OT: Everybody Must (not) Get Stoned

H

hollowdweller

Joined
Sep 22, 2003
Messages
13,182
I knew this was coming:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8118123/

Given how many prescription drugs have been allowed to slip under the FDA's screening process with potentially hazardous results it is surprising to me that the administration would care so much about this issue.

Also, in this area at least abuse of prescription drugs like Xanax and Oxycontin, and the proliferation of meth and meth labs seem to be something that would warrant greater intervention, as they seem to have a much more negative impact on individuals/communities.

This whole states rights thing is very confusing to me. It seems the courts are upholding states rights in certain instances and not in others based on their own value judgements as opposed to the actual concept.
 
So, what's your opinion, Hollow? The FDA will always be criticized for letting in drugs that turn out to be harmful or not letting in drugs that are needed. In hindsight, it's easy to blame them.

I used sudafed every once in awhile- it drys secretions. I'd hate to see it off limits, but the limit amount for one month is more than I'll need in a year.

We do have some common ground here; I think many illegal drugs should be legalized. I hate to say that, because of the awful harm it does to society. But the harm is here, prohibition failed, and we have not only the harm of the drugs but also that of corruption for our Government due to the illegality.


munk
 
I don't use illegal drugs or even doctor prescribed ones if I can help it. That said, the Supreme Court's decision really angers me. The people of several states have spoken and approved marijuana for medical use but the SC says its illegal. A blatant violation of states rights and the rights of really ill people. The rich and powerful can get any drug that they want but its the little guy who gets whacked every time. What can I say? I'm sickened by this ruling but not surprised. I hope that the state and local LEOs will continue to enforce by state guidelines and ignore the Federal laws.

Ice
 
Sudafed - I bought some of that stuff in Wiesbaden on the Army Airfield - I had a severe cold and not very much trust into the German Army Medical Staff. This stuff is seriously weird - I felt like I was on drugs. Cold was gone the next day though. To this day, I still have a couple of pills left in case I might need them again. Weird stuff.

Keno
 
munk said:
So, what's your opinion, Hollow? The FDA will always be criticized for letting in drugs that turn out to be harmful or not letting in drugs that are needed. In hindsight, it's easy to blame them.

munk
Click to expand...

I don't really have a good opinion. I'd say pot should probably be legalized all the way around, and alcohol illegalized, but we know that didn't work either.

As far as the FDA? I don't like the fact that pharmaceutical companies can actually PAY the FDA to expedite the approval of a drug. To me this is kind of like the forfeiture law regarding drug operations. I don't like the idea of government agencies taking money in these ways they do not always result in agencies priorities being in line with the greatest public good.

I hate cold medicine. The only cold medicine that ever worked for me was Alka Seltzer Cold Formula. However the active ingredient phenlypropalamine(SP?) was banned. The chemical in cold medicine that they use to make crank always made me feel worse. I think our state is regulating cold medicine now.
 
I heard Montana was going to require customers to buy sudafed directly from the pharmacist, though I don't know how accurate that is.



munk
 
Personally, I'm for legalization or decriminalization of all drugs. If people give drugs to kids, or expose them to drugs or drug use, there are multiple laws that already cover such actions, not necessary drug-specific (contributing, criminal negligence, etc).

For people who want to stone themselves out of the gene pool, go for it. For those who want to enjoy a joint or snort or whatever else in the privacy of your home, have on. Just don't get stoned and stupid in public, and don't endanger others, and it's not my gawd-durned business what the hell you're doing.

The real question is whether the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to legislate drug use. "States' Rights" is a red herring, and is easily disprovable by a quick glance at Article 6 of the Constitution:
Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.



Though briefly invoked by others (Alien and Sedition Acts & "nullification"), States' Rights has almost exclusively been relegated to the right of states to own slaves without interference. More recently, it was invoked in defense of racist actions at the state level, and in the last few years, has unfortunately crept into the movement to control the size of our burgeoning Federal government bureaucracy. While I heartily endorse efforts to reduce the size of our government, invoking States' Rights is about the last way I would want to attempt that.

John
 
Spectre said:
For those who want to enjoy a joint or snort or whatever else in the privacy of your home, have on. John
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the snort part. I think that there's probably a valid reason for keeping substances that you can actually DIE from doing illegal, or at the very least hard to get.

I have seen a lot of cases back during the crack epidemic of people who were relatively young, but who had severely imparied cardiac functioning due to chronic abuse of stimulant type drugs. These people almost never had private health insurance and had to be taken care of by the public. Of course I guess the argument could be made that as many people die from stuff related to obesity as the above and it's not illegal. Still the fast food kills you slower :eek:
 
Well...that's just it.

Once upon a time- about 100 years ago- people had ready access to narcotics of all sorts: opium, morphine, cocaine (as in Coca-Cola). All of which were perfectly legal, and often or usually available in "tonics" of dubious medical use, but which made them more tasty.

At the same time, there were no controls on poisons, explosives, cannon, or fully automatic weapons! :eek:

Somehow, it seemed to only have become a problem after the leglislation against a drug (alcohol). Before then, you could have taken your top-of-the-line tank for a spin while coked to the gills, and gargling arsenic, and as long as you didn't destroy property or hurt anyone, it would have been legal everywhere except for New York City.

See, once upon a time in America, there was this thing called personal responsibility. Adults- and even older kids- were expected to have and use it. And that worked just fine. I'm failing to recall any drive-by cannonading by the kids who could have legally purchased an artillery piece through the mail in 1920.

Removing consequence from really stupid actions is a serious problem in our society. We enable the weak and disfunctional, the foolish, careless, and just plain too-stupid-to-live.

We should let Darwin win, sometimes.

John
 
Spectre said:
Well...that's just it.

Once upon a time- about 100 years ago- people had ready access to narcotics of all sorts: opium, morphine, cocaine (as in Coca-Cola). All of which were perfectly legal, and often or usually available in "tonics" of dubious medical use, but which made them more tasty.

At the same time, there were no controls on poisons, explosives, cannon, or fully automatic weapons! :eek:

Somehow, it seemed to only have become a problem after the leglislation against a drug (alcohol). Before then, you could have taken your top-of-the-line tank for a spin while coked to the gills, and gargling arsenic, and as long as you didn't destroy property or hurt anyone, it would have been legal everywhere except for New York City.

See, once upon a time in America, there was this thing called personal responsibility. Adults- and even older kids- were expected to have and use it. And that worked just fine. I'm failing to recall any drive-by cannonading by the kids who could have legally purchased an artillery piece through the mail in 1920.

Removing consequence from really stupid actions is a serious problem in our society. We enable the weak and disfunctional, the foolish, careless, and just plain too-stupid-to-live.

We should let Darwin win, sometimes.

John
Click to expand...


Excellent post John. The reality is that pot was actively banned AFTER prohibition was repealed. The distillery companies didn't want any competition. The trampling of individual rights, the unconscionable criminalization and banning of a lousy weed, and the number of people in jail for possessing a certain plant is criminal in and of itself. The people of several states have spoken and said that they at least want medical marijuana to be legalized. Instead of listening to the will of these tens of millions of citizens, our Federal Master's have decreed that this will not be allowed. In true Joe Friday Dragnet fashion they maintain the incredible fiction that pot is more dangerous than alcohol.

After all, huge bureaucracies depend on the asset forfeiture revenue from "enforcing" this war on some drugs. When people dying of cancer in terrible pain defy these tyrants, they are thrown in jail without their medicine to die an even more horrible pain-filled death. OR the bastards running these programs provide their own low-THC ditchweed pot that is useless, and then point to this as definitive proof that pot doesn't work.

I'm not talking about crank or coke or heroin, even though those are arguably drugs that people should be able to use in the privacy of their own homes, as long as they don't hop in the car and go for a drive. I'm talking about a natural herbal medicine that can help sick people, and these power mad sunsabiyches in the DEA insisting they can't have it!

:mad: :confused: :mad:

Don't get me started....!

N.

BTW, for an excellent treatise on this issue, I heartily recommend the book "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed, and What We Can Do About It," by Judge James P. Gray.
 
I worked a detox ward for a year while in college years ago. Never had a client come in and say, " I lost my house, my family, my whole life because I just couldn't stop smoking weed!". I did hear variations on that sentence that ended with "Drinking" and "doing coke".
  • Prohibition makes dealers rich.
  • Inflates police coffers.
  • Diminishes civil rights.
  • Prohibition artifically inflates prices
  • Social ills follow that inflated value (organized crime, addict crime, etc) and add to the toll taken physically and emotionally by the addiction.
  • Addiction is only one end of the spectrum of use.
  • It's easier to get help dealing with substance abuse problems if the substance isn't illegal.
  • Contributes to the US having the highest per capita ratio of prisoners in the industrialized world
  • The college kid who did 5 years for a rock concert parking lot non violent drug crime is no longer a potentially high contributor to the tax base, and has become a liabilty as well as a trained criminal with a grudge against society.

We lost the war on drugs before we even started fighting it, time to focus on it as the public health problem it is.

btw, I think there's a special place in the pit for those who would go out of their way to deny a terminally ill patient the palliative care of their choice.
 
Quote Yahmanin

I worked a detox ward for a year while in college years ago. Never had a client come in and say, " I lost my house, my family, my whole life because I just couldn't stop smoking weed!". I did hear variations on that sentence that ended with "Drinking" and "doing coke".
Click to expand...

I've seen a few people not live up to their full potential cause they were stoned too much, but usually they grew out of it. On the other hand I have known a couple folks ruin their lives on cocaine and heroin, and of course many many on alcohol. :grumpy:
 
So, gentle people....

are you suggesting this was a political decision, and not a legal interpretation of the constitution of our Republic?

Or, are you suggesting that it was a poorly thought-out interpretation of constitutional law?
 
1. Drugs should be legal.

2. There is probably not- or, at best, tenuous backing in the Constitution to govern such substances.

3. If Federal law, it is indeed (I would say "unfortunately", but I'm happy people with skin color different than my pasty white can drink at the same fountain) Constitutional to enforce this law on the States.

John, food addict, child of an abusive (deceased) food addict
 
Sudafed and anything that contains large quantities of it has been put behind the counters here in Oklahoma. The amount of busted meth labs has been drastically reduced because of that.
I think that's a good thing.:D

I'm for legalizing pot. If I could smoke dope I wouldn't hurt near as much and I could drop the potentially liver destroying apap that's included in my oxycodone.:grumpy:

The 20 mgs of Methadone I'm on for chronic pain 3 x a day just doesn't cut it. The oxycodone 10/ apap 650 m.a.l. or Percoset for the break-through pain isn't enough at the present time to kill the pain when it's bad. Barb and I spend about $50.00 a month on topical rubs just to keep my back from at some small degree of comfort in between the rest of the stuff.
Trouble is where the nerves were cut in my low back I have little feeling. When Barb rubs enough on my low back to even begin to get it to have some degree of feeling warm my upper back would be burning me alive if she didn't watch what she was doing. She has had to wash it off a couple of times in the past.

Hopefully sometime after the 16th when I see my neurosurgeon and hopefully some tests are run I'll know more about what's going on with my back again. It's kind of ironic in that I'm hoping it's from the Stills Disease rather than the degenerative bone disease. Worse case scenario is that it's both.:rolleyes: :grumpy:
I'm sending a lot of Smoke that I don't have to have more back surgery.
If pot were legal or even medically legal here in Oklahoma I could delay things maybe long enough so that no more back surgery would be needed.;)

It has crossed my mind to get in touch with some old acquaintances.:D ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top