wow somthing we can all agree on

[Fantasea]

You are right, and the key in the equation is the right to "regulate", which even when done vigorously results in the current pain killer issues.

Do not misunderstand. I said that if pharmaceuticals can be derived from cannibis, they should be regulated as are all pharmaceuticals. They should not be available except as prescribed by a physician to treat a legitimate malady. There is no tax on prescription medicines.

I might argue however that many products offer medicinal benefit without being regulated as a pharmaceutical. Vitamin supplements etc., but, I'm not saying cannibus is in that class.

Yes, you might argue that, but you would be incorrect. Over the counter products cannot carry a statement or advertise that they can treat, cure, or improve any medical condition. If you don't believe this, read the fine print, or listen carefully to the advertising sales pitch and you'll discover the disclaimers.

Liquor is one of the major sources of tax revenue for the states.

Maybe so. However, the cost to the public far outweighs the tax revenues. Treatment of alcohol related diseases is one of the reasons that Medicare is a losing proposition. It accounts for a substantial share of welfare and unemployment benefits, too.

Cannibus offers the same opportunity if properly regulated, manufactured and taxes.

As if things are not bad enough already, you propose making them worse.

Afterall, these states are lining up to put slot machines and casinos everywhere, to cut their budget deficits... why not a sin tax on pot?

For all of the reasons stated above.

 

[Pacridge]

Do not misunderstand. I said that if pharmaceuticals can be derived from cannibis, they should be regulated as are all pharmaceuticals. They should not be available except as prescribed by a physician to treat a legitimate malady. There is no tax on prescription medicines.Yes, you might argue that, but you would be incorrect. Over the counter products cannot carry a statement or advertise that they can treat, cure, or improve any medical condition. If you don't believe this, read the fine print, or listen carefully to the advertising sales pitch and you'll discover the disclaimers.
Maybe so. However, the cost to the public far outweighs the tax revenues. Treatment of alcohol related diseases is one of the reasons that Medicare is a losing proposition. It accounts for a substantial share of welfare and unemployment benefits, too. As if things are not bad enough already, you propose making them worse.For all of the reasons stated above.

So it's only a benefit if the pharmaceutical companies can regulate and profit from it? Why not let the doctors write an Rx that allows the end user to grow and supply their own? That's basically what a medical marijuana card is. The drug companies have put millions of dollars into fighting the medical marijuana movement. They invested nearly as much in that as they have in developing Merinol.

 

[Contrarian]

In your first point, you indicated that "There is no tax on prescription drugs", which in its direct context is true, however, indirectly they are. Tax revenues derived from the Pharmaceutical companies (corporate, property, employment, sales taxes etc) make them a target rich environment for state and federal tax agencies. The stocks of the companies goes up; shareholders get increase in equity value; they pay capital gains taxes when they sell....They are therefore a better bet than the local drug dealer. The part that is unacceptable, is that the need for high corporate profits drives the price up well beyond what the "home grown" variety will require.

Fant, you stated: "Yes, you might argue that, but you would be incorrect. Over the counter products cannot carry a statement or advertise that they can treat, cure, or improve any medical condition. If you don't believe this, read the fine print, or listen carefully to the advertising sales pitch and you'll discover the disclaimers."

You are correct with "supplements", however you are incorrect with other "over the counter" medications from cold remedies to the recently downgraded drugs like Priolsec, Claritin etc.

You stated: "the cost to the public far outweighs the (alcohol) tax revenues. Treatment of alcohol related diseases is one of the reasons that Medicare is a losing proposition. It accounts for a substantial share of welfare and unemployment benefits, too."

Obviously the states and feds don't thinks so! They again weigh the who picture. Taxes on the manufactures;(heavy) sin taxes on the product itself; taxes and licensing fees on the distributors, retailers, restaurants, hotels etc; corporate taxes generated from those entities; employment taxes derived from everyone in the industry. The numbers are compelling, and the revenue far exceeds the cost. Unfortunately with any freedom, there are a certain number of people who will be abusers. Be it alcohol, gambling, cars, guns, fatty foods, marriage, union labor contracts, political office and marijuana (not yet a freedom). "Freedom" includes the freedom to fail.

In my scenario you seemed to think manufacturing and regulating Pot in the same fashion as alcohol and tobacco would make things "worse". I'm not a rabid supporter of legalizing Pot, and what I do know about the physiological effects is clouded by partisan belief systems. I for one have never tried it unlike our distinguished President(s), but I cannot believe that de-mystifying it, controlling the level of THC (as we do with alcohol "proof"), would be no more detrimental to society as the things we already consume, and would feed the tax hungry governmental machine.

No one can deny that there exists a multi-million dollar underground industry which is completely out of societies control. Would it not be better to have it regulated, controlled and turned into a profit center instead of an enormous expense line on our state and federal budgets?

 

[Contrarian]

So it's only a benefit if the pharmaceutical companies can regulate and profit from it? Why not let the doctors write an Rx that allows the end user to grow and supply their own? That's basically what a medical marijuana card is. The drug companies have put millions of dollars into fighting the medical marijuana movement. They invested nearly as much in that as they have in developing Merinol.

Unfortunately it's the American way! Ever since the Whiskey Rebellion when George Washington had the army march against farmers who made their own liquor even though distilling had been done by generations of farmers. It was a part of their culture and existence. The government wasn't getting their cut, therefore it became forbidden. The same would go here. The governement would only deem marijuana legal if there was a big financial upside for the govt. Look at the parallel with gambling. It was one of the absolute evils of society, then government sanitized it to conform with their own agenda. First there were the state lotteries, then the casinos. This "vice" has become a mainstream business, with it's main partner being the very entites who fought (and still fight the individual gambler with a game of chance for themselves) them... the government. Morals selectively legislated to conform with the agenda du jour. You gotta love it!

 

[labwitch]

these drugs allow more conscious interaction before death with family and physicians. they ease pain and do not alter consciousness as some would have you believe. they are DRUGS, not some satannic ritual. get real and read some scientific literature, for non-recreational use, these meds could be a boon to many many sufferers of a myriad of diseases. drop the "reefer madness" attitude already, it was inaccurate and asinine then and has become moreso.

 

[Pacridge]

Unfortunately it's the American way! Ever since the Whiskey Rebellion when George Washington had the army march against farmers who made their own liquor even though distilling had been done by generations of farmers. It was a part of their culture and existence. The government wasn't getting their cut, therefore it became forbidden. The same would go here. The governement would only deem marijuana legal if there was a big financial upside for the govt. Look at the parallel with gambling. It was one of the absolute evils of society, then government sanitized it to conform with their own agenda. First there were the state lotteries, then the casinos. This "vice" has become a mainstream business, with it's main partner being the very entites who fought (and still fight the individual gambler with a game of chance for themselves) them... the government. Morals selectively legislated to conform with the agenda du jour. You gotta love it!

No I don't:rofl . But I do agree with everything you wrote.

 

[Fantasea]

these drugs allow more conscious interaction before death with family and physicians. they ease pain and do not alter consciousness as some would have you believe. they are DRUGS, not some satannic ritual. get real and read some scientific literature, for non-recreational use, these meds could be a boon to many many sufferers of a myriad of diseases. drop the "reefer madness" attitude already, it was inaccurate and asinine then and has become moreso.

Whenever I come across a reference to 'recreational use' I :rofl

 

[Thor]

Turning a cost center (enforcing a questionable law) into a profit center (taxing it aggressively as a controlled substance, makes absolute sense to a reasoned person. It will be difficult however overcoming the popular beliefs that marijuana is just a stepping stone to more addictive drugs. If that logic were followed with alcohol, Coors and Busch would be illegal. As always Pac, you are presenting a reasonable solution.

By the way Thor and Batman... as a sometime Socialist - Lib... blah blah blah, I can tell you I am one of the very few of my generation who has never, ever partaken of the "evil" weed. I wish I could say the same for our Republican, conservative, religious, moral, holier than thou President. I think you guys need to look within before you start throwing stones... oh I'm sorry, that is a fine Christian tradition as well.

Well CONGRAT!

I am glad you recognized that you are "one of the few" of your generation that haven't partaken. I don't really remember saying ALL libs smoked the junk.

As far as your blast on the President. One thing us religious folks believe in is forgiveness. There is not a person in this world that does not have a vice. Including you.

I did not throw stones. I simply said that I think that the liberal mind set will usher in the legalization of pot.

 

[labwitch]

Whenever I come across a reference to 'recreational use' I :rofl

recreational/non-recreational use is a defined legal/medical term. laugh all you like, seems though, to show some bit of non-understanding of the medical and legal ramifications of these drugs. typical of most of the population, so...unfortunately...you're normal with all that implies.

 

[Fantasea]

recreational/non-recreational use is a defined legal/medical term. laugh all you like, seems though, to show some bit of non-understanding of the medical and legal ramifications of these drugs. typical of most of the population, so...unfortunately...you're normal with all that implies.

I have no qualms with an FDA approved medication prescribed by a certified medical practitioner to treat a condition for which it is intended.

Any other use of any of this stuff is simply an effort to intoxicate ones self.

If we are not in agreement, kindly explain the variance.

 

[labwitch]

you and i are in agreement after your explanation. someone else set me off elsewhere, it was nice talking with the intelligent people here. however, i'm gone, too much bigotry in other parts of the forum for me. no harsh feelings toward you and many others here.

 

[Pacridge]

you and i are in agreement after your explanation. someone else set me off elsewhere, it was nice talking with the intelligent people here. however, i'm gone, too much bigotry in other parts of the forum for me. no harsh feelings toward you and many others here.

Bigotry on this forum? What thread? If you don't mind my asking.

 

[Pacridge]

I have no qualms with an FDA approved medication prescribed by a certified medical practitioner to treat a condition for which it is intended.

Any other use of any of this stuff is simply an effort to intoxicate ones self.

If we are not in agreement, kindly explain the variance.

I don't think that's accurate. I thinks there's a lot of people who can't afford the FDA medicines and or can not afford to see a doctor to get the medicines prescribed. People have for centuries been using natural substances to deal with pain. Including alcohol. During the Civil War officers who were under going surgery were given doses of alcohol, enlisted men were given a bullet to bite on- hence "bite the bullet." Just because someone's using it doesn't mean they are, without a doubt, using it just to get "high."

And when it come to the marijuana plant it turns out that it's effects are very helpful to those under going cancer treatments. It helps them maintain their weight and appetite. Many people can not afford the cancer treatments and the FDA approved Marinol at the same time.

So I disagree with your statement.

 

[mixedmedia]

Unfortunately it's the American way! Ever since the Whiskey Rebellion when George Washington had the army march against farmers who made their own liquor even though distilling had been done by generations of farmers. It was a part of their culture and existence. The government wasn't getting their cut, therefore it became forbidden. The same would go here. The governement would only deem marijuana legal if there was a big financial upside for the govt. Look at the parallel with gambling. It was one of the absolute evils of society, then government sanitized it to conform with their own agenda. First there were the state lotteries, then the casinos. This "vice" has become a mainstream business, with it's main partner being the very entites who fought (and still fight the individual gambler with a game of chance for themselves) them... the government. Morals selectively legislated to conform with the agenda du jour. You gotta love it!

Similarly, I had always heard that the illegalization of pot was largely because of pressure from the cotton industry. They were intimidated by the versatility of hemp and its many applications which could have conceivably made cotton less cost efficient & even irrelevant. Could just be one of those myth things though. Maybe I'll look into it tomorrow.

 

[shuamort]

Similarly, I had always heard that the illegalization of pot was largely because of pressure from the cotton industry. They were intimidated by the versatility of hemp and its many applications which could have conceivably made cotton less cost efficient & even irrelevant. Could just be one of those myth things though. Maybe I'll look into it tomorrow.

That's correct, check out this book that will go into more detail (and besides, it's a great book) Peter McWilliams' "It Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do; The Absurdity of Consensual Crime In Our Free Country"

 

[Fantasea]

I don't think that's accurate. I thinks there's a lot of people who can't afford the FDA medicines and or can not afford to see a doctor to get the medicines prescribed. People have for centuries been using natural substances to deal with pain. Including alcohol. During the Civil War officers who were under going surgery were given doses of alcohol, enlisted men were given a bullet to bite on- hence "bite the bullet." Just because someone's using it doesn't mean they are, without a doubt, using it just to get "high."

Every major US pharmaceutical manufacturer has a program to supply medications free, or ar greatly reduced cost to those who cannot afford them. Take a look at the following links:

http://www.wyeth.com/contact/contact_files/papapplication-authorizationforms.pdf

http://www.mariononline.com/careline/pfizer.htm

And when it come to the marijuana plant it turns out that it's effects are very helpful to those under going cancer treatments. It helps them maintain their weight and appetite. Many people can not afford the cancer treatments and the FDA approved Marinol at the same time.

Take a few minutes and scan the websites of other pharmaceutical manufacturers. You'll find that you are mistaken.

So I disagree with your statement.

You are free to do whatever you wish, even if it is incorrect.

 

[anomaly]

Every major US pharmaceutical manufacturer has a program to supply medications free, or ar greatly reduced cost to those who cannot afford them. Take a look at the following links:

http://www.wyeth.com/contact/contact_files/papapplication-authorizationforms.pdf

http://www.mariononline.com/careline/pfizer.htm

Take a few minutes and scan the websites of other pharmaceutical manufacturers. You'll find that you are mistaken.You are free to do whatever you wish, even if it is incorrect.

The reason cancer patients use mrijuana is not to help themselves physically, but to relieve some pain and stress. When cancer is eating away at you, the long term effects of marijuana hardly matter. So I hope you're not trying to make medicinal marijuana illegal here.

 

[shuamort]

The reason cancer patients use mrijuana is not to help themselves physically, but to relieve some pain and stress. When cancer is eating away at you, the long term effects of marijuana hardly matter. So I hope you're not trying to make medicinal marijuana illegal here.

It's also used to keep the appetite up. A big side effect of chemotherapy is nausea and marijuana helps counteract that.

A bit of a hijack here, there's a great movie called "God Said Ha!" which is Saturday Night Live Alum Julia Sweeney talking about how her brother found out he had cancer and her whole family moved into her tiny house to help him out of this world. It's a touching true story. She does talk about how her brother was prescribed marinol but that the smoked version helped more.

 

[Fantasea]

The reason cancer patients use mrijuana is not to help themselves physically, but to relieve some pain and stress. When cancer is eating away at you, the long term effects of marijuana hardly matter. So I hope you're not trying to make medicinal marijuana illegal here.

You know, as well as I do, that 'medical marijuana' is the straw man in the argument to legalize the stuff across the board.

As I have written earlier, if a doctor prescribes a legitimate pharmaceutical medication to treat a condition for which it has proven to have efficacy, I'm all for it.

Anything else is an excuse for intoxicating one's self.

 

[anomaly]

You know, as well as I do, that 'medical marijuana' is the straw man in the argument to legalize the stuff across the board.

As I have written earlier, if a doctor prescribes a legitimate pharmaceutical medication to treat a condition for which it has proven to have efficacy, I'm all for it.

Anything else is an excuse for intoxicating one's self.

Yea, exactly. If a doctor prescribes marijuana for a patient (or if a patient asks for it and the doctor grants him it) it is medicinal marijuana, and should be legal. Marijuana should not be made legal to everyone. Besides, I know well enough that anyone can get pot if they want it, it being illegal makes no difference. I simply choose not to use it.

 

[Pacridge]

Every major US pharmaceutical manufacturer has a program to supply medications free, or ar greatly reduced cost to those who cannot afford them. Take a look at the following links:

http://www.wyeth.com/contact/contact_files/papapplication-authorizationforms.pdf

http://www.mariononline.com/careline/pfizer.htm

Take a few minutes and scan the websites of other pharmaceutical manufacturers. You'll find that you are mistaken.

The problem with both the programs you point out as many have noted is that you have to have such low income to qualify. People in the middle- the masses, get left out of such program program. And if the drug companies spent half of what they do promoting their good will as they did on the good will it's self they'd probably be able able to afford to increase their charity. They spend million on ad's and a fraction of that on actual assistance.

Sorry you're the one that's mistaken.

 

[BRIGHTRED]

Never ever ever...legalizing it would cause all the problems in the world!

 

[debate_junkie]

Every major US pharmaceutical manufacturer has a program to supply medications free, or ar greatly reduced cost to those who cannot afford them. Take a look at the following links:

http://www.wyeth.com/contact/contact_files/papapplication-authorizationforms.pdf

http://www.mariononline.com/careline/pfizer.htm

Take a few minutes and scan the websites of other pharmaceutical manufacturers. You'll find that you are mistaken.You are free to do whatever you wish, even if it is incorrect.

Part of the reason your thinking is flawed here is this... once a company has a drug that has gained approval from the FDA... they are also granted a patent, which gives them the sole right to produce this drug. HOWEVER, in that, they also have the right to charge whatever they wish for said medication. They have only RECENTLY had enough pressure that they've begun these programs for those who cannot afford needed medications, but then they don't come without strings, either.

It's a misnomer that only the poorest of the country cannot afford these medicines. Many middle class families are also stretched when it comes to it, but many middle class families AREN'T eligible for these programs, because the income caps are so low.

But (and I know this thread was started awhile ago) the Supreme Court has gone and trumped the states right to decide this issue. They've ruled that even in states where medicinal marijuanna was voted on by the people that the government CAN still prosecute. Further indication that the Federal government wants to be the ONLY government of the land.

 

[Fantasea]

Part of the reason your thinking is flawed here is this... once a company has a drug that has gained approval from the FDA... they are also granted a patent, which gives them the sole right to produce this drug. HOWEVER, in that, they also have the right to charge whatever they wish for said medication. They have only RECENTLY had enough pressure that they've begun these programs for those who cannot afford needed medications, but then they don't come without strings, either.

It's a misnomer that only the poorest of the country cannot afford these medicines. Many middle class families are also stretched when it comes to it, but many middle class families AREN'T eligible for these programs, because the income caps are so low.

But (and I know this thread was started awhile ago) the Supreme Court has gone and trumped the states right to decide this issue. They've ruled that even in states where medicinal marijuanna was voted on by the people that the government CAN still prosecute. Further indication that the Federal government wants to be the ONLY government of the land.

Every corporation is operated in the same manner -- to maximize the return to its investors. Else, investors would not invest, corporations would fail, and the US would be just one more third world nation.

Lots of folks can't afford lots of things that they either need or would like to have.

Perhaps the problem is that the country is organized as a representative democracy and functions on the principles of capitalism. Those who avail themselves of the extant opportunities fare very well. Those who do not avail themselves of the extant opportunities are often miserable. Whose fault is that? (The disabled are, of course, excepted because they are cared for.)

Were the country be reorganized so as to function on socialistic principles, then everyone could be equally miserable.

"Life isn't like a box of chocolates, it is more like a jar of jalapenos...what you do today, may burn your ass tomorrow."

 

[Fantasea]

I've gotten in a few arguments over why weed should or should not be illegal, and the arguments for why it should be illegal are seriously the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. They include:
Weed is a gateway drug.
This is of course ignoring that weed is a gateway drug BECAUSE it is illegal. Since it's illegal, who do people usually buy it from? Drug dealers. And is pot their biggest profit maker? **** no. So thus they try to sell the pothead real drugs, and sometimes it works. It's just a retarded argument.

If weed were legal, everyone would be stoned all the time, and thus our economy would fall apart.
Alright, so that means what's keeping everyone from being stoned all the time is the fact that it's illegal. So that means EVERYONE at home, right now, is sitting there thinking "I would go out and buy a lot of pot, and never be sober again, but dammit, it's illegal!" Just flat out retarded.

So is there any reasonable ****ing argument on why weed should be illegal?

Sure.

Kids emulate everything older folks do. That's why they get hooked on nicotine and become alcoholics. Now you want to make it easier for them to become potheads, too.

Don't think so? How many adult smokers, who can't kick the habit, do you know who started after they finished high school? How many alcoholics do you know didn't get their start on six packs after school.

As long as anything addictive is available to adults, kids will get hooked on it. I don't see that as being a good idea for the reasons shown in the following link.

Of course, users will scoff, mock, and deny.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/MarijBroch/Marijteenstxt.html#longterm