• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Life In Prison For LSD

ObamacareFail said:
I say keep medicinal drugs illegal for recreational use and incarcerate those who abuse them and do not accept treatment.
Click to expand...

I would still like to see a practical definition of "medicinal drugs", and its opposite, "non-medicinal drugs". I know that's asking a lot.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Why?

Does that mean non medicinal drugs, like pot, tobacco, alcohol, and cocaine, should be legal for recreational use?

Or, should we outlaw all of them?
Click to expand...

Actually cocaine by a different name does have a medicinal non recreational use.
 
Henry David said:
I would still like to see a practical definition of "medicinal drugs", and its opposite, "non-medicinal drugs". I know that's asking a lot.
Click to expand...

Medicinal drugs = drugs used for medicinal purposes

Non-medicinal drugs = drugs that have no medicinal purpose.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Medicinal drugs = drugs used for medicinal purposes

Non-medicinal drugs = drugs that have no medicinal purpose.
Click to expand...

Here, the line gets a bit blurry. Cocaine, as you said, has medicinal uses. So does marijuana. Oxyconton has medicinal uses, and yet is a drug of abuse. Perhaps the real difference is in whether the drug is used to treat disease, or whether it is used just to get high.

We can probably agree (mostly anyway) that society at large has an interest in discouraging people from getting high. The questions are, is outlawing certain drugs accomplishing that end, and what are the side effects of prohibition?

It seems to me that the cure (prohibition) is worse than the disease and moreover isn't very effective.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Here, the line gets a bit blurry. Cocaine, as you said, has medicinal uses. So does marijuana. Oxyconton has medicinal uses, and yet is a drug of abuse. Perhaps the real difference is in whether the drug is used to treat disease, or whether it is used just to get high.

We can probably agree (mostly anyway) that society at large has an interest in discouraging people from getting high. The questions are, is outlawing certain drugs accomplishing that end, and what are the side effects of prohibition?

It seems to me that the cure (prohibition) is worse than the disease and moreover isn't very effective.
Click to expand...

I am only suggesting that medicinal drugs remain outlawed for recreational use. And there are extracts of marijuana that do have medicinal uses, and are available by prescription, however those claiming a medicinal aspect of smoking a joint are simply looking to justify recreational use.
 
ObamacareFail said:
however those claiming a medicinal aspect of smoking a joint are simply looking to justify recreational use.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I know people - generally older - who are smoking joints for pain and nausea. Not to justify recreational use. My husband, who has never had a joint in his life, is considering trying it as well. He probably would already have tried it if the nearest place to get a prescription weren't so far away.
 
ObamacareFail said:
Medicinal drugs = drugs used for medicinal purposes

Non-medicinal drugs = drugs that have no medicinal purpose.
Click to expand...

More drugs on the "illegal" list today have valid therapeutic use, even clinical histories than you might think.

But I thank you for attempting to set a definition. ;)
 
Dittohead not! said:
Here, the line gets a bit blurry. Cocaine, as you said, has medicinal uses. So does marijuana. Oxyconton has medicinal uses, and yet is a drug of abuse. Perhaps the real difference is in whether the drug is used to treat disease, or whether it is used just to get high.

We can probably agree (mostly anyway) that society at large has an interest in discouraging people from getting high. The questions are, is outlawing certain drugs accomplishing that end, and what are the side effects of prohibition?

It seems to me that the cure (prohibition) is worse than the disease and moreover isn't very effective.
Click to expand...

I would say that society does NOT have an interest in discouraging people from 'getting high', whatever that constitutes. Or at least any discouragement or scolding can happen on the person to person relationship on a case by case basis. For example, if one encounters some other person that is "high", one has the authority to treat that offending person harshly. You can chastise him.

But government's power should not be brought into the equation for expressing disapproval of the actions of other citizens. The law does not really work for things like that.
 
Henry David said:
I would say that society does NOT have an interest in discouraging people from 'getting high', whatever that constitutes. Or at least any discouragement or scolding can happen on the person to person relationship on a case by case basis. For example, if one encounters some other person that is "high", one has the authority to treat that offending person harshly. You can chastise him.

But government's power should not be brought into the equation for expressing disapproval of the actions of other citizens. The law does not really work for things like that.
Click to expand...

I think we do have an interest in discouraging people from getting high. People tend to to crazy things, sometimes violent things, while under the influence of drugs. Driving under the influence is a huge problem.

But, outlawing drug use is not the answer. It does not work, and creates way too many other problems. The cure (prohibition) is worse than the disease.
 
paddymcdougall said:
I disagree. I know people - generally older - who are smoking joints for pain and nausea. Not to justify recreational use. My husband, who has never had a joint in his life, is considering trying it as well. He probably would already have tried it if the nearest place to get a prescription weren't so far away.
Click to expand...

There may be a very small few who think they can get medicinal benefit from smoking a joint, however I don't buy that the medicinal marijuana movement is about the medicinal aspect. All it was ever really about was a stepping stone to legalizing pot for recreational use. I am a 61 year old with glaucoma and arthritis. To get the medicinal benefit for glaucoma, I would have to smoke a joint every two hours for 24 hours. As for the arthritis, over the counter "naproxen" pretty much takes care of the occasional flair up.
 
ObamacareFail said:
There may be a very small few who think they can get medicinal benefit from smoking a joint, however I don't buy that the medicinal marijuana movement is about the medicinal aspect. All it was ever really about was a stepping stone to legalizing pot for recreational use. I am a 61 year old with glaucoma and arthritis. To get the medicinal benefit for glaucoma, I would have to smoke a joint every two hours for 24 hours. As for the arthritis, over the counter "naproxen" pretty much takes care of the occasional flair up.
Click to expand...

Well, personally I'm all for legalizing pot for whatever use.

But I do know a lot of people who use it for medical reasons, not recreation. It's not a "very small few" but I admit I haven't google'd to find out what the number is.
 
ObamacareFail said:
There may be a very small few who think they can get medicinal benefit from smoking a joint, however I don't buy that the medicinal marijuana movement is about the medicinal aspect. All it was ever really about was a stepping stone to legalizing pot for recreational use. I am a 61 year old with glaucoma and arthritis. To get the medicinal benefit for glaucoma, I would have to smoke a joint every two hours for 24 hours. As for the arthritis, over the counter "naproxen" pretty much takes care of the occasional flair up.
Click to expand...

Most folks are not aware of the trivia, but there is, or at least WAS, a book called the National Formulary, N.F. It was a reference book for pharmacists and doctors, and dates back to the earliest days of this country.

For perspective, there is also the U.S. Pharmacopoeia , USP.

The NF listed all known remedies and therapeutic agents since it has been around, all useful drugs. It contained Marijuana as a useful therapeutic agent since the beginning.

Point is that long before our asinine and political prohibition in 1937, the efficacy of marijuana for certain illnesses was known by all who read the NF.
 
Henry David said:
Most folks are not aware of the trivia, but there is, or at least WAS, a book called the National Formulary, N.F. It was a reference book for pharmacists and doctors, and dates back to the earliest days of this country.

For perspective, there is also the U.S. Pharmacopoeia , USP.

The NF listed all known remedies and therapeutic agents since it has been around, all useful drugs. It contained Marijuana as a useful therapeutic agent since the beginning.

Point is that long before our asinine and political prohibition in 1937, the efficacy of marijuana for certain illnesses was known by all who read the NF.
Click to expand...

Yes, but we couldn't have the darkies thinking that they were as good as white people, now could we?


(in case you think I'm being racist, or if you don't know the reasons for having prohibited pot to begin with, check out Harry Anslinger's words here. )
 
paddymcdougall said:
Well, personally I'm all for legalizing pot for whatever use.

But I do know a lot of people who use it for medical reasons, not recreation. It's not a "very small few" but I admit I haven't google'd to find out what the number is.
Click to expand...

I am against legalization. As for the numbers, I don't think it would be possible to get a realistic estimate as most who are claiming medicinal use are actually into recreational use. Medicinal just gives them a ready made excuse.
 
Henry David said:
Most folks are not aware of the trivia, but there is, or at least WAS, a book called the National Formulary, N.F. It was a reference book for pharmacists and doctors, and dates back to the earliest days of this country.

For perspective, there is also the U.S. Pharmacopoeia , USP.

The NF listed all known remedies and therapeutic agents since it has been around, all useful drugs. It contained Marijuana as a useful therapeutic agent since the beginning.

Point is that long before our asinine and political prohibition in 1937, the efficacy of marijuana for certain illnesses was known by all who read the NF.
Click to expand...

But then in those times, anything and everything was available and unregulated. Do you think half of the population knew what was in those bottles of "this will cure everything" Elixir? sold by traveling salesman? Coca Cola had cocaine in it. While I think the prohibition of alcohol was idiotic, I do think it's reasonable to regulate mind altering substances. And medication should not be legal for recreational use. As for marijuana's medicinal benefits, there are extracts of marijuana including for nausea that are legally available for medicinal use by prescription. I just to not buy the narrative that suggests for instance that the only viable option for relieving the effects of chemotherapy is to sit on the couch and smoke a joint. And the alleged benefits to glaucoma patients are laughable.
 
ObamacareFail said:
But then in those times, anything and everything was available and unregulated. Do you think half of the population knew what was in those bottles of "this will cure everything" Elixir? sold by traveling salesman? Coca Cola had cocaine in it. While I think the prohibition of alcohol was idiotic, I do think it's reasonable to regulate mind altering substances. And medication should not be legal for recreational use. As for marijuana's medicinal benefits, there are extracts of marijuana including for nausea that are legally available for medicinal use by prescription. I just to not buy the narrative that suggests for instance that the only viable option for relieving the effects of chemotherapy is to sit on the couch and smoke a joint. And the alleged benefits to glaucoma patients are laughable.
Click to expand...

Laugh all you like sir, especially if it makes you feel knowledgeable on the subject of drugs and drug policy.

For the record, the Coca-Cola Company removed cocaine from the formula for its product BEFORE the Harrison Act went into effect. The formula was changed in 1912, Harrison was created in 1914.

As you laugh, you probably were too busy to realize that back before the Harrison Act (if we may use that date as reference), while any person could acquire drugs by way of his physician or the corner druggist with some sort of medical oversight, there were no drug cartels. Youngsters did not sell drugs on street corners, and of course our nascent CIA was not in the drug business.

Prohibition, which you support (except for alcohol), has brought us all these things. Drug cartels and kids selling on the street corners. Not to mention running gun battles on city streets. Those social pathologies are the direct result of poor and short-sighted legislation.

And laughing all the way, you support that policy. :doh
 
All non violent drug offenders should be immediately released and their convictions thrown out.
 
paddymcdougall said:
Um, alcohol is a mind altering substance
Click to expand...

Yes...it certainly is. However it's intended purpose has always been recreational. That cannot be said about Cocaine, Heroin, PCP, LSD,etc.....and in truth, it cannot be said of marijuana.
 
Henry David said:
Laugh all you like sir, especially if it makes you feel knowledgeable on the subject of drugs and drug policy.

For the record, the Coca-Cola Company removed cocaine from the formula for its product BEFORE the Harrison Act went into effect. The formula was changed in 1912, Harrison was created in 1914.
Click to expand...

I am aware of that. That's why I specified the 18th and 19th centuries (1700s and 1800s) The 1900s = the 20th century. We are now in the 21st.

As you laugh, you probably were too busy to realize that back before the Harrison Act (if we may use that date as reference), while any person could acquire drugs by way of his physician or the corner druggist with some sort of medical oversight,
Click to expand...

Or buy them from some moron travelling salesman selling who knows what in a bottle of elixir.

there were no drug cartels. Youngsters did not sell drugs on street corners, and of course our nascent CIA was not in the drug business.
Click to expand...

The CIA did not exist until 1947. And there were certainly drug addiction problems in the 18th and 19th centuries, however there was a stigma attached to such addictions that does not largely exist today. There were not so many "if it feels good, do it" morons around then.

Prohibition, which you support (except for alcohol), has brought us all these things. Drug cartels and kids selling on the street corners. Not to mention running gun battles on city streets. Those social pathologies are the direct result of poor and short-sighted legislation.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I don't buy it. The drug cartels in places like Columbia and Mexico are the result of weak and corrupt governments. They are not a result of prohibition in the US. Nearly every government on the planet prohibits recreational use of medicinal drugs.....many with much stiffer penalties then the US. As for the drug crime in the inner cities in the US, it's our revolving door criminal justice system that is to blame. Violent drug pushing young men in this country have a crime record thicker then Hillary Clinton's ankles before getting any real punishment. Mostly they get a slap on the hand and are back on the streets before the ink is dry on the arrest paperwork.

And laughing all the way, you support that policy. :doh
Click to expand...

Personally I like the "three strikes and your out" laws.
 
ObamacareFail said:
I am aware of that. That's why I specified the 18th and 19th centuries (1700s and 1800s) The 1900s = the 20th century. We are now in the 21st.



Or buy them from some moron travelling salesman selling who knows what in a bottle of elixir.



The CIA did not exist until 1947. And there were certainly drug addiction problems in the 18th and 19th centuries, however there was a stigma attached to such addictions that does not largely exist today. There were not so many "if it feels good, do it" morons around then.



Sorry. I don't buy it. The drug cartels in places like Columbia and Mexico are the result of weak and corrupt governments. They are not a result of prohibition in the US. Nearly every government on the planet prohibits recreational use of medicinal drugs.....many with much stiffer penalties then the US. As for the drug crime in the inner cities in the US, it's our revolving door criminal justice system that is to blame. Violent drug pushing young men in this country have a crime record thicker then Hillary Clinton's ankles before getting any real punishment. Mostly they get a slap on the hand and are back on the streets before the ink is dry on the arrest paperwork.



Personally I like the "three strikes and your out" laws.
Click to expand...

I am always impressed by a person who does not know, or cannot spell, the difference between Columbia and Colombia.
 
Henry David said:
I am always impressed by a person who does not know, or cannot spell, the difference between Columbia and Colombia.
Click to expand...

That's nice. You cannot argue a point on merit, so you get anal with spelling corrections. Enjoy the weekend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom