|
tastethehappy posted:... until you add in how much they make from civil asset forfeiture. Last I saw one someone had crunched the numbers and were still coming out behind. That may have included a hypothetical tax on sales though. RichieWolk posted:-high potential for abuse Setting aside how you are willing to cite HHS when they agree with you, then dismiss them when they don't, you missed the entire point of what I posted. "Currently accepted medical use" is not the same as "is this being used medically/can it be used medically." Its a fairly stringent set of conditions that are kind of bullshit and self-fulfilling. As long as marijuana is schedule 1 it pretty much cannot be in "accepted medical use." I'm really not arguing that marijuana should be schedule 1, it pretty obviously shouldn't be for any number of reasons. Its just that freaking out over the government acting like a government and screaming conspiracy is pretty wildly inaccurate. Also I wrote morphine instead of heroin, that's my bad.
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Also I wrote morphine instead of heroin, that's my bad. Heroin still has medical uses. quote:Heroin assisted treatment, or diamorphine assisted treatment, refers to the prescribing of synthetic, injectable heroin to opiate addicts that do not benefit from or cannot tolerate treatment with one of the established drugs used in opiate replacement therapy like methadone or buprenorphine. For this group of patients, heroin assisted treatment has proven superior in improving their social and health situation, though more serious adverse events were found in the heroin group than the methadone group.[1] It has also been shown to save money, despite its high costs, as it significantly reduces costs incurred by trials, incarceration, health interventions and delinquency.[2]
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Heroin still has medical uses. Absolutely but it doesn't have currently accepted medical uses in the US (because it is schedule 1, which thus keeps it schedule 1). Basically until the DEA or HHS goes "maybe this other country's use of this should count" or "maybe we were wrong about X" something doesn't have legit medical use. It looks like Marijuana might be headed that way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Setting aside how you are willing to cite HHS when they agree with you, then dismiss them when they don't, you missed the entire point of what I posted. You're making poo poo up again.  quote:"Currently accepted medical use" is not the same as "is this being used medically/can it be used medically." Why the hell not? Why are doctors in parts of the US who advocate for medical marijuana being told that their opinions are irrelevant? quote:As long as marijuana is schedule 1 it pretty much cannot be in "accepted medical use." Again, this was the exact same situation with marinol. Why can't it happen to marijuana? quote:Its just that freaking out over the government acting like a government and screaming conspiracy is pretty wildly inaccurate. No, it's plain to everybody with half a brain that the government has lied about the risks of marijuana use for decades. Ask yourself why they would do that, see if you can find any possible motivations that would cause someone in power to lie about how dangerous something is. Red_Mage posted:Basically until the DEA or HHS goes "maybe this other country's use of this should count" or "maybe we were wrong about X" something doesn't have legit medical use. It looks like Marijuana might be headed that way. They have been presented with an abundance of credible and scientifically verifiable evidence that many drugs are not as bad as their classification suggests. They ignore it every time without giving a reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
tastethehappy posted:... until you add in how much they make from civil asset forfeiture. ...or lobbying from the private prison system. Or the desirability of maintaining a perpetual slave caste of nonviolent felons by gutting urban communities. EDIT TO ADD: quote:They have been presented with an abundance of credible and scientifically verifiable evidence that many drugs are not as bad as their classification suggests. They ignore it every time without giving a reason. Chitin fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Absolutely but it doesn't have currently accepted medical uses in the US (because it is schedule 1, which thus keeps it schedule 1). Basically until the DEA or HHS goes "maybe this other country's use of this should count" or "maybe we were wrong about X" something doesn't have legit medical use. It looks like Marijuana might be headed that way. Yes but what are their guidelines for saying "maybe we were wrong about X" if not some externally defined measure of accepted medical use (however the DEA chooses to interpret it)? Red_Mage posted:"Currently accepted medical use" is not the same as "is this being used medically/can it be used medically." Its a fairly stringent set of conditions that are kind of bullshit and self-fulfilling. As long as marijuana is schedule 1 it pretty much cannot be in "accepted medical use." It's self-fulfilling in practice, but legally the definition of accepted medical use is not based on what schedule the drug is. So yes, it is possible for the DEA/HHS to be wrong about whether there is an accepted medical use of marijuana, even heroin for that matter. Every time they change a drug's schedule or schedule a new drug they're admitting that previously they were wrong (if not about accepted medical uses, about something else). Red_Mage posted:I'm really not arguing that marijuana should be schedule 1, it pretty obviously shouldn't be for any number of reasons. Its just that freaking out over the government acting like a government and screaming conspiracy is pretty wildly inaccurate. Really, wildly innaccurate? After all, you're the one implying that the system is designed so the DEA can ignore the scheduling guidelines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
I'd just like to point out that even ethanol has an established medical use as a competitive inhibitor for ethylene glycol (antifreeze) poisoning.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:No, it's plain to everybody with half a brain that the government has lied about the risks of marijuana use for decades. Ask yourself why they would do that, see if you can find any possible motivations that would cause someone in power to lie about how dangerous something is. In your first post, you cited a HHS patent for why marijuana had "currently accepted medical use," then when I cite them (b way of the DEA) you blow them off as unreliable when they say that marijuana is extremely addictive. Please pick one. They could reschedule Marijuana, I've said as much repeatedly. It even looks like they are headed that way, what with them licensing out their patent on active agents, and popular support for medical marijuana well over 70% nationally. I can tell you why the government would provide shoddy data about the risks of marijuana use with a fairly simple explanation, they didn't want people using marijuana. If you want to ascribe them some other motivation (you said profit was involved), the burden's on you to prove it. The government doesn't need to operate on scientifically verifiable evidence of how bad drugs are, it needs to operate in accordance with the laws passed by representatives of the peopel. Its not proof of a shadowy conspiracy, its proof that the government & public at large doesn't always listen to scientists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 01:09
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:I'd just like to point out that even ethanol has an established medical use as a competitive inhibitor for ethylene glycol (antifreeze) poisoning. Hah, so it does. I forgot you treat methanol or ethylene glycol poisoning with ethanol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:I don't think that would really count as decrim, that would be like giving people licenses for speeding. It doesn't make much sense to train people for something illegal, even if it is a civil offense and not a criminal one. Hmmm. But if it were like, say, performing surgery: it is illegal for me to remove your spleen, unless I am licensed to do so. Honestly, I think this is what we de facto have now: if you are clever / wealthy / stable / (white) enough, you can do recreational drugs without getting caught. I think it is what most people are comfortable with, actually, and it is intended, if in an unspoken way.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:In your first post, you cited a HHS patent for why marijuana had "currently accepted medical use," then when I cite them (b way of the DEA) you blow them off as unreliable when they say that marijuana is extremely addictive. Please pick one. I cited that to highlight the hypocrisy of the government. Please try to keep up. quote:They could reschedule Marijuana, I've said as much repeatedly. It even looks like they are headed that way, what with them licensing out their patent on active agents, and popular support for medical marijuana well over 70% nationally. Yes, they could. But they don't. quote:I can tell you why the government would provide shoddy data about the risks of marijuana use with a fairly simple explanation, they didn't want people using marijuana. At this point, you're not even worth talking at. I can't tell if you're being willfully obtuse or if you're just really that simpleminded. quote:If you want to ascribe them some other motivation (you said profit was involved), the burden's on you to prove it. The government doesn't need to operate on scientifically verifiable evidence of how bad drugs are, it needs to operate in accordance with the laws passed by representatives of the peopel. Its not proof of a shadowy conspiracy, its proof that the government & public at large doesn't always listen to scientists. Really? Have you even been reading this thread? I'm not going to retype poo poo because you're lazy. Go gently caress yourself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:If you want to ascribe them some other motivation (you said profit was involved), the burden's on you to prove it. I thought I posted this in this thread, but maybe it was another: quote:for the period of October 1, 2000, through September 30, 2011, the DEA and other federal agencies processed over 150,644 seized assets valued at about $9.2 billion of which $5.5 billion (60 percent) originated from seizures processed by the DEA and $3.7 billion (40 percent) originated from seizures processed by other federal agencies.3 http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2012/a1240.pdf I also cited a Corrections Corporation of America Annual Report which forecast loss of earnings if drug laws were reformed and a number of other examples like reinvesting asset forfeiture revenue in the construction of new prisons. KingEup fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
All Of The Dicks posted:Hmmm. But if it were like, say, performing surgery: it is illegal for me to remove your spleen, unless I am licensed to do so. You're describing legalization, not decriminalizatoin. Decrim would be if it were illegal to remove spleens, with a civil penalty such as a fine and/or suspension of medical license.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
KingEup posted:II also cited a Corrections Corporation of America Annual Report which forecast loss of earnings if drug laws were reformed and a number of other examples like reinvesting asset forfeiture revenue in the construction of new prisons. Wow that is a hefty sum. The data I was relying on was the breakdown of how much it costs in prisons and courts to arrest, try, and incarcerate just marijuana users. At 9 billion a year, that more than wipes out the income for forfeiture, given that 9 billi is just marijuana. That said the revenue stream is a lot more visible than the expenditure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:I see the argument that you are trying to make, but the existence of medical uses for a Schedule I drug (regardless of who owns the patent), doesn't invalidate its scheduling. The U.S. Supposedly owns the patent so it can issue licenses for studies and so it can get around schedule I. The reason that cannabis has no "accepted medical use" (which is a different thing than no medical use) has been outlined by the DEA before. Its perverse and almost catch 22ish, but it isn't evidence of some grand moneymaking conspiracy (especially given how much marijuana prosecutions/sentences cost in taxpayer money). Um, actually, yes, it is a grand moneymaking scheme. THey seize absolutely gigantic amounts of assets and auction them off because they claim they were bought with drug money. They've taken entire hotels from people because a patron was selling drugs from their room one night. They'll take your house, they'll take your car, they'll take everything in your bank account. It IS a grand moneymaking scheme. The DEA also gets a per-plant reward for every pot plant - hemp, marijuana, whatever - they find and destroy. This can include random ditch weeds, plants they find in forests, blah blah. There are a LOT of ways to make money off of the war on drugs. The DEA is funded by these things, and lots of people make lots of money every year locking up kids who smoked a little pot. Oh, and another thing you're forgetting: the for-profit prison industry. Do you think they had nothing to do with all this? The war on drugs plus privatized prisons mean we have the highest incarceration rate in the world, and lots of people are getting really rich off of it. Again, and I do mean to really run this into the ground: yes, actually the war on drugs is one gigantic moneymaking scheme. And then there's politicians running on anti-drug platforms because it's easy to play on people's ignorance, politicians running on tough-on-crime and longer prison sentences, it just goes on and on, and it all starts with the war on drugs. Of course, minorities magically wind up being the most oppressed, but I think that actually might be just a happy bonus for the assholes in charge. empty whippet box fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Mar 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Wow that is a hefty sum. The data I was relying on was the breakdown of how much it costs in prisons and courts to arrest, try, and incarcerate just marijuana users. At 9 billion a year, that more than wipes out the income for forfeiture, given that 9 billi is just marijuana. That said the revenue stream is a lot more visible than the expenditure. You do realize that the amount of money spent on incarceration is exactly why the drug war continues, right? All that money creating jobs building prisons both public and private, hiring cops and dea agents, all of the associated services and industry that surrounds it from laundry and food service to the all-but-slave labor provided to corporations. It doesn't matter if the government makes money. Who the government gives that money to is what matters. The drug war is an enormous stimulus package that oh-so-unfortunately just happens to require that hundreds of thousands or millions of people be kidnapped and stuffed into cages for long periods of time. The vast amounts of money being spent is a feature not a bug, to coin a phrase.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 03:43
|
|
|
SurgicalOntologist posted:You're describing legalization, not decriminalizatoin. Decrim would be if it were illegal to remove spleens, with a civil penalty such as a fine and/or suspension of medical license. Well, I'm not really interested in the descriptor. I am merely stating that I believe it does make sense to have a system of recreational drug use licenses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 04:24
|
|
|
Sniffer dogs are being desensitised: quote:Legal pot means big changes for state’s drug-sniffing dogs http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Legal-pot-means-big-changes-for-states-drug-sniffing-dogs-199043431.html Tough job ahead, it's hard to forget that smell... Also: 
KingEup fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Mar 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 11:30
|
|
|
^^I am disappointed with the amount of puns in the youtube videos I can find associated with this, but I love the overall message^^ I hate to stall this thread with a practical question, but does anyone know why the Colorado support badge system is frozen? I've googled like crazy and I cannot find a mention of it. I keep getting a voicemail message telling me not to leave a message, but they haven't gotten back to me--is it just frozen until the beginning of each month? There are places in Denver that will hire with just a red card but I'd rather have a key/support badge so I can show that I'm not just some reefer addict who wants to work a grow-op. Inspector Hound fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Mar 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
peengers posted:He's got a PhD in public policy, meaning that he doesn't understand math. Have a guess who just won the cannabis consultancy contract in WA? http://healthland.time.com/2013/03/25/pot-is-legal-in-washington-qa-with-the-man-who-is-making-weed-legit/
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:I know nothing about edibles having only done synthetics (which owned, gently caress the haters and the stupid spice act), so my plan is just to use my existing hookah for "you can buy weed in stores day" when (if) it arrives. Synthetics are awful, even if they can be fun. One of legalization's many benefits will be the elimination of poo poo like "spice."
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 08:54
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Have a guess who just won the cannabis consultancy contract in WA? What's a "birth cohort" and how are 50% of them smoking pot?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 13:02
|
|
|
He misstated it, but it means that of a group of people born in the same period (I believe year in this case), half will eventually end up trying pot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
Xandu posted:He misstated it, but it means that of a group of people born in the same period (I believe year in this case), half will eventually end up trying pot. Yeah, I assume he didn't just say "half of America has tried pot" because it could be that 75% of Gosh-Darned Kids Today have tried it, but only 25% of Sensible Adults have tried it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 15:16
|
|
|
In fairness, the percentage has been above 50% for decades. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508375/?page=3
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
Xandu posted:In fairness, the percentage has been above 50% for decades. Wow I can't believe how low the percentage for other hallucinogens is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
Reason posted:Wow I can't believe how low the percentage for other hallucinogens is. They're not exactly widely available (compared to weed et all), plus for (I think) LSD they busted a guy who made something like 85% of all the US supply so the volume went down sharply.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
So I found this story fairly interesting: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...92ecd14490.html quote:ST. LOUIS • Two city police officers face discipline, and possible criminal charges, over handling of marijuana seized during a traffic stop last month while two state senators were riding as observers in a camera-equipped patrol car, department officials said Tuesday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
"Sorry officer, we're going issue you a citation for not being a big enough dick. You know better than to attempt to perform your job like a human being."
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:"Sorry officer, we're going issue you a citation for not being a big enough dick. You know better than to attempt to perform your job like a human being." Uh, pocketing an illegal substance and not reporting it is a serious charge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:"Sorry officer, we're going issue you a citation for not being a big enough dick. You know better than to attempt to perform your job like a human being." If they wanted to do that, they would've taken the confiscated weed and tossed it. That would've scored brownie points with the senators, showing some compassion to a stoner, instead of looking like a badged jerk who thought he could score some free dope. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:They've taken entire hotels from people because a patron was selling drugs from their room one night. Amazing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGh-7LOzeHw The government is morally bankrupt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 10:53
|
|
|
Happy ending. quote:Prosecutors had been tipped off about the motel by a federal agent whose primary job was to identify properties for forfeiture. But prosecutors maintained that this wasn’t about raising money for the government, and was instead about helping local police crack down on the drug trade. Why does a loving job like this even exist? quote:The government is morally bankrupt. I'm usually not one for hating government/police but jesus christ this a hundred times. If there is really a guy in the FBI whose job is to scout out property to sell, then set the government on fire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 12:47
|
|
Mirthless posted:Why does a loving job like this even exist? The real reason is, because they can, and asset forfeiture is very lucrative to the government as they don't even need to prove the person guilty to take the property.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
kylejack posted:The real reason is, because they can, and asset forfeiture is very lucrative to the government as they don't even need to prove the person guilty to take the property. "Thousands of lawyers, jailers, guards, policemen etc. will lose their jobs, all for what, so you can get high on the drugs?! You really wanna plunge thousands into poverty just so you can light up a fat doober!? No sir, we're gonna take your drug-funded lucre and give it to those hardworking american citizens who keep the country running." Politics. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
kylejack posted:The supposed argument is that targeting proceeds from a drug business makes drug dealing less profitable and discourages people from getting involved in the drug business. Well, someone has to sort through the thousands of dilapidated known crack houses for poo poo they could flip for a profit. Also, Seattle city counsel has decided that they're too good for the herb. http://blogs.seattletimes.com/today/2013/03/seattle-looks-to-limit-pot-stores-and-grow-areas/ quote:Sponsored by council members Sally Clark and Nick Licata, the new rules have three main features. (Licata’s round-up with links to a staff analysis, zoning map, and proposed regulations is here.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
quote:Dr. Gene Tinelli and Dr. Liz Berry are old friends who describe each other with mutual respect. They’ve spent years, in separate practices, helping patients with addictions. I have bolded some text here because it is a typical example of prohibitionist irrationality. I can't help wonder whether it is actually Berry who has suffered from retarded cerebral development and not the pot smokers she lampoons. KingEup fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Mar 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
Boston.com had a story about the guys behind this website: http://mmjbusinessdaily.com/ Pretty informative sight. Kind of opened my eyes to the full business ramifications of medical/legal marijuana. It's not just the marijuana sales, but lots of other industries like packaging, testing, marketing, distribution, etc. Colorado is talking about vending machines, for example. Exciting times!
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
Before anyone submits any argument of any kind against marijuana, they should have to explain why it doesn't apply to alcohol as well because gently caress me I am tired of bringing out that argument. But it applies to every single point ever raised ever about marijuana prohibition. More adolescents would smoke? Well, do more adolescents drink? It's so very easy to get weed right now. Dealers don't check ID.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
Warchicken posted:It's so very easy to get weed right now. Dealers don't check ID. In places with medical/legal marijuana it is harder for minors to buy a pipe than it is to get the actual drugs because the headshop owners will card you. You'd have to bribe someone to buy a glass pipe for you to use the drugs you had no problems obtaining. But nobody's gonna do that once they realize there's a perfectly good pvc pipe sitting in their dad's garage that they could smoke out of!  The war on drugs is amazing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2013 01:00
|
|