Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 95

Thread: Medicinal Marijuana

  1. #61

    Default

    ^Then let someone do double blind studies to prove the medical efficacy of MJ, and get it approved by the FDA, like any other drug. Then let doctors write real prescriptions for it. Now I know the feds will need to get their collective head out their ass ont his for that to happen. But if we really want MJ for legitimate medical use, this is how it should happen.

  2. #62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Merry View Post
    But...this whole "war on drugs" thing would be a lot cheaper - not to mention winnable - if all illicit drugs were legalised and regulated, just like all other "legal" drugs which, as you pointed out, are often just as problematic.

    Being illegal is clearly not an effective deterrent, anyway. It makes me sick that so much is spent in time, effort and money to fight something that's unwinnable, especially at the expense of more pressing concerns.
    That is it in a nutshell. I am surprised that so many liberterian right wingers are in favor of allowing the Government to dictate what you can and cannot put in your body. William Buckley got this one right (but only this one )

  3. #63

    Default

    ^
    I don't particularly like the concept of widely available narcotics. But I've come to the conclusion that the illegal drug trade is worse than the drugs themselves, and that there are non-judicial ways of having at least as much discouraging effect on drug use than the current judical approach is having (which does not appear to be very much.)

  4. #64
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,129

    Default

    I make the clear distinction between drugs like marijuana / MDMH and "hard" drugs like heroin / cocaine / methamphetamine / oxycodone. The later are responsible for shattered lives, burlaries / robberies, homocides, etc.. and society has a legitimate interest in trying to take it completely off the streets. I can't say the same about the former

  5. #65
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    MDMH is basically fancy pants speed. Fun, but it does definitely have it's down side.

  6. #66
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
    ^
    I don't particularly like the concept of widely available narcotics. But I've come to the conclusion that the illegal drug trade is worse than the drugs themselves, and that there are non-judicial ways of having at least as much discouraging effect on drug use than the current judical approach is having (which does not appear to be very much.)
    It's the futility and pointlessness of the current strategies that is so disheartening, not to mention insidious mainfestations such as corruption.

    It would be interesting to see a balance sheet of what has been spent on the "war on drugs" and what taxpayers actually got for their money. Very little that is constructive or positive, no doubt.

    Drugs are big business and big crime, which leads to more crime. The crime element is far more detrimental. Of course, if illicit drugs were legalised, there would be an initial (and probably ongoing) inundation of idiots who will kill or maim themselves because of the novelty of (comparatively) cheap, legal drugs. At least some of them would have done that anyway.

    As uncaring as it may sound, just like in most other human endeavours, there will be casualties. The number of casualties (and victims of all adverse aspects of drug culture, e.g. "shattered lives...") in the long-term would be far fewer with legalisation and regulation.

    Society can't continue to allow the "what if" paranoia to rule the day just to protect the relative minority of idiots. This applies to so many issues, it's just damn scary.

    It's also impossible to protect all non-idiots, as we currently so amply demonstrate. We would, however, be able to do a much better job via legalisation and regulation.

    Again, as human existence dictates, there would undoubtedly be other issues that would need to be addressed if the legalisation path were taken, but they couldn't possibly be any worse than those we face now, and we'll never know if we don't try.

    Not really sayin' anything new but, as I've maintained for a long time, there is no solution, only the best, common sense way of dealing with it. Legalisation is, hands down, the best bet overall.

    Back to the medicinal argument, other illicit drugs are legally used medicinally so there is no reason why marijuana can't be, too. It also makes me sick that people suffer unnecessarily because of the paranoia of politicians et al. This applies to so many issues, too.

  7. #67
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Yeah well, like I was saying..."idiots" and "other issues". I really hope this doesn't adversely affect genuine cases and the disadvantaged.


    New York City Emergency Rooms To Restrict Painkiller Prescriptions

    By Hunter Stuart

    Mayor Michael Bloomberg is again pushing new regulations aimed at making New Yorkers healthier. This time, he's calling for restrictions on the amount of prescription painkillers emergency rooms can give patients.

    All New York City's public hospitals will adopt new guidelines that forbid emergency room doctors to give out more than three days' worth of opioid painkillers to patients, or to refill lost or stolen prescriptions for such painkillers. The measure also forbids ER doctors to prescribe long-acting opioids like methadone or extended-release oxycodone.

    The new voluntary guidelines were explained in a statement released by the Mayor's office on Thursday, and at a press conference held by the Mayor that same day at Elmhurst Hospital in Queens.

    The new guidelines are designed to reduce the number of painkillers in circulation and to cut down on abuse, says the statement. In addition, Bloomberg cited a need to reduce crimes associated with opioid abuse, such as Medicare fraud and holdups at pharmacies.

    "Between 2004 and 2010 ... the number of painkiller-related emergency room visits in our city has increased by 143%," Bloomberg said at a press conference on Thursday.

    Health Commissioner Thomas Farley took the microphone and said that about two million prescriptions are written for opioids every year in New York City, which amounts to one for every four people. Farley also said there were about 40,000 New Yorkers currently dependent on these drugs.

    After marijuana, prescription drug abuse (which includes the non-medical use of pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants and sedatives) was the most common kind of illicit drug use by Americans between the ages of 12 and 25 in 2011, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, which polls about 67,000 people every year. The survey also found pain relievers to be the most commonly misused prescription drug in America.

    "In the heat of the moment in an ER, it shouldn't be the ER doctor's role to think through and anticipate the patient's ongoing needs for opioids," Pamela Brier, the CEO of Maimonides Medical Center told The Huffington Post over the phone. "That should be the responsibility of the patient's primary care doctor, or if the patient has a broken limb, the patient's surgeon."

    Maimonides Medical Center is a 700-bed, non-profit teaching hospital in Brooklyn that voluntarily decided to adopt Bloomberg's guidelines regulating emergency room painkiller prescriptions.

    However, the new restrictions may leave in the lurch some people who legitimately need painkillers. While many have access to primary care physicians who can give longer-term prescriptions for pain relievers, the New York Times points out that many low-income and uninsured Americans use the ER as their primary source for health care. The Times also notes that it can often take longer than three days to schedule appointments with many health care specialists.

    At public hospitals, the new guidelines will apply only to the emergency room, not to other departments. The guidelines will not apply to private hospitals and doctors.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...p_ref=new-york

  8. #68
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    I am 50/50 on that.

    The worst thing that can happen is if you are a "law abiding citizen" that, while in the hospital for something, end up getting hooked on opioids (sp) that were administered in Intensive care.

    OTOH... pain is pain, so.....

  9. #69

    Default

    I don't think they're so worried that the patients themselves will get hooked so much as the medication unused by the original patient will get into the market.

  10. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GordonGecko View Post
    I make the clear distinction between drugs like marijuana / MDMH and "hard" drugs like heroin / cocaine / methamphetamine / oxycodone. The later are responsible for shattered lives, burlaries / robberies, homocides, etc.. and society has a legitimate interest in trying to take it completely off the streets. I can't say the same about the former
    The question is not weather or not the use of 'hard' drugs' leads to ruined lives or crime, but rather can we effect the supply, availability and use of those drugs through legislation. Merry and BBMW make strong arguements that despite expending billions, such efforts have proven to be futile, and I agree.

    But while we are on the subject, I maintain that the association of the ill-effects to recreational vs hard drugs is not as intuitive as how it appears. Alcohol for instance is an example of a recreational drug (assuming you agree it is) that has arguably caused more ruined lives than heroine. I don't hear too many people making the case that alcohol should be illegal.

  11. #71
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,773

    Default

    They did, they tried, and they failed.

    But look at all the "opportunity" it provided our Italian American Immigrants!

  12. #72
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddhead View Post
    The question is not weather or not the use of 'hard' drugs' leads to ruined lives or crime, but rather can we effect the supply, availability and use of those drugs through legislation. Merry and BBMW make strong arguements that despite expending billions, such efforts have proven to be futile, and I agree.
    Yes, it has been futile in stamping it out. But I would argue that without the crimminalization, the problem would be much much worse. Would you want to make all such drugs cheap and legal? That would solve the crime aspect since junkies wouldn't be mugging little old ladies anymore to get their fix. But we would have a lot more messed up people roaming the streets and clogging the healthcare system

    Quote Originally Posted by eddhead View Post
    But while we are on the subject, I maintain that the association of the ill-effects to recreational vs hard drugs is not as intuitive as how it appears. Alcohol for instance is an example of a recreational drug (assuming you agree it is) that has arguably caused more ruined lives than heroine. I don't hear too many people making the case that alcohol should be illegal.
    Yes agree on alcohol, but I think alcohol use is far greater by orders of magnitude and on a percentage of users basis it's nowhere near as destructive as say heroin or crack cocaine. I could be wrong about that, but regardless the problem with alcohol is that it's society's "accepted" recreational drug and completely mainstream. The government knows better than to try prohibition again because it clearly won't work

  13. #73

    Default

    ^
    I think it's telling when people who get themselves hooked on prescription opiates find that it's too expensive to get the pills anymore, they can get their fix much more cheaply with street heroin. That tells me that the fact that it's illegal isn't doing much to suppress the supply. I also don't think too many people would say, "oh, heroin is legal now, maybe I'll try it."

    Even it were legalized, I wouldn't want it to be a free for all. Many aspects would be heavily regulated. I would NOT use the alcolhol model that happened after the end of prohabition. First, I would allow absolutely no advertising, promotion, or marketing of any kind. Prices at the wholesale and retail level would be regulated, to allow those selling it to make enough money to be worth doing it, but not enough to have it be highly profitable, or to encourage an alternate black market supply.

    I would also legally allow any employer to drug test any employee at any time, and allow dismissal for failure (comfirmation retests would be required.) Any goverment employment or benefit will be tied to drug testing, with failure resulting in loss of employment or benefit.

    The idea would be that we're going to allow the sale and use, but we're not going to make your life easy if you chose to use.

  14. #74

    Default

    I agree with BBMW on his main point (and I think I need a cold compress).

    For whatever reason, the illegalization of narcotic drugs has not caused a shortage of supply or a reduction in price. Drugs like heroine, cocaine, even perscription opiates are widely available on the street at relatively low prices; so low in fact that use of these drugs among lower income groups is at least as pervasive as it is use amoung higher income groups.

    The war on drugs is not working. It has not suppressed supply, impacted availability or affected price. And drugs have a high price elasticity.

    I disagree with BBMW (I feel more normal now) on drug testing, and am kind of surprised that an avowed libertarian would undermind individual choice and freedom by allowing the Government to intrude on our persons. Shame!!

    As to alcohol vs. other drugs, I am not sure it is more destructive by orders of magnitude. I am fairly certain that death and property destruction from driving while under the influence exceeds deaths that from driving while on cocaine or oxycodine for instance. The social costs of alcohol consumption are very high.

  15. #75

    Default

    If it's a private employer doing the drug testing, it's not the government intruding. Also, if a drug user doesn't want a government job, or government benefit, then they wouldn't be tested either. But I don't have a problem with testing as a condition of getting government money.

    In point of fact, while I think the judicial approach to drug has failed, and has had significant negative side effects, I am not pro-drug use. I fully understand it's negative effects on society. So I'd like to try something else. This is what I've come up with. I'd listen to any other ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by eddhead View Post
    I agree with BBMW on his main point (and I think I need a cold compress).

    For whatever reason, the illegalization of narcotic drugs has not caused a shortage of supply or a reduction in price. Drugs like heroine, cocaine, even perscription opiates are widely available on the street at relatively low prices; so low in fact that use of these drugs among lower income groups is at least as pervasive as it is use amoung higher income groups.

    The war on drugs is not working. It has not suppressed supply, impacted availability or affected price. And drugs have a high price elasticity.

    I disagree with BBMW (I feel more normal now) on drug testing, and am kind of surprised that an avowed libertarian would undermind individual choice and freedom by allowing the Government to intrude on our persons. Shame!!

    As to alcohol vs. other drugs, I am not sure it is more destructive by orders of magnitude. I am fairly certain that death and property destruction from driving while under the influence exceeds deaths that from driving while on cocaine or oxycodine for instance. The social costs of alcohol consumption are very high.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software