Why would you be against the Medical Marijuana prop? (pharmacies, exemption)

[Ritchie_az]

I just don't understand, if this is medical pot, why is it that the current system in place for regulating medical drugs is circumvented? Every single other drug must go through that system. Why is pot so "special" that we go outside of that?
I believe the answer (and I know many on here disagree) is that this has very little to do with the word "medical". As someone else said, it's a sham, and a step towards legalizing it in general. If that is the agenda, that's fine, I just wish there was more honesty about it (not necessarily from those on C-D, but in general).
If it's truly medical pot, let the current system that is in place for all medical drugs approve or disapprove it, and (if approved) regulate and oversee it.

[Beaconowner]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

I just don't understand, if this is medical pot, why is it that the current system in place for regulating medical drugs is circumvented? Every single other drug must go through that system. Why is pot so "special" that we go outside of that?
I believe the answer (and I know many on here disagree) is that this has very little to do with the word "medical". As someone else said, it's a sham, and a step towards legalizing it in general. If that is the agenda, that's fine, I just wish there was more honesty about it (not necessarily from those on C-D, but in general).
If it's truly medical pot, let the current system that is in place for all medical drugs approve or disapprove it, and (if approved) regulate and oversee it.

It's not about what you BELIEVE, or your uninformed opinion, it's about the politics of contraband and the DEA's stance on marijuana. The feds insist on maintaining that marijuana is a schedule 1 drug, that is a substance with NO medical value and a high probability of abuse. That is why legitimate researchers in the US can not get research approval. That is why NO organization or person that gets federal funds, and is subject to federal regulation (like a pharmacy), will touch it. That's why NO doctor can write a perscription for it (only a recommendation). That's why the medical marijuana laws in 14 states are written the way they are. Pay attention, do some research, educate yourself, or remain silent.

[Ritchie_az]

It's not about what you BELIEVE, or your uninformed opinion, it's about the politics of contraband and the DEA's stance on marijuana. The feds insist on maintaining that marijuana is a schedule 1 drug, that is a substance with NO medical value and a high probability of abuse.

Maybe they are right. Maybe the process in place rejected it already. Like I said, why should pot get special treatment--circumvent the system--while every other drug must go through it? Makes no sense.

Pay attention, do some research, educate yourself, or remain silent.

Well, you assume that if someone disagrees with you that they aren't paying attention, that they have not done research, and that they have not educated themselves. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps folks have done that and came to opposite conclusions?

[Beaconowner]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

Maybe they are right. Maybe the process in place rejected it already. Like I said, why should pot get special treatment--circumvent the system--while every other drug must go through it? Makes no sense.



Well, you assume that if someone disagrees with you that they aren't paying attention, that they have not done research, and that they have not educated themselves. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps folks have done that and came to opposite conclusions?

Well, when you say things like you have said on this topic, like MAYBE the process in place rejected it already. Instead of knowing that to be the case, then one can only assume you don't know that is a fact. If you knew marijuana is a schedule one drug (DEA) then you would know what I'm talking about. It's not a difference of OPINION, it's a lack of knowledge on your part.

There are plenty of people at City-Data that have done the research, that have educated themselves on the issues, both federally and in their specific state, AND who don't agree with me. That's fine. I love debating and conversing with people who know what they are talking about, but have a different view.

You are obviously, based on what you have said, I believe (opinion, without facts), maybe (conjecture), why (a question of facts), etc. not one of those persons. But as soon as you start talking as if you have any background in the subject, I'd be happy to continue a discussion/debate/cite authoritative studies, etc. on any points you'd like to talk about. Until then, your opinion is not very meaningful and discourse with you is not very productive.

[Ritchie_az]

Instead of knowing that to be the case, then one can only assume you don't know that is a fact. If you knew marijuana is a schedule one drug (DEA) then you would know what I'm talking about. It's not a difference of OPINION, it's a lack of knowledge on your part.

My point was, there is a reason for that. The process in place has at some point looked at pot and declared something about it: it's not legal, it's not safe. If the process that is in place wants to revisit that, by all means! But just because you disagree with what the process declared does not mean that we should make a special exception and circumvent the process.
Let the process that is in place for all drugs be the decider.

There are plenty of people at City-Data that have done the research, that have educated themselves on the issues, both federally and in their specific state, AND who don't agree with me. That's fine. I love debating and conversing with people who know what they are talking about, but have a different view.
You are obviously, based on what you have said, I believe (opinion, without facts), maybe (conjecture), why (a question of facts), etc. not one of those persons.

Should I point out all the logical fallacies in your posts, and say, "I'll debate and converse with you only when you can use logic and reason correctly"? That's essentially what you are telling me. I also don't appreciate your (wrong) assuptions about what I know (or don't know) about this issue.

But as soon as you start talking as if you have any background in the subject, I'd be happy to continue a discussion/debate/cite authoritative studies, etc. on any points you'd like to talk about. Until then, your opinion is not very meaningful and discourse with you is not very productive.

Honestly, it's statements like this that don't belong on C-D. Because YOU don't BELIEVE I have enough knowledge on the subject, I should just shut up? Who made you the pot god? How do YOU know what I do or do not know?
Honestly, it's comments like yours that are not meaningful and productive.

[Beaconowner]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

My point was, there is a reason for that. The process in place has at some point looked at pot and declared something about it: it's not legal, it's not safe. If the process that is in place wants to revisit that, by all means! But just because you disagree with what the process declared does not mean that we should make a special exception and circumvent the process.
Let the process that is in place for all drugs be the decider.



Should I point out all the logical fallacies in your posts, and say, "I'll debate and converse with you only when you can use logic and reason correctly"? That's essentially what you are telling me. I also don't appreciate your (wrong) assuptions about what I know (or don't know) about this issue.



Honestly, it's statements like this that don't belong on C-D. Because YOU don't BELIEVE I have enough knowledge on the subject, I should just shut up? Who made you the pot god? How do YOU know what I do or do not know?
Honestly, it's comments like yours that are not meaningful and productive.

Well Richie, when you can tell us the REASONS why marijuana, which is non-toxic, is a schedule one drug (with no medical value, and a high probability for abuse) despite over 40 years of studies to the contrary, including presidential commission reports that recommend action contrary to the status quo, I'm all ears, but so far, you haven't demonstrated ANY understanding of the issues, except a blind faith that the powers that be (the DEA and the federal government) know what's best. And a lack of understanding as to why marijuana is not at the local drug store.

I really don't know what you know, and that's the problem, you haven't told us.

Please do, point out all the fallacies in what I''ve said so far.

If you actually delve into the history of marijuana prohibition, which you apparently haven't, you will find racism and politics more than science and reason - and that continues to this day.

As the teacher in the movie ,"The Paper Chase" said, "Please, fill the room with your intelligence!".

[Ritchie_az]

Well Richie, when you can tell us the REASONS why marijuana, which is non-toxic, is a schedule one drug (with no medical value, and a high probability for abuse) despite over 40 years of studies to the contrary, including presidential commission reports that recommend action contrary to the status quo, I'm all ears, but so far, you haven't demonstrated ANY understanding of the issues, except a blind faith that the powers that be (the DEA and the federal government) know what's best. And a lack of understanding as to why marijuana is not at the local drug store.

The reasons don't matter one bit. It's illegal, federally. Period. Like I said, if they (the feds) want to review it, then by all means. My point was not if the federal ban is correct or not. My point was that it is banned by the feds from the process that is in place for ALL DRUGS--every one of them--so why should pot be the one exception? Because you like to smoke it? Because you like it in your brownies? Why should pot and no other drug be exempt from the federal process? Please answer this.

Please do, point out all the fallacies in what I''ve said so far.

I won't (unless you really want me to), because it's off-topic. The point of bringing it up was to illustrate your logical fallacy of:

There are plenty of people at City-Data that have done the research, that have educated themselves on the issues, both federally and in their specific state, AND who don't agree with me. That's fine. I love debating and conversing with people who know what they are talking about, but have a different view. You are obviously, based on what you have said, I believe (opinion, without facts), maybe (conjecture), why (a question of facts), etc. not one of those persons.

If you actually delve into the history of marijuana prohibition, which you apparently haven't, you will find racism and politics more than science and reason - and that continues to this day.

That's one interpretation, I guess. (And I have, btw).

As the teacher in the movie ,"The Paper Chase" said, "Please, fill the room with your intelligence!".

I don't know what that means, but it sounds like a lame catch phrase.

[Bondurant]

Tobacco + cotton = let's ban maryjane so it won't cut into our profit margine

It's a matter of fact.

It's frightening how much love there is for the Feds in this thread. Like they know what's better for us. Protect us from ourselves master!

[Ritchie_az]

Like they know what's better for us. Protect us from ourselves master!

Should all drugs be legal?

[whitem3]

Some interesting reading

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/21/he...marijuana.html

Pain.com - The Government Should Reclassify Marijuana