in stock. If an order, other than an order described in Section 4019, or prescription cannot be dispensed because the drug or device is not in stock, the licentiate shall take one of the following actions:
(A)
Immediately notify the patient and arrange for the drug or device to be delivered to the site or directly to the patient in a timely manner.
(B)
Promptly transfer the prescription to another pharmacy known to stock the prescription drug or device that is near enough to the site from which the prescription or order is transferred, to ensure the patient has timely access to the drug or device.
(C)
Return the prescription to the patient and refer the patient. The licentiate shall make a reasonable effort to refer the patient to a pharmacy that stocks the prescription drug or device that is near enough to the referring site to ensure that the patient has timely access to the drug or device.
(3)
The licentiate refuses on ethical, moral, or religious grounds to dispense a drug or device pursuant to an order or prescription. A licentiate may decline to dispense a prescription drug or device on this basis only if the licentiate has previously notified his or her employer, in writing, of the drug or class of drugs to which he or she objects, and the licentiate's employer can, without creating undue hardship, provide a reasonable accommodation of the licentiate' s objection. The licentiate's employer shall establish protocols that ensure that the patient has timely access to the prescribed drug or device despite the licentiate's refusal to dispense the prescription or order. For purposes of this section, "reasonable accommodation" and "undue hardship" shall have the same meaning as applied to those terms pursuant to subdivision (l) of Section 12940 of the Government Code.

733. (b)(1) gives pretty broad authority for pharmacists in California to exercise discretion when dispensing medications. If a guy walks in with a script for #360 oxycodone 30mg for a 30 day supply on Tuesday from one doctor, then comes in on Friday with a script for #240 oxycodone 30mg for a 30 day supply from another doctor, the pharmacist can refuse to fill the second prescription using their professional judgement, unless there's a compelling verifiable reason, and even then it's not likely regulators would pursue sanctions.

Not only can pharmacists refuse to dispense sketchy prescriptions, in most cases they should to protect themselves from liability should a patient overdose and die or get arrested for diversion. Also, pharmacies are only allowed to purchase so much of any given controlled substance monthly. At some point the pharmacy either has to conserve stock and quota space by refusing to fill some prescriptions for certain medications, or plain run out and not fill any prescriptions for certain medications until the next month.

Spoondick fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Dec 14, 2012

# ? Dec 14, 2012 15:50

Necc0: Jun 30, 2005; by exmarx; Broken Cake

Obama says marijuana not 'top priority'

Looks like his response is about what we expected.

# ? Dec 14, 2012 15:56

showbiz_liz: Jun 2, 2008

Necc0 posted:

Obama says marijuana not 'top priority'

Looks like his response is about what we expected.

I did a major double-take at this: "More of Barbara Walters' exclusive first joint, post-election interview with President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama airs tonight"

More of Barbara Walters' exclusive first joint! Watch the distinguished journalist as she flies to Colorado and tries to discover what all the fuss is about! The results may surprise you...

# ? Dec 14, 2012 16:35

wilfredmerriweathr: Jul 11, 2005

Necc0 posted:

Obama says marijuana not 'top priority'

Looks like his response is about what we expected.

Yeah. "It does not make sense to pursue recreational users" probably means "we're gonna go after the [state-licensed] commercial grows as well as the retail locations because they are criminal organizations."

But Joe Sixpack (Joe half-eighth?) will be ok.

# ? Dec 14, 2012 16:58

DrPlump: Oct 5, 2004; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

There is a ton of implications of this law that are not even being considered here. This is going to drag pretty much every aspect of society into a state vs federal battle.

-What about a shop owner who refuses to sell to black people. Is the federal government ok with this because it should be illegal anyway?

-Will circuit courts refuse to hear appeals or civil cases about weed thereby making the state supreme courts the law of the land?

-How will banks that deal in drug money be treated? How many steps removed does it have to be for it to be considered legal income again?

-Can the power company accept drug money to provide power to know growing operations?

-What about using interstates to transport drugs? Are there going to be DEA agents at highway exits?

-What about the first time a shop owner guns down people trying to rob his shop. Does the NRA get involved and if so on which side of the issue?

-What about the first time a shop owner guns down people trying to rob his shop who just so happen to be undercover DEA agents who did not identify themselves?

-Washington not only boarders Canada but is also a coastal state. Are they allowed to export and import weed?

-Can Washington and Colorado trade weed between themselves?

Washington in particular is going to be interesting because between them and Canada they could fully subvert the DEA. If Canada starts to loosen their laws you could see people growing huge farms in Canada for import into the United States via Washington. If the federal government is going to refuse to work with Washington and Washington is going to be taxing every stage of production why should they care if more weed than could ever be smoked in their state passes through the boarders? They are getting huge tax revenue from it and it is just as illegal to the DEA either way. Are the feds going to set up a boarder fence? Are they going to install customs agents at the state lines?

DrPlump fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Dec 14, 2012

# ? Dec 14, 2012 18:12

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

Washington is not going to touch interstate/international commerce because that would clearly fall into the purview of Federal regulation. Raich makes even in-state possession illegal, but that's kind of an inconsistent holding. Interstate commerce clearly crosses the line.

You could certainly see increased security coming out of the state, though. I wouldn't be surprised to see Arizona-style permanent border checkpoints on the major highways out of the area.

# ? Dec 14, 2012 18:17

wilfredmerriweathr: Jul 11, 2005

Yep that is what I foresee happening at least in Washington and quite possibly in Colorado too.

There is no way that Washington will be importing any large quantities of weed across the US-Canada border because importing from another country implies going through customs at some point, and customs (as well as the border patrol) is a federal entity. I wouldn't be surprised at all if there are increasing reports of smugglers getting caught going into Canada, however.

They will undoubtedly step up the enforcement of interstate trafficking of marijuana; permanent border patrol checkpoints a la Arizona are almost guaranteed at this point, as well as roving DEA checkpoints just outside of both CO and WA.

# ? Dec 14, 2012 18:29

irreplicant: Nov 28, 2007; DIE

I think that will be a logistical nightmare at one WA border crossing - the I-5 bridge between Vancouver and Portland sees something like 150k vehicles a day. It's a six lane highway that is already considered a problem during most weekday mornings and evenings because many Vancouver residents commute into Portland daily. Portland's government is already very cannabis-tolerant, so I don't think the local police will be terribly interested in every commuter that's carrying a quarter ounce. They may get interested in trying to find traffickers carrying pounds for sale, though. I think the DEA might be hard-pressed to get permission from federal DoT to set up a checkpoint on such a busy commercial traffic route, but I'm not sure how that process works.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/traffic/vancouver/NorthPortland/default.aspx?cam=1001

Of course, traffic is wide open as I post this.

I expect the price of weed to drop significantly over the next few years in Portland.

# ? Dec 14, 2012 22:04

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

There's absolutely no way for anyone to set up state border checkpoints that'd actually work around WA.

# ? Dec 14, 2012 22:07

theblackw0lf: Apr 15, 2003; "...creating a vision of the sort of society you want to have in miniature"

Yglesias makes a good point

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/12/14/obama_on_marijuana_sparing_recreational_users_in_colorado_and_washington.html

quote:

...To offer what I think is a generous construal of the situation, the federal law enforcement apparatus unwisely includes an entire agency�the Drug Enforcement Administration�whose entire raison d'�tre is to prosecute the war on drugs. As a matter of institutional culture, getting the DEA to back off is like trying to get a dog to not run after squirrels. The DEA is under the president's authority, but to shift that culture you'd really have to throw your back in it and weather some fights in the press and on the Hill and the White House simply doesn't care to do anything other than let the drug war operate on autopilot.

Meanwhile, back to Colorado and Washington. The simple fact of the matter is that the DEA doesn't remotely have the resources to target, arrest, and prosecute recreational marijuana users. But Colorado and Washington didn't legalize recreational marijuana use. They set up a framework for legal marijuana cultivation, for marijuana processing, and for wholesale and retail sales of marijuana.

The DEA doesn't have the resources to target a guy for sharing a bowl with his friends, but they certainly do have the resources to target a large marijuana farm or a fixed-location marijuana retailer trying to establish a legal business. What's more, they have the resources to arrest and prosecute state officials who involve themselves in the licensing and permitting for legal marijuana businesses. Given resource constraints, these are in fact exactly the bigger fish that the DEA has to fry that would make it unreasonable for them to be worried too much about recreational use..

# ? Dec 14, 2012 22:11

hobbesmaster: Jan 28, 2008

theblackw0lf posted:

Yglesias makes a good point

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/12/14/obama_on_marijuana_sparing_recreational_users_in_colorado_and_washington.html

Should still be plenty of cocaine traffickers to go after though.

# ? Dec 14, 2012 22:19

KingEup: Nov 18, 2004; I am a REAL ADDICT
(to threadshitting)

Please ask me for my google inspired wisdom on shit I know nothing about. Actually, you don't even have to ask.

Rhandhali posted:

He was willfully blind to the fact that his patients were diverting his prescriptions which is what made him guilty.

Why should 'diversion' be a crime?

# ? Dec 14, 2012 22:54

Delta-Wye: Sep 29, 2005

It takes the "controlled" out of "controlled substance".

# ? Dec 14, 2012 23:02

KingEup: Nov 18, 2004; I am a REAL ADDICT
(to threadshitting)

Please ask me for my google inspired wisdom on shit I know nothing about. Actually, you don't even have to ask.

Delta-Wye posted:

It takes the "controlled" out of "controlled substance".

So does prohibition.

# ? Dec 14, 2012 23:06

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

KingEup posted:

Why should 'diversion' be a crime?

Wait, you disagree with the concept of prescription drugs now?

# ? Dec 14, 2012 23:08

KingEup: Nov 18, 2004; I am a REAL ADDICT
(to threadshitting)

Please ask me for my google inspired wisdom on shit I know nothing about. Actually, you don't even have to ask.

Install Gentoo posted:

Wait, you disagree with the concept of prescription drugs now?

No. I just don't think 'diversion' is criminal and I'd love to know why people think it should be.

There are, however, a number good arguments against prescriptions: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/07/25/medethics-2011-100240.long

KingEup fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Dec 14, 2012

# ? Dec 14, 2012 23:19

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

KingEup posted:

No. I just don't think 'diversion' is criminal.

There are, however a number good arguments against prescriptions: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/07/25/medethics-2011-100240.long

It's usually a form of fraud against an insurance company or sometimes the government. If you're getting prescription drugs covered, they're being covered for you and authorized persons on your policy. The coverage of discounted medicines is not authorized for people other than the ones on the policy so you're defrauding the benefits provider by diverting.

# ? Dec 14, 2012 23:22

Rhandhali: Sep 7, 2003; This is Free Trader Beowulf, calling anyone...; Grimey Drawer

KingEup posted:

No. I just don't think 'diversion' is criminal and I'd love to know why people think it should be.

There are, however, a number good arguments against prescriptions: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/07/25/medethics-2011-100240.long

None of those arguments make any drat sense. The whole article pushes the whole "informed consent" and "patient autonomy" angle without stopping for one second to consider how the "informed" part of "informed consent" is even possible when any idiot can just go outside and get whatever drug they want without someone there to provide them the information that their training would allow them. Have fun with all the new flipper babies when people go out and start buying isoretinoin for their acne.

On top of that if you think that pharmaceutical marketing is out of control now just wait until there's no gatekeeper for things like psychiatric meds or antibiotics. Antibiotic resistance is horrible enough as is and is almost squarely due to the fact that agricultural antibiotics are essentially unregulated. People are paranoid enough about germs that they have bleach wipes in every grocery storeI can already see some overprotective mother pumping little Timmy with gentamycin permanently deafening him and blasting his kidneys because he has a cold.

Arguing against the very existence of the prescription system is one of the most asinine libertard arguments I've ever heard of right up there with trying to abolish traffic lights or emission standards because "ARE FREEDOMS!"

# ? Dec 14, 2012 23:51