|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It would probably be far safer to just hand out a handful of opiate pills for even minor aches and pains. Much, much harder to cause serious damage with those. But hey, people might feel good along the way, and we can't have that happening. Opiates can have a lot of side effects. Many people aren't safe to drive or operate heavy machinery after taking them.
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:18 |
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Try a cold water extraction next time around. Not terribly helpful when they give you a limited number of pills anyway. You get X dose of real drugs + a bunch of tylenol. Pulling out the tylenol doesn't result in a sufficient dose of the other substance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Opiates can have a lot of side effects. Many people aren't safe to drive or operate heavy machinery after taking them. Of course opiates can have side effects, where in the world did anyone suggest otherwise? I was talking about comparative long-term physical harm and death, specifically because the difference in dosage between a therapeutic and dangerous dose is so much smaller than with opiates. If you take triple the prescribed dose of, say, morphine (assuming you're not mixing it with anything), the most likely result is you pass out for a while and end up with no lasting physical damage. With acetaminophen, you can easily end up with serious permanent liver damage or just plain dead. Addicts and people who need to operate heavy machinery aside, it seems far safer to use pharmaceutical opiates for even minor pains than acetaminophen. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Jan 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Many people aren't safe to drive or operate heavy machinery after taking them. Like over the counter antihistamines?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
redshirt posted:Oh, I don't care at all either. Marijuana should be 100% legal. I'm just pointing this out - it seems a rather obvious point. Most of the people I've met with medical marijuana cards are doing it more for recreation than any pain issues. Doesn't bother me one bit. On the other hand, a lot of people take alcohol for pain/stress/depression they would rather not pathologize, i.e. "non-medically", who would be a lot better off using marijuana as a mild analgesic/anxiolytic. Marijuana really is unique in having a basically infinite therapeutic index, so it isn't terribly important to distinguish between recreational and medicinal use. While it's true plenty (if not most) prescriptions for it are not for legitimate medical reasons, the legitimacy of what constitutes medical reasons for things that aren't easily diagnosed are also kind of bullshit in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Of course opiates can have side effects, where in the world did anyone suggest otherwise? I was talking about comparative long-term physical harm and death, specifically because the difference in dosage between a therapeutic and dangerous dose is so much smaller than with opiates. But you can take acetaminophen or ibuprofen or aspirin and not worry about being impaired while you can't with opiates. That's why we don't issue opiates all willy nilly, most people need to drive somewhere on a workday. So that makes opiates not safe to use for minor pain stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:But you can take acetaminophen or ibuprofen or aspirin and not worry about being impaired while you can't with opiates. That's why we don't issue opiates all willy nilly, most people need to drive somewhere on a workday. First of all, no, that isn't why we don't issue opiates all willy nilly. Second of all, we DO issue opiates all willy-nilly. How dangerous a drug is to take doesn't have much of anything to do with how it's scheduled. Amanitas Muscarina, the 'alice in wonderland' mushroom, is extremely dangerous and can kill you at relatively low doses. Comparitively, psilocybin mushrooms are extremely safe; guess which one is illegal, and which is not?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:But you can take acetaminophen or ibuprofen or aspirin and not worry about being impaired while you can't with opiates. That's why we don't issue opiates all willy nilly, most people need to drive somewhere on a workday. I'm curious to know where you got this information.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2013 23:48
|
|
Warchicken posted:Second of all, we DO issue opiates all willy-nilly. I was kinda shocked when I had routine wisdom tooth extraction and they gave me an RX for 30 10mg percocet with a refill for 30. I mean the guy almost gave me a wink and finger gun when he did slid the RX over. I mean I refilled it and spent two of the most happy glorious weeks of my life high and happy as gently caress, but still! At the end of the bottle I was very much taking into consideration what my next steps would be, then I just thought of my dad going through pill withdrawal and that banished the looming spectre. That poo poo is wild.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
KingEup posted:I'm curious to know where you got this information. Warchicken posted:First of all, no, that isn't why we don't issue opiates all willy nilly. Second of all, we DO issue opiates all willy-nilly. Maybe the stores in your alternate universes are different but I can't walk into a gas station and just grab a pack of hydrocodone off the shelf? Can do that with aspirin or acetaminophen though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Maybe the stores in your alternate universes are different but I can't walk into a gas station and just grab a pack of hydrocodone off the shelf? Can do that with aspirin or acetaminophen though. No, but you suggested the primary reason drugs (in this case opiates) are not given out willy nilly is because they pose a threat to road safety. This is nonsense. You can buy numerous types of over the counter products designed to relieve minor symptoms that cause drowsiness or impairment. Antihistamines for example. KingEup fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Jan 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Maybe the stores in your alternate universes are different but I can't walk into a gas station and just grab a pack of hydrocodone off the shelf? Can do that with aspirin or acetaminophen though. You just don't seem to realize exactly how many people have scrips for opiates and benzos, both of which will make driving a bad idea. Yes, MORE people use aspirin or whatever, but you are absolutely kidding yourself if you think they limit prescriptions for road safety or whatever such nonsense. Money is being made here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:You just don't seem to realize exactly how many people have scrips for opiates and benzos, both of which will make driving a bad idea. Yes, MORE people use aspirin or whatever, but you are absolutely kidding yourself if you think they limit prescriptions for road safety or whatever such nonsense. Money is being made here. Pretty sure there's way more people who use standard pain relievers, which are also available in almost every store, which is the whole point. There would be more risk to having them just available everywhere for everyone to buy and use.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
The whole road safety thing shits me to tears. I hear a version of this argument all the time: "We can't legalise weed etc because we already have enough problems with people driving under the influence of alcohol" It's like saying: "Riding bikes should be unlawful because we already have enough problems with car accidents and we don't want to add to the problem"
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
KingEup posted:The whole road safety thing shits me to tears. Well no, road safety is just one example of why you can't buy opioid based pain relievers everywhere like you can aspirin. If someone has a headache but needs to drive to work then some fuckin' ibuprofen is safer for them to have then some hydrocodone even though the hydrocodone will work better. If people want to do them to get high, that's a different thing that having them being sold for pain relief and stuff. I'm not advocating banning it for everything, just not putting it out there for pain relief. Like you don't see shots of everclear being sold for pain relief. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Jan 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
KingEup posted:The whole road safety thing shits me to tears. I'm trying to find it but does this match up with a specific logical fallacy?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:First of all, no, that isn't why we don't issue opiates all willy nilly. Second of all, we DO issue opiates all willy-nilly. Really off topic, but that mushroom really isn't that toxic. Nobody has died from it in recent times due to modern medicine. Death caps, on the other hand, are serious poo poo and less than one cap can kill you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:Anecdotal: Install Gentoo posted:Maybe the stores in your alternate universes are different but I can't walk into a gas station and just grab a pack of hydrocodone off the shelf? Can do that with aspirin or acetaminophen though. Move to NC or Ohio and you can buy codine syrups right from the pharmacist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 10:42
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:I'm trying to find it but does this match up with a specific logical fallacy? I don't know. It seems like it should.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
Where are people getting that hydrocodone seriously impairs driving? Unless you are getting high on them its a negligible worry. Just looked at my prescription: "Use care when using machines" ... Ok, will do! e: the problem with them is they are addictive as poo poo. They are very dangerous drugs for people with low self control. It might be better off to just have them OTC, but it's not obvious to me like it is for marijuana. 312 fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Jan 19, 2013 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
312 posted:the problem with them is they are addictive as poo poo. They are very dangerous drugs for people with low self control. Which means they are not dangerously addictive for most. quote:The majority of people in the general population will not exhibit behavioral dependence in response to chronic exposure to a substance with dependence potential. http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v10/n4/full/4001622a.html Quite a large percentage of people actually have adverse reactions to opioids: quote:Aversive and reinforcing opioid effects: a pharmacogenomic twin study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22713632 KingEup fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Jan 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Watch out for these guys folks. They manipulate, they lie and they speak in the name of science. They've made a career out of drug prohibition and they're not going to give-up without a fight. Legalization's Biggest Enemies Some of the people listed Michele Leonhart, Gil Kerlikowske work for the government. With the government's official stance on marijuana being harmful if they were to say they supported legalization they would be out of a job and replaced the very next day. David Frum strikes me as the worst offender of the whole bunch. He's a horribly bad political pundit with the worst OP-EDs and uses the "think of the children" argument; he's beating a dead horse. Smart Approaches to Marijuana doesn't look anything but a empty blog with nice pictures. Save our Society from Drugs looks an actual group although seems little neo-prohibitionist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:David Frum strikes me as the worst offender of the whole bunch. He's a horribly bad political pundit with the worst OP-EDs and uses the "think of the children" argument; he's beating a dead horse. Not to mention an incredible hypocrite 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Not to mention an incredible hypocrite Where are you getting this from?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Where are you getting this from? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/20/back-chat-with-david-frum.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/26/back-chat-with-david-frum.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/02/back-chat-with-david-frum.html Not sure if there are more, but yeah, you can ignore anything he says about prohibition. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Jan 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Where are you getting this from? http://bit.ly/WeEfbc (It's on the right-hand sidebar, with alt-text telling us it's a screenshot taken in December 2012. Ha.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
David Frum posted:(And if you're wondering: no, I'm not normally in the habit of pouring myself Hitchens sized slugs of whisky, but it seemed appropriate preparation for this particular encounter.) Back Chat With David Frum Has anyone called this guy out? Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Jan 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
I really, really don't understand the "well alcohol is bad enough, we don't need MORE drugs!" argument, especially coming from conservatives. Couldn't you easily use that (specious) argument against guns, too? "The guns we have are bad enough, we don't need MORE/DEADLIER weapons!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I really, really don't understand the "well alcohol is bad enough, we don't need MORE drugs!" argument, especially coming from conservatives. Couldn't you easily use that (specious) argument against guns, too? "The guns we have are bad enough, we don't need MORE/DEADLIER weapons!" David's taking the use marijuana out of the context or limiting the perspective. He's not looking at any of the actual benefits of recreational marijuana use - less stress, relaxing and fun!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
Looks like the ball just started rolling a little faster: Hawai'i House Speaker Files Marijuana Legalization Bill quote:HONOLULU, HI — Hawaii House Speaker Joseph Souki (D-8) Friday introduced a bill to legalize the possession of marijuana by adults and create a system of taxed and regulated legal marijuana commerce. The measure, House Bill 150, would allow people 21 and over to possess up to an ounce and grow an as yet unspecified number of plants in a secure location. The most interesting part, to me, is the poll in the second-to-last paragraph showing support for legalization at 57%; for some reason I didn't expect support to be so high in Hawai'i even though it's a pretty solidly blue state. Anybody know any reasons I'm missing that this might not have a chance of passing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:Looks like the ball just started rolling a little faster: Well the supporters of legalization tend to be younger and thus less likely to vote, especially on elections percieved as less consequential, like those involving the state legislature. This means that support from those who the state house and senate members actually care about may not be as overwhelming as the poll indicates. That doesn't mean it won't pass, but I wouldn't see it as a sure thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 08:59
|
|
|
its happening.gif http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/01/10/pa-senator-introduces-bill-to-legalize-marijuana/
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:Looks like the ball just started rolling a little faster: I'm just spitballing here, but it seems to me there is a difference in the manner of how this issue is presented within the state. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but both CO and WA were public initiatives that got on the ballot? The rest of the states listed are going through their respective State Houses trying to get the law passed that way. I see this manner far less a sure thing, as all it takes is some internal politics and a few deals and the issue can be tabled. I'd also guess many elected lawmakers are still a bit nervous in putting their name on legalization. A public initiative allows them to keep their hands clean. Then again, California had a chance to vote on a legalization initiative, and somehow voted no.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Pretty sure there's way more people who use standard pain relievers, which are also available in almost every store, which is the whole point. There would be more risk to having them just available everywhere for everyone to buy and use. I for one would stop well short of calling for outright legalization of most opioids, but two counterpoints: * the state I live in sells codeine over the counter, as a handful of states do. We don't have raving codeine addicts clustering around the drug store. * over the counter painkillers are terrible for you in ways that opioids are not; the APAP component of vicodin is in some ways a bigger health concern than the hydrocodone. Ceasing to throw people in jail over pot seems like a necessary first step, but I'd advocate decriminalization of possession of just about everything. I'm agnostic as to whether consenting adults should be able to go buy morphine or LSD at the corner store, but they definitely shouldn't be thrown in jail for buying them, either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
So do we reach a tipping point where the Fed has to bend the knee to the states or can they dig their feet in on this? I mean they can probably justify it in the short term by whinging about how it affects global drug trade or some other whatever thing.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:So do we reach a tipping point where the Fed has to bend the knee to the states or can they dig their feet in on this? Historically, the feds usually take action on this sort of issue when 20-30 states revise their policy to reflect "the new reality". It will be a few years before enough states have legalized marijuana to get to that point, but often states move in large clusters over short periods of time so it will not take much longer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
spengler posted:I for one would stop well short of calling for outright legalization of most opioids, but two counterpoints: Decriminalization is a no-brainer, but the importance of full drug legalization really can't be overstated; most of the arguments for marijuana legalization can be applied to the drug war as a whole, with the added bonus that the current drug culture is dangerous to addicts in many ways that it simply is not to marijuana users. Overdoses happen because people don't know the potency of their product, and things like vein calcification happen because injection drugs get cut with horribly dangerous things. Nobody is prevented or dissuaded from using meth or heroin because they're illegal, but they'll certainly die because they are, and as a society we suffer the consequences associated with the illegal drug trade.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 20:27
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:So do we reach a tipping point where the Fed has to bend the knee to the states or can they dig their feet in on this? Like I've said many times I'd be shocked if the feds did anything beyond bothering some of the bigger growers. The time for action on this issue was 10-15 years ago when CA and CO were first starting up medical mj, it's too late to turn back the clock now. I mean yes, the feds are still going to make some noise, but like what happened in chicago- they make noise then approve decriminalization unanimously.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
What is decriminalization, exactly? From what little I've read possession is still a crime, but usually reduced to a misdemeanor offense, i.e. still a crime, and possession of large amounts and growing it is still punished harshly. Why isn't 'decriminalization' a misnomer?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:18 |
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:What is decriminalization, exactly? From what little I've read possession is still a crime, but usually reduced to a misdemeanor offense, i.e. still a crime, and possession of large amounts and growing it is still punished harshly. Why isn't 'decriminalization' a misnomer? Possession violations are handled as civil rather than criminal violations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 01:26
|
|