|
Ah yes, my using marijuana is causing significant life problems because I"m in a state or jurisdiction where the laws punish marijuana users very harshly.
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:54 |
|
|
I wonder how many of those two million people would say "traffic" or "having to go to work" are causing "serious life problems." Delta-Wye posted:You'd make a terrible engineer I think he was talking about murders due to prohibition, in which case a 100% reduction would be possible simply by getting rid of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 18:37
|
|
The first 90% is easy, the last 10% is almost impossible. The fact there is an 'acceptable level' isn't bizarre, even if having to sit down and work out what that level would be is a bit macabre.
|
Muck and Mire posted:I think he was talking about murders due to prohibition, in which case a 100% reduction would be possible simply by getting rid of it. Rereading, you are right. My reading comprehension makes me a terrible engineer  EDIT: That said, I'm not sure if segregating "prohibition-related deaths" and then saying "We have no more prohibition-related deaths" because you got rid of prohibition so they are just deaths is really a significant change. Delta-Wye fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 18:39
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:Rereading, you are right. My reading comprehension makes me a terrible engineer Well... The way they frame it, there are two categories: prohibition-related death and "self-inflicted" death. A reduction in prohibition-related death is a big deal because it doesn't necessarily lead to an increase in self-inflicted death or harm. If anything, I contend that the gains made by eliminating prohibition would vastly outweigh any additional losses in the area of self-inflicted issues. This becomes evident when one considers how the demand for marijuana fuels Mexican cartels.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:In theory, the state is allowed to enforce federal laws. That's exactly what happen in Michigan - dispensaries were all raided by state and local police - enforcing federal law. I thought the whole states can't enforce immigration laws shut down that idea. Basically it would set an odd precedent. Either states can enforce federal laws like pot laws, and immigration etc, or they can't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Fat Ogre posted:I thought the whole states can't enforce immigration laws shut down that idea. I thought it was that they were allowed to cooperate with federal law enforcement to enforce federal law, so if they report a grow-op or whatever and the feds OK it then they can "enforce federal law," but with immigration they weren't really identifying illegal immigrants and reporting them to ICE (possibly legal) but illegally detaining people without probable cause to determine their legal status, or in many cases without the expertise/capability to determine it, and trying to force ICE to deport them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
quote:Yes, cannabis has medical value for some people. And yes, the sustained effort of the federal government to make medical cannabis research as difficult as possible is a national disgrace. Why does this matter? Clearly there are a handful of doctors who are recommending (not prescribing) cannabis to a large number of patients. I don't know why this is - perhaps those doctors are more educated/confident/comfortable about cannabis and one day doctors will be recommending all their patients keep some cannabis in the medicine cabinet. Sure, these people may not need cannabis but why worry? I took two Tylenol this morning I probably didn't need. Nevermind its terrifc safety profile which is probably superior to many over the counter products e.g. Tylenol. KingEup fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Jul 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2013 07:44
|
|
|
Don't tell this guy about the drug reps who get docs to push everything else under the sun in return for vacations, dinners, etc, or how hosed up American healthcare is in general.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2013 08:53
|
|
|
Still though, that does seem a bit excessive though and common sense would indicate that these patients are asking him for pot and he's rubber stamping everyone that does, which is not what a physician should be doing. Patients making docs prescribe them the drugs they want is about as bad as pharma reps making docs prescribe the drugs they want, imho.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Why does this matter? Clearly there are a handful of doctors who are recommending (not prescribing) cannabis to a large number of patients. I don't know why this is - perhaps those doctors are more educated/confident/comfortable about cannabis and one day doctors will be recommending all their patients keep some cannabis in the medicine cabinet. In Washington, many providers have only the barest pretense of a medical recommendation (or qualifications, for that matter). They advertised that $300 and fifteen minutes will get you a card that lets you buy legal weed, and the process itself is just an expensive rubber stamp (often connected to a "co-op" that generates healthy profits). That whole system does cause serious problems - it delegitimizes actual medical use, which stops legitimate patients and doctors who might benefit. When patients do decide to seek out medical marijuana as a possible treatment, they're not getting honest medical advice, they're getting a drug pusher (and yes, that's a problem in more than just the medical marijuana industry - but it shouldn't be acceptable anywhere). And, when full legalization came up, we saw the Washington "medical" industry campaigning against it with scare tactics. After all, if they were no longer the gatekeepers to legal weed for recreational use, they stood to lose a lot of money. Of course, the solution to all those issues is pretty simple: just get with the program and legalize it for recreational use, already. Without that deliberate overlap between recreational and medical users, the problem basically solves itself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
towelieban posted:Still though, that does seem a bit excessive though and common sense would indicate that these patients are asking him for pot and he's rubber stamping everyone that does, which is not what a physician should be doing. Why not? Why is is a bad thing to "rubber stamp" approve people to use a substance that alleviates pain and has negligible risks? You wouldn't complain that a doctor is rubber stamping anyone who came and asked for tylenol, why should it be any different for cannabis when cannabis is absolutely less dangerous?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
As hosed up as it is, what has to happen to get cannabis legalized is the beginning of a tobacco sized lobby. That's the only way they're going to beat the medical guys that want to keep it totally illegal (except through them of course) and pass the legislation that legalizes recreational cannabis use. The groups that are allowed to sell legally in Colorado and Washington have to galvanize, take their profits and use them to start opening up new markets. This may cause some of the more touchy feely 'gently caress-the-man' types to start getting uncomfortable. I've always heard that medical was a step in the right direction, but I've always felt pretty dubious about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:Why not? Why is is a bad thing to "rubber stamp" approve people to use a substance that alleviates pain and has negligible risks? You wouldn't complain that a doctor is rubber stamping anyone who came and asked for tylenol, why should it be any different for cannabis when cannabis is absolutely less dangerous? It's a problem because it only legitimizes the use of weed for people who can afford to pay a doctor to give them a diagnosis.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
rscott posted:It's a problem because it only legitimizes the use of weed for people who can afford to pay a doctor to give them a diagnosis. As opposed to only legitimizing weed use for a tiny set of the populace with "serious" conditions (who also need to pay a doctor anyway)? Every medical card is a card that might prevent someone from going to jail. Every single one is an unambiguously good thing, even if legalization everywhere is the ultimate goal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
towelieban posted:Still though, that does seem a bit excessive though and common sense would indicate that these patients are asking him for pot and he's rubber stamping everyone that does, which is not what a physician should be doing. Patients making docs prescribe them the drugs they want is about as bad as pharma reps making docs prescribe the drugs they want, imho. If they had to give prescriptions for band-aids or nyquil, what do you think they'd be doing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
the black husserl posted:As opposed to only legitimizing weed use for a tiny set of the populace with "serious" conditions (who also need to pay a doctor anyway)? Every doctor (or naturopath or whatever) who makes tons of money by charging $250-350 for five minutes worth of paperwork is somebody who has a vested interest in opposing legalization. Many middle-class users who can afford to drop $250-350 on their legal weed card will say "what's the problem? It's legal for me, gently caress all you poors who don't care enough to get a medical card." This happened in Washington; legalization passed over the objections of the medical marijuana industry and many in the Hempfest set. It also happened in California, where legalization failed by a narrow margin. On balance, loosely regulated medical marijuana is better than the status quo in many places. But, a system like California's is not an "unambiguously good thing." It has some serious drawbacks. Warchicken posted:If they had to give prescriptions for band-aids or nyquil, what do you think they'd be doing? Hopefully not charging hundreds of dollars for rubber-stamping a prescription. Even without insurance, it's cheaper to get a checkup from a well regarded GP in Seattle, who will actually examine you, than it is to get a weed card (which still has some value, because it lets you grow legally and purchase from "co-ops"). The system is run for profit. Everybody around here knows it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 01:36
|
|
|
towelieban posted:Patients making docs prescribe them the drugs they want is about as bad as pharma reps making docs prescribe the drugs they want, imho. Bear in mind that these doctors are not prescribing cannabis. Patient: "Hey doc, I've heard coffee may be good for the liver. Do you recommend using it?" Doctor: "Yes I recommend it. Research suggests that an increased consumption of coffee may reduce the risk of liver cancer.[1]" Patient: "So I should try it?" Doctor: "I can only recommend it. It's up to you whether you take it. Now why is that so bad? 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17484871 KingEup fucked around with this message at 07:10 on Jul 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Bear in mind that these doctors are not prescribing cannabis. You're misunderstanding what a "recommendation" is in this context. It's not the kind of informal recommendation you'd get to try an over-the-counter drug; it's a legal document. Patients need to get an official recommendation (like this one), printed on tamper-proof paper and signed by a medical professional, which authorizes the patient to possess and use medical marijuana under state MMJ laws. It's technically not a "prescription" because the FDA and DEA don't like it when that word is applied to a Schedule I drug, but it's effectively indistinguishable from one in practice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 07:27
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:You're misunderstanding what a "recommendation" is in this context. It's not the kind of informal recommendation you'd get to try an over-the-counter drug; it's a legal document. Patients need to get an official recommendation (like this one), printed on tamper-proof paper and signed by a medical professional, which authorizes the patient to possess and use medical marijuana under state MMJ laws. It's technically not a "prescription" because the FDA and DEA don't like it when that word is applied to a Schedule I drug, but it's effectively indistinguishable from one in practice. It is a formal statement that the patient may benefit from using marijuana: quote:I hereby certify that I am a physician duly licensed in good standing to practice medicine in Colorado, and that I have a bona fide physician patient relationship with the above named patient. I have assessed this patient’s medical history and current medical condition. I conclude that this patient may benefit from the medical use of marijuana. This assessment is not a prescription for the use of marijuana. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CDPHE-CHEIS/CBON/1251593017005 This is quite different from issuing a prescription. It's quite another thing to be writing prescriptions for conditions that don't exist. That would be malpractice. That said, the promotion of off-label drugs is protected by the First: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2013/05/29/caronia-and-the-first-amendment-defense-to-off-label-marketing-a-six-month-re-assessment/ towelieban posted:that does seem a bit excessive though How many patients should doctors be able to say may benefit from using marijuana? Consider this statement in another context. How may abortions should a doctor be allowed to perform? 5000? Gee that seems a bit excessive... KingEup fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Jul 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 07:43
|
|
|
KingEup posted:It is a formal statement that the patient may benefit from using marijuana: And state regulations require that formal statement before the patient/customer can be placed on the medical marijuana registry. In that sense, it operates like a prescription for a scheduled medication; the only real difference is the wording. If you want to get a big bottle of codeine cough syrup, you need a signed prescription from a doctor. If you want to use marijuana under MMJ laws, you need a signed recommendation from a doctor. It is not like your example of a doctor saying "hey, you might want to drink more coffee, recent research is showing that it's good for your health;" there are no state laws which restrict the use of coffee and allow patients with a coffee recommendation to possess more coffee than people without that recommendation. You're quibbling over the wording, and ignoring larger issues. Yes, there are in fact doctors who are signing off on "medical" marijuana for recreational use and resale, for their own profit. That carries practical problems with it, which I've already discussed, and it also shows a fundamental problem with the system. People who want recreational marijuana should be able to just buy it over a counter. People who want to sell marijuana should (and should be able to) go through a licensed, regulated, and taxed system. Having separate sales channels will legitimize medical marijuana, and allow the states to collect sales taxes from recreational users but still cut a break for medical users. Medical professionals who abuse their authority to sidestep the system - for instance, by prescribing 500+ plants or 75 ounces - should be singled out and subject to professional discipline.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Medical professionals who abuse their authority to sidestep the system - for instance, by prescribing 500+ plants or 75 ounces - should be singled out and subject to professional discipline. We have no idea of the context in which this was recommended. The doctor may have thought the patient would benefit from consuming a large amount of raw botanical material because they wanted to minimise the psychoactive effect. Space Gopher posted:there are in fact doctors who are signing off on "medical" marijuana for recreational use and resale, for their own profit. Where are these cases? KingEup fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Jul 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:Why not? Why is is a bad thing to "rubber stamp" approve people to use a substance that alleviates pain and has negligible risks? You wouldn't complain that a doctor is rubber stamping anyone who came and asked for tylenol, why should it be any different for cannabis when cannabis is absolutely less dangerous? Because someone like a physician rubber-stamping people's requests for weed would illegitimatize the doctor's position. You don't go to medical school and residency for 4+ years to blindly bow to patients' ill-guided demands. That's another thing, on the opposite side of the spectrum, that is in need of reform in healthcare, but i'll save that discussion for the appropriate thread. What I'm saying is that the physician should know better than to just give out marijuana prescriptions. Recommendations, while not concrete prescriptions per-say, are still professional opinions doled out by someone that is recognized by society as second to none in the field of healthcare and general well-being. This recommendation carries with it a good amount of weight. Which seg-ways into my second point....legalize marijuana so this type of poo poo doesn't happen anymore. towelieban fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Jul 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 08:42
|
|
|
KingEup posted:
That's a question that can solely be answered (properly at least) by a physician.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 08:44
|
|
|
towelieban posted:That's a question that can solely be answered (properly at least) by a physician. It's nice that you're having your cake and eating it too but I assume you do see that this post is in odds with your previous post where you chastised doctors on how they distributed prescriptions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 08:49
|
|
|
towelieban posted:Because someone like a physician rubber-stamping people's requests for weed would illegitimatize the doctor's position. You don't go to medical school and residency for 4+ years to blindly bow to patients' ill-guided demands. That's another thing, on the opposite side of the spectrum, that is in need of reform in healthcare, but i'll save that discussion for the appropriate thread. The doctor recommends that you smoke marijuana. It's less valid if he reccomends everyone hit that poo poo now and again? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/segue
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 08:53
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:It's nice that you're having your cake and eating it too but I assume you do see that this post is in odds with your previous post where you chastised doctors on how they distributed prescriptions. Because this questions is directly tied to a professional opinion coming from a physician. It's like asking me how many patient's I'd recommend Lipitor to. How the gently caress would I know, I'm not a doctor. That previous point, however, was in regards to doctor's just willy-nilly (if they are in fact doing so) handing out prescriptions to anyone that walks into their office asking them for medical mj, without actually examining the patient to see if that would be the best thing for them. Do you see the difference? e: poo poo grammar. towelieban fucked around with this message at 08:56 on Jul 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 08:54
|
|
|
Just so it is know, I have absolutely nothing against a doc properly looking over the patient, their history, risk factors, etc, and then recommending and/or prescribing them medical ganja, as should be done before any type of meds are doled out. poo poo, I'm all for it if that's the case. Just not ceding to the patients requests for it before said examinations are done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 08:59
|
|
|
Jago posted:The doctor recommends that you smoke marijuana. It's less valid if he reccomends everyone hit that poo poo now and again? Either I'm tired as poo poo, or you're not making any sense. Or both.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 08:59
|
|
|
towelieban posted:That previous point, however, was in regards to doctor's just willy-nilly (if they are in fact doing so) handing out prescriptions to anyone that walks into their office asking them for medical mj, without actually examining the patient to see if that would be the best thing for them. There is no careful examination you need to perform and nowhere is it enshrined in law that cannabis must be the best thing for them. Me: "Hey doc, I got a headache' Doctor: "So take a Tylenol" Me: "Don't you want to examine me?" Doctor: "What the hell for?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 09:02
|
|
|
KingEup posted:There is no careful examination you need to perform and nowhere is it enshrined in law that cannabis must be the best thing for them. Then that aneurysm ruptures. But real-talk, exactly, so if people want bud, why the hell are you bothering a doc for? And don't tell me it's becuase you don't have any connects. Arguments like these illegitimize the medical marijuana debates and really demonstrate the need for a more broadened discussion on just straight cutting the crap and moving towards legalizing the drat thing. e: ad-on...and more poo poo grammar. towelieban fucked around with this message at 09:12 on Jul 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 09:06
|
|
|
KingEup posted:We have no idea of the context in which this was recommended. Do you have any idea how much useable marijuana comes from 500 plants? It would be a tremendous task to just consume that much weed, let alone tending that many plants. As for the cases where clinics have been handing out MMJ recommendations to anyone who walks through the door, the DEA has conducted a number of high-profile dispensary busts for doing just that. I understand if you don't really trust the DEA here, of course, but I can't do much more past that than provide my own personal experience. In Washington, it's well accepted that all you need to do to get your green card is to look up one of the many providers advertising in the back of alt-weeklies like The Stranger, tell them something unspecific about back pain, pay them about $300, and walk out with your recommendation. I know quite a few people who have done exactly that. It's certainly possible that there are legitimate clinics who will tell patients, "I'm sorry, but I don't think marijuana is right for you" - but there are definitely medical professionals who aren't that scrupulous. It is, in fact, a problem. In addition, many MMJ "specialists" were spreading misinformation about the Washington marijuana legalization initiative - most notably, about the DUI provisions. The DUI section of the law gives a limit of psychoactive substances in the bloodstream. MMJ prescribing physicians were telling patients that, under the law, they would be tested for DUI based on metabolites that could be detected in urine for up to two weeks after they stopped smoking. Anyone who has had to worry about urine tests would find this an easy lie to believe, but any medical professional who has even a passing familiarity with how THC works in the body would understand that it's not true. Yet, professionals at MMJ clinics were still spreading this rumor. I think we can safely discount the possibility that they're that incompetent at their jobs; instead, they were lying about the law to save a very profitable business where they could act as paid gatekeepers to legal weed. The same thing happened in California in 2010. I had to deal with these jackasses when I was out supporting I-502. They were not worried about patients; they were worried about their profits even at the expense of others. KingEup posted:There is no careful examination you need to perform and nowhere is it enshrined in law that cannabis must be the best thing for them. Did you read that recommendation form I posted earlier? It actually says, "I have diagnosed the above named patient as having a terminal or debilitating medical condition [...] I have assessed the above named patient's medical history and medical condition." So, yeah, at least in Washington a doctor has to perform a careful examination before signing off on a recommendation for medical marijuana. It doesn't necessarily need to be the very best treatment, but the doctor does need to attest to personally diagnosing and examining the patient.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 09:16
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:In Washington, it's well accepted that all you need to do to get your green card is to look up one of the many providers advertising in the back of alt-weeklies like The Stranger, tell them something unspecific about back pain, pay them about $300, and walk out with your recommendation. Yes, it's easy to get a green card. So? I actually think $300 is prohibitive for a lot of people who may benefit from using it. In other words it's still too hard to get a green card. quote:It's certainly possible that there are legitimate clinics who will tell patients, "I'm sorry, but I don't think marijuana is right for you" - but there are definitely medical professionals who aren't that scrupulous. It is, in fact, a problem. Do you get interrogated when you buy Tylenol from the drug store and turned away if the pharmacist thinks you may be an illegitimate customer? Do they even care? Are drug stores, who sell Tylenol to patients who complain of 'headache' or have no complaint at all, unscrupulous? Is this a problem? KingEup fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Jul 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 09:48
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Yes, it's easy to get a green card. So? I actually think $300 is prohibitive for a lot of people who may benefit from using it. In other words it's still too hard to get a green card. Well, one of the big problems is that the people who are currently part of the "medical" industry think that forcing patients to pay $300 or so is fantastic. They were the most vocal opponents of honest-to-God legalization! And, that's the alternative, here. Not making weed harder to get - but making it easier. If faux-medical providers are driven out of the recreational market, and marijuana is available over the counter for people who would like to have a little bit for good times or a bit of temporary pain relief, that's a good thing. Patients will have an easier time finding real medical providers willing to work with them on MMJ, and recreational users can just buy what they want instead of having to jump through ~$300 hoops to get legal. I don't know why you're so hung up on the Tylenol analogy. Nobody takes Tylenol recreationally, and the fact that marijuana is a dual-purpose drug changes things. As a recreational drug, it's a luxury good; it makes sense to allow easy over-the-counter sales and tax the heck out of it because recreational users by definition don't need it to live. As medicine, it makes sense to allow more generous growing/possession limits, tax it less, and have patients work with medical professionals interested in care above quick profits. There should be well-defined lines between marijuana as a recreational drug, and marijuana as medicine. Having recreational users go through the green card/recommendation process muddies those lines, and lines the pockets of unscrupulous medical professionals, for no real reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 10:08
|
|
|
towelieban posted:Because someone like a physician rubber-stamping people's requests for weed would illegitimatize the doctor's position. You don't go to medical school and residency for 4+ years to blindly bow to patients' ill-guided demands. Perhaps the knowledge gained in medical school supports the claims that marijuana is safer than tylenol and therefore they have no qualms with rubber-stamping requests. Maybe requesting marijuana from someone who is authorized to recommend it isn't an ill-guided demand at all, but a way to protect oneself from the government's irrational hatred of the plant. Is it blindly bowing to ill-guided demands to ask your doctor for aspirin? Space Gopher posted:I don't know why you're so hung up on the Tylenol analogy. Nobody takes Tylenol recreationally, and the fact that marijuana is a dual-purpose drug changes things. As a recreational drug, it's a luxury good; it makes sense to allow easy over-the-counter sales and tax the heck out of it because recreational users by definition don't need it to live. As medicine, it makes sense to allow more generous growing/possession limits, tax it less, and have patients work with medical professionals interested in care above quick profits. There should be well-defined lines between marijuana as a recreational drug, and marijuana as medicine. Having recreational users go through the green card/recommendation process muddies those lines, and lines the pockets of unscrupulous medical professionals, for no real reason. Ok, how about comparing it to something legal/OTC that you can get high off of. Like, oh I dunno, robitussin. How does this change the argument at all?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:Perhaps the knowledge gained in medical school supports the claims that marijuana is safer than tylenol and therefore they have no qualms with rubber-stamping requests. Maybe requesting marijuana from someone who is authorized to recommend it isn't an ill-guided demand at all, but a way to protect oneself from the government's irrational hatred of the plant. Meanwhile, back in reality, those doctors who you think are so noble for increasing access to marijuana are running disinformation campaigns against real legalization, because legalization hurts their revenue stream. If marijuana is safe enough that doctors can just rubber stamp a recommendation, it should be sold over the counter. Doctors who rubber stamp recommendations but campaign against legalization are not acting in anybody's best interests but their own. DXM is another example of a situation where it would be very good to split things out into medical and recreational streams, as well. Many cough suppressants contain a lot more than just DXM - sometimes, they have other active ingredients which are unpleasant in large doses (guaifenesin) or outright fatal (APAP/Tylenol, actually). Every year, a few kids die because they drink a shitload of Nyquil or take a big handful of Robitussin Cold & Flu, and destroy their livers. If we clearly separated out recreational DXM from therapeutic DXM, it wouldn't be an issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
If we changed this conversation to doctors rubberstamping requests for oxycodone in exchange for cash (which does happen, although not as often), I'm curious how people would feel about that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Meanwhile, back in reality, those doctors who you think are so noble for increasing access to marijuana are running disinformation campaigns against real legalization, because legalization hurts their revenue stream. If marijuana is safe enough that doctors can just rubber stamp a recommendation, it should be sold over the counter. Doctors who rubber stamp recommendations but campaign against legalization are not acting in anybody's best interests but their own. So now it's not rubberstamping doctors, it's rubberstamping doctors who campaign against legalization? Way to move the goalposts. There's nothing wrong with a doctor trying to make money for themselves. Everyone needs to make a living, and given the legal circumstances surrounding marijuana, being able to keep people out of trouble and make money off of it is a win/win situation. I agree that doctors who actively fight to keep a monopoly on access are being overly selfish, but that's not an innate problem inseparable from the medical marijuana industry. There are definitely doctors who are in favor of everyone having free access to cannabis. Rubberstamping through a bunch of oxycodone requests should be treated differently as it's a different drug with much greater risk of harm, though if you could go to an oxy-dispensary and get cheap medicine it'd probably be a net reduction in overall harm due to black markets shrinking, even after taking into consideration the potential for serious addicts to afford to kill themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
Xandu posted:If we changed this conversation to doctors rubberstamping requests for oxycodone in exchange for cash (which does happen, although not as often), I'm curious how people would feel about that. Oxycodone is extremely dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:Oxycodone is extremely dangerous. I agree, I was just curious if that was the reason people didn't care what doctors did with marijuana prescriptions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 17:54 |
|
|
edit: there we go
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2013 19:27
|
|