|
KingEup posted:It isn't normal to stare a strangers penis or demand a jar of their urine. Yeah I know, it's loving disgusting. That is the state of NZ politics at the moment though, stupid people doing their best to gently caress over poor people.
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:Jared Polis is my congressman, and he became internet famous for a few days after grilling the head of the DEA: That DEA Admin is incredible. "Marijuana is addictive because it is an illegal drug".  TheRamblingSoul posted:This is really silly, especially this part: Skiing after a few late-afternoon drinks though, is a very dangerous combination of tired legs + impaired judgement. I think the big "experiment" in Colorado is going to conclude that not much will change. I'm in Canada and while I don't smoke much, all it takes is a phone call and I get free delivery. But I would prefer to be able to legally go to a cannabis bistro and choose from a selection of varieties, even if that meant paying more. Binary Logic fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Jan 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Binary Logic posted:That DEA Admin is incredible. "Marijuana is addictive because it is an illegal drug". This half the problem. They've never had to defend their position publicly before. When they do, their insanity is laid bare. It's not just cannabis though. The entire war on drugs is illogical, immoral and a gargantuan waste of money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 01:44
|
|
|
Speaking of people being wrong about cannabis... "Take it up with the National Institutes of Health, alright, they're the one who put it out." "I am a council member of the National Institutes of Health, your number is wrong." 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Bushmaori posted:I had a drug test yesterday, the dude didn't ask but he definitely looked at my dick. Apparently recreational weed use is a something that would massively inhibit my ability to sort mail properly. Dude do you work for NZ post?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
KingEup posted:This half the problem. They've never had to defend their position publicly before. When they do, their insanity is laid bare. Hear hear. I'm astounded by how people will say "well, pot being legalized is fine, but they'd better not legalize crack! Do you want those crack addicts to just be out in the street?" And it's mind-boggling, because if you want to eliminate crack addiction, the first step is to ensure that crack addicts are not going to go to jail if they seek treatment or are open about their addiction. Keeping it secret simply makes it worse and worse and worse. Prohibition is a bad thing, and most people realize that, but few people seem to realize that drug laws are exactly that--prohibition, and the effect is exactly the same: a birth of organized crime, an assault by the police force upon the populace, and a vacation of one's civil rights in the service of enforcing the laws of the state.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
Do we have many people in the "decriminalize, don't legalize" crew?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Do we have many people in the "decriminalize, don't legalize" crew? Not me. Cocaine, diamorphine, LSD, MDMA, methamphetamine etc all need to be sold by people who declare tax, don't shoot each other in broad daylight and affix health warnings that reflect the risks of using them. If you want to sell say a beverage containing GHB it should be clearly labelled in an amount that won't cause instant death. If you want to sell a new drug for recreational use there should be a pathway to get it approved. Fancy loving expecting people to consume alcohol forevermore. This poo poo should have been abandoned decades ago. KingEup fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Jan 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Cocaine, diamorphine ... methamphetamine etc all need to be sold by people who declare tax, don't shoot each other in broad daylight and affix health warnings that reflect the risks of using them. They're called pharmacists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
Only every single pharmacist I've ever worked with finds the notion of recreational drug use abhorrent and would probably rather quit than be part of someone using drugs
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Only every single pharmacist I've ever worked with finds the notion of recreational drug use abhorrent and would probably rather quit than be part of someone using drugs Western medicine brainwashing at its finest. God drat em.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Only every single pharmacist I've ever worked with finds the notion of recreational drug use abhorrent and would probably rather quit than be part of someone using drugs I didn't say recreational use. Just that there's legal business legally selling those drugs for medical use.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Only every single pharmacist I've ever worked with finds the notion of recreational drug use abhorrent and would probably rather quit than be part of someone using drugs Getting buzzed off a few beers? ABHORRENT. Drinking too much coffee? ABHORRENT. This attitude is bizarre.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 09:05
|
|
|
more friedman units posted:Getting buzzed off a few beers? ABHORRENT. Drinking too much coffee? ABHORRENT. You know drat well they're okay with caffeine and liquor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 09:11
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Dude do you work for NZ post? I'm about to, why?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
NurhacisUrn posted:Western medicine brainwashing at its finest. God drat em. A friend of mine is a pharmacy technician and I was really surprised by how much of her training was just flat out wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
NurhacisUrn posted:Western medicine brainwashing at its finest. God drat em. To be fair, in none of my training were we brainwashed into thinking this, but we do tend to see the lovely end of the scale, codeine shopper, methadone dudes... I guess the thing, is that it's an entirely different framework when you're considering recreational drugs, because generally the side effects of a drug have to be weighed up against the reasons why it's being taken, risk/benefit ratio and all that, but to apply that to recreational drug use is very difficult because people generally don't "need" to take recreational drugs (addictive drugs not included). How can we weigh up their desire to get high against the potential risks of doing it? Or would be not even be expected to consul or help people, but just facilitate their purchase Pope Guilty posted:You know drat well they're okay with caffeine and liquor. Yep. Well, not everyone views getting monged on alcohol is ok Bushmaori posted:I'm about to, why? Just wondering
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:To be fair, in none of my training were we brainwashed into thinking this, but we do tend to see the lovely end of the scale, codeine shopper, methadone dudes... Well said, and I see where you are coming from. To clarify what I meant, I used to be in medicine so I am quite jaded by medical professionals. I've seen too often their quickness to prescribe medicines that shut down the immune system in ways for skin disorders, addictive narcotics, all manner of psychotropic drugs, but then condemn people for substance abuse, and responsible use alike. I especially dislike how doctors are keeping their cocksuckers shut about the benefits of cannabis, and pharmacists too while pushing some awful pharmaceuticals on people. They are supposed to be the vanguards of public health, not little Big Pharma stooges. They should be on the front lines correcting the anti-cannabis propaganda instead of further reinforcing it. However, I do not totally blame them, they are victims of our society viewing drug use and abuse as a criminal matter and not a matter of personal well-being and preference, so their behavior is a conditioned one. I guess brainwashing was too strong of a word, so my apologies for that. I just feel the medical community has the groupthink mentality of, if this dickbag in a white jacket did not say it was okay, then it is not okay. Well, I am sorry, but gently caress that. Especially considering the medications these guys think is acceptable. NurhacisUrn fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Jan 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 13:13
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Do we have many people in the "decriminalize, don't legalize" crew? Decriminalization is just plain stupid. I mean, sure it's better than nothing, but why would anyone support a policy that subsidizes black market drug dealers?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
NurhacisUrn posted:Well said, and I see where you are coming from. To clarify what I meant, I used to be in medicine so I am quite jaded by medical professionals. I've seen too often their quickness to prescribe medicines that shut down the immune system in ways for skin disorders, addictive narcotics, all manner of psychotropic drugs, but then condemn people for substance abuse, and responsible use alike. I especially dislike how doctors are keeping their cocksuckers shut about the benefits of cannabis, and pharmacists too while pushing some awful pharmaceuticals on people. They are supposed to be the vanguards of public health, not little Big Pharma stooges. They should be on the front lines correcting the anti-cannabis propaganda instead of further reinforcing it. However, I doO not totally blame them, they are victims of our society viewing drug use and abuse as a criminal matter and not a matter of personal well-being and preference, so their behavior is a conditioned one. I guess brainwashing was too strong of a word, so my apologies for that. I just feel the medical community has the groupthink mentality of, if this dickbag in a white jacket did not say it was okay, then it is not okay. Well, I am sorry, but gently caress that. Especially considering the medications these guys think is acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Doctors are so bound up in oaths and laws and codes of conduct that they're pretty much forced to take this attitude, at least from what I've heard. The risk of a lawsuit or losing their license is too great to venture off the beaten path. When I see a family taking their 7 year old with cancer off conventional meds and using cannabis extracts, part of me feels terrible and worried for the child, but the other half of me realizes that is the only way to do it if cannabis truly has those properties. Yeah, that was the doctor's excuses for why they did so much unnecessary testing and prescribing when I was in medicine as well. It is a major problem in western healthcare, the culture is sick. It is not about the patient. Just liability, insurances, and the facilities bottom line. I am not sure about the true anti-cancer properties of cannabis, when it comes to a kid dying of cancer however. I meant the benefits of it from an anti-emetic, anti-inflammatory, antibiotic standpoint, which there is much proven data in those regards. I have heard it encourages apoptosis etc when dealing with some cancers, but with the lack of truly serious studies, who is to know right? Again, a symptom of our failed medical complex. I honestly feel doctors do not give a gently caress to find out either. Mr. Pfizer did not give him a pamphlet on encouraging his patients to create their own medicine. Mr. Bayer does not approve either. Oh what is that Mrs GlaxoSmithKline? Lobbying money, and some kickbacks? I've seen it too much. Sure, you have the occasional superstar doctor who shatter expectations, but he is just a good cocaine or soppy whore addiction away from becoming just another money grubbing trainwreck in charge of people's well-being. That, and the amount of patients a doctor has pretty much ensures few are going to get the true attention they deserve in terms of focused care and actually listening to their symptoms etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
NurhacisUrn posted:Western medicine brainwashing at its finest. God drat em. Would you explain why Meth would not fall under a scheduled drug label and hence would not be good to sell for recreational use?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Would you explain why Meth would not fall under a scheduled drug label and hence would not be good to sell for recreational use? That all depends. In my opinion I think pharmaceutical grade amphetamines which do fall under scheduled drug labels should be available over the counter for whenever the educated consumer wishes to use the responsibly. However, I assume you do mean meth so, some backwoods yokel cooking some battery acid and Comtrex in a plastic Mt. Dew bottle? Of course that should never be consumed by anything that wishes to function normally as the manufacturing process is a bit iffy, and can't be guaranteed. Pharmaceutical grade amphetamines, I would argue, can be used responsibly, are made safely, and our delightful medical professionals routinely dole them out to children. So why not OTC them for responsible and informed adults? I am in no way advocating people use the bathtub substances of desperate people suffering from the decimation of an industrial base. I hope that answers your question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:When I see a family taking their 7 year old with cancer off conventional meds and using cannabis extracts, part of me feels terrible and worried for the child, but the other half of me realizes that is the only way to do it if cannabis truly has those properties.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:I has the same reaction to that one kid who was taking that speciality strain to control seizures until I realized that the side effects to the traditional anti seizure (and certainly any serious cancer treatment) are going to be impossibly more dangerous that weed with the "fun" parts taken out. go weed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjhNU20a_4g RISPERDAL! gently caress those doctors. Least their pediatrician helped. The doctors that drop patients and scare them out of this treatment are human refuse. Mabel Maser says gently caress doctors, and gently caress contraindications: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK-S0jprpzc NurhacisUrn fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Jan 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
NurhacisUrn posted:There is this kid with Autism too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:at the risk of sounding like a thumb-staring stereotype, it's amazing what this stuff can do with such little risk. I've only recently became aware of the legitimate medical treatment uses, having only known of palliative stuff for those suffering serious conditions and 22-year-olds with "anxiety" and "back pain." to think that cannabis was used as medical treatment ~80 years ago and we are just rediscovering it is sad but exciting http://www.amazon.com/Mercks-Manual-Materia-Medica-Pocket/dp/B000EWAQO4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1389458175&sr=8-1&keywords=1899+Merck+Manual This book here lists a fascinating plethora of uses for the substance. Not a bad little book actually. Thought you might find that interesting, it is a smoking gun as to how well cannabis was regarded in medicine before that poo poo smeared Anslinger and Hearst hosed it all up. Not too long ago, the American Chemical Society did a study into the antimicrobial effects of THC. Apparently it really destroys MRSA. That was an intriguing read, but I don't know if it could be found online, I read it in a publication they send out to members.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
NurhacisUrn posted:That all depends. In my opinion I think pharmaceutical grade amphetamines which do fall under scheduled drug labels should be available over the counter for whenever the educated consumer wishes to use the responsibly. However, I assume you do mean meth so, some backwoods yokel cooking some battery acid and Comtrex in a plastic Mt. Dew bottle? Of course that should never be consumed by anything that wishes to function normally as the manufacturing process is a bit iffy, and can't be guaranteed. Pharmaceutical grade amphetamines, I would argue, can be used responsibly, are made safely, and our delightful medical professionals routinely dole them out to children. So why not OTC them for responsible and informed adults? I am in no way advocating people use the bathtub substances of desperate people suffering from the decimation of an industrial base. I hope that answers your question. Let's say we're legally selling Meth to a guy, but lately we've noticed that he's been buying A LOT lately, coming in wanting to pay for it split between 3 cards etc, and he's not looking too good either, seems pretty down. What then, refuse to sell? Treatment should be available of course, but would the selling have some kind of obligation to try to keep the consumers best interests at heart, even if that includes refusing to sell? it's not generally ok to sell alcohol to an intoxicated person so would we apply the same rules here
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Let's say we're legally selling Meth to a guy, but lately we've noticed that he's been buying A LOT lately, coming in wanting to pay for it split between 3 cards etc, and he's not looking too good either, seems pretty down. Refer and notify him to public healthcare services for a psych evaluation and medical help. Because you know UHC would pass way before recreational Meth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Refer and notify him to public healthcare services for a psych evaluation and medical help. You said it as well as I could. That is pretty much all you could do. If he can't handle it, that should be a health issue, and ultimately his choice. Of course it could be even simpler, just not sell it, and not refer him to a goddamn thing. I like how echinopsis equated it to not selling alcohol to someone visible inebriated. I agree with your compassionate desire of not wanting to further the individuals downward spiral, but again, freedom requires responsibility and it would ultimately be their own doing. Also, UHC would definitely pass before true freedom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 20:48
|
|
NurhacisUrn posted:I agree with your compassionate desire of not wanting to further the individuals downward spiral, but again, freedom requires responsibility and it would ultimately be their own doing. This just reduces down to letting people die in the street because they were not responsible enough to take care of themselves. By the same logic we should abolish social security, medicare, medicade, unemployment insurance, food stamps and any other socially funded benefit.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
why are you doofuses making an analogy between street meth and pot like the substances have anything in common aside from federal legality?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:You know drat well they're okay with caffeine and liquor. And I've never understood why people are unwilling to admit that cultural attitudes are at the heart of which recreational drugs are 'legitimate' and which aren't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
more friedman units posted:And I've never understood why people are unwilling to admit that cultural attitudes are at the heart of which recreational drugs are 'legitimate' and which aren't. Part of it is cultural, part of it is generally caffeine doesn't make people sometimes do bat poo poo crazy things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:This just reduces down to letting people die in the street because they were not responsible enough to take care of themselves. By the same logic we should abolish social security, medicare, medicade, unemployment insurance, food stamps and any other socially funded benefit. There are other options such as: perpetually extending a gentle offer of easily accessible treatment while making sure the individual retains food/shelter/medical care and keeping the door open on labor/education opportunities. Treat addiction like the health problem that it is, and build up the social institutions to care for (and empower) those that succumb to abuse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:This just reduces down to letting people die in the street because they were not responsible enough to take care of themselves. By the same logic we should abolish social security, medicare, medicade, unemployment insurance, food stamps and any other socially funded benefit. I see where you are coming from on that, but I do not see them as the same thing. This is a personal behavior. I am not saying he should not be entitled to healthcare because he abused the drugs until he was sick. I am just saying he should be allowed to abuse the drugs until he is sick. His choice. It would be his choice to seek treatment. Just like it should be your choice whether or not you go on public assistance. It should be available for all and never forced. I honestly see it as a better alternative, the few people who can't handle their high will not ruin it for the majority of people that can handle their high. No dismantling of social programs necessary, I am sorry for any confusion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:why are you doofuses making an analogy between street meth and pot like the substances have anything in common aside from federal legality? What you're seeing is literally the "DARE lied to me about pot therefore all drugs are equally harmless, Freedom!" effect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
computer parts posted:What you're seeing is literally the "DARE lied to me about pot therefore all drugs are equally harmless, Freedom!" effect. Woah woah woah. I never said anything about the other drugs being harmless. I did say that if Dr. Big Pharma is gonna push a TNF disarming medication like Adalimumab for psoriasis, then goddamnit, John Q. Public should be allowed to choose a little amphetamine, or some DMT for their time off work. The doctor didn't give a twopenny gently caress about the dangers of Adalimumab when prescribing that, so why shouldn't someone who does know the dangers about some recreational drug use not be allowed to make an informed decision? I swear, some people like the idea of a big prohibitive leash shoved up the collective rear end of the general populace. Heavier drug users are prison industrial complex victims just like cannabis users, and non-violent is non-violent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:why are you doofuses making an analogy between street meth and pot like the substances have anything in common aside from federal legality? You can smoke both of them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
They can both get you pretty high, i guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 22:27
|
|
