• 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!

Cannabis-related poison control calls for Massachusetts kids doubled after medical pot legalized

Felis Leo said:
Two points, Surrealistik. First, my moralizing and pearl-clutching is based on the fact that allowing the consumption of mind-altering substances leads to horrible and irreparable harm within society. I do not put my liberty to engage in activities that rob me of my senses and lead me to reckless action over the lives of my fellow citizens. That is not liberty. That is license.

Second, to the point of collecting money on taxes for extremely profitable industries which cater to our most base pleasures, I must ask: was the tax on the sales of alcohol worth 88,000 lives in 2018? How many lives would alcohol have to cost the United States in a year for us to rethink how we allow its production, sale, marketing and distribution over all the tax dollars that are netted? 100,000 dead in a year? 500,000? Perhaps one million?
Click to expand...

Again, you claim that the "affect" those have on lives should be paramount to making it illegal. What good does obesity have on society? What good does BDSM have on society? I could go on and on. You claim to be a conservative so part of that is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY correct? Where does that play into freedom? There are MANY freedoms that don't necessarily do great good but it is the person's choice is it not?

Where do you separate freedom and society's good? Can you honestly say EVERYTHING you do is good for everyone? Can you claim to be so moral that you should be declared a saint? If not, then your actions haven't been good for society as a whole either.
 
Felis Leo said:
Certainly, Prohibition was a colossal failure because it criminalized the sale and distribution of alcohol rather than simple possession. The government focused on the supply of alcohol rather than criminalizing demand of alcohol (focusing on the buyers). That and the government focused very few resources into the agencies expected to enforce the Prohibition laws.
Click to expand...

Yes, so the solution is clearly to go even more draconian and invest prohibitive amounts of tax dollars needed to crush the black markets for alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana and other drugs instead of generating income off of them or spending those dollars on other things like healthcare, education, infrastructure, basic research and other priorities that are likely to benefit society more.

Remember there is such thing as an opportunity cost.


Two points, Surrealistik. First, my moralizing and pearl-clutching is based on the fact that allowing the consumption of mind-altering substances leads to horrible and irreparable harm within society. I do not put my liberty to engage in activities that rob me of my senses and lead me to reckless action over the lives of my fellow citizens. That is not liberty. That is license.
Click to expand...

Prove the cost/harm to society is greater than the benefit.

Moreover, you do not have the right to tell me what substances I can and cannot consume, particularly when it is as relatively harmless as marijuana.

Second, to the point of collecting money on taxes for extremely profitable industries which cater to our most base pleasures, I must ask: was the tax on the sales of alcohol worth 88,000 lives in 2018? How many lives would alcohol have to cost the United States in a year for us to rethink how we allow its production, sale, marketing and distribution over all the tax dollars that are netted? 100,000 dead in a year? 500,000? Perhaps one million?
Click to expand...

Taxes are far from the only benefit society collectively extracts from the sale and distribution of alcohol, so it's obviously not a simple question of the revenue to body ratio. Beyond that though, tax dollero as a practical matter itself translates into saved and improved lives via their expenditure on social services.
 
Praxas said:
Tell you what, I'll go ahead and apologize, calling your views NUTS was a bad insult to your views. Ok? You have your views and whether I think they are right or wrong, they are yours.

I accept your apology, Praxas.

Praxas said:
Let me start by saying there are productive people in society that use alcohol, cigarettes and/or marijuana and never kill or hurt anyone. It is their choice. Your beef with all three of these are "possible" actions that "could" happen to them or others.

Let me say right off the bat, responsible use of alcohol or marijuana does not include driving or using at work. Can people abuse them? Yes. Just like someone who is obese could have a heart attack due to it and kill someone. So where do you draw the line on REGULATORY use of whatever?

Food is LEGAL and there are obese people prone to heart attacks and those people drive and use machinery. So do you outlaw being obese? How far do you go is what I'm saying, legitimately?
Click to expand...

That is actually a very good question, and one that I have some trouble dealing with. The question is, can we save people from themselves by looking over their shoulder with every step they take and every moment of their lives? In the age of evermore inexpensive computerized camera technology, massive servers for data storage, advanced AI algorithms to sift through any person's personal data, and GPS technology the answer may be "yes." We could go "Big Brother" on everyone and monitor every living person in the United States like they are starting to do in China and prevent them from ever stepping out of line. But the tradeoff would be an intolerable abridgment of people's freedoms that would dramatically lower the quality of life for all of us, certainly more than simply allowing people to engage in the activities we were trying to prevent in the first place, even if this did save lives.

That was a rather long throat-clearing:

I think where we as a society should draw the line is the use of substances that either temporarily (or permanently) hurt a person's cognitive functions, damaging their volition and their ability to understand the consequences of their actions. Hence why I think that even if we never come to the point where we enacted Prohibition, that alcohol must certainly become more tightly regulated. I would want to see most states having extremely tight regulations on the sale of alcohol like those that are seen in states like Utah, specifically regulating when it can be sold (both in bars and in grocery/liquor stores).

As to your point, obesity caused by overeating is a massive killer in the United States, along with cancer caused by cigarettes. But while these activities cost us tens of thousands of lives every year, neither overeating nor smoking cause the person to lose their ability to function. There may well be arguments for regulating the amount of sugar, carbohydrates and starches found in many meals (especially cheap, processed foods) that I could certainly find myself amenable to which might limit the spread of obesity in the general public. I could certainly be convinced to jump aboard.
Click to expand...
 
One million children less than 6 years of age are poisoned each year in the US by ingesting some kind of substance other than marijuana. This article is about 218 calls into a poison center about exposure to marijuana. Nowhere in the article is it mentioned a case of poisoning. This post is nothing more than a hit piece.
 
JacksinPA said:
Cannabis-related poison control calls for Massachusetts kids doubled after medical pot legalized -- ScienceDaily

After medical marijuana became legal in Massachusetts, cannabis-related poison control calls involving the Commonwealth's children and teenagers doubled, according to a public health investigation.

After medical marijuana became legal in Massachusetts, cannabis-related poison control calls involving the commonwealth's children and teenagers doubled, according to a public health investigation led by University of Massachusetts Amherst injury prevention researcher Jennifer Whitehill.

The increase in calls to the Regional Center for Poison Control and Prevention at Boston Children's Hospital occurred despite legislative mandates for childproof packaging and warning labels, and before the recreational use of marijuana was legalized for adults.
===========================================
Bad stuff for kids.
Click to expand...

Parents need to secure their stash! Not doing so is as negligent as leaving the liquor cabinet unlocked or their loaded guns lying around.
 
Felis Leo said:
Yes, Praxas. I would advocate for alcohol and cigarettes to be completely banned. I have stated so on other threads, that the harm and externalities they create far outweigh their meager benefits.
Click to expand...

Yes, and like pot, the consequences of banning them would be far worse than the actual use of the drugs. Can you imagine the underground market there would be if cigarettes were to be banned? Gangs would be fighting for "turf" to sell cigarettes. Cartels and gangs would make a fortune and become even more powerful than they are today.

Sure, if it were possible to simply ban tobacco (especially tobacco!) and alcohol and pot and all of the other drugs people take, and not have them around any more, that would be a good thing over all. We'd be a lot healthier and money wouldn't be going to violent gangs.

If it were possible, that is.
 
Surrealistik said:
That last point is very familiar. Most people I know who ate/utilized concentrates and edibles for the first time were completely and totally surprised by their potency.
Click to expand...

Including Maureen Dowd of NYT.

Including myself when first eating pot brownies in 1975.
 
Praxas said:
So where has it been legalized for kids or has been encouraged that kids use it? Oh yeah, it hasn't. Neither has alcohol. There is a reason that there is an age limit to purchase it (currently 21).

Also, I have yet to see a death due to the use of marijuana (unlaced of course) unlike alcohol where we have deaths due to alcohol poisoning each year.
Click to expand...

He said in another thread that he thinks alcohol prohibition was a good idea, just not executed right. You're not going to get any sane substance policy discussion from someone who has such intense beliefs - for whatever reason (usually something personal that deeply affected them, though I don't mean to speak specificially about him with that) - about such a hopeless and harmful program.
 
Felis Leo said:
Who would have thought that unprescribed mind-altering drugs could in any way be possibly harmful to children? And here I was told that the dangers presented by soft drugs like marijuana from programs like D.A.R.E. was overwrought fear-mongering.
Click to expand...

Is the number of visits related to marijuana (a) more, or (b) less than those related to: acetomenophan, ibruprofen, naproxen sodium, nicotine products, household cleaners/insect sprays/other noxious household chemicals, inhalants, and any other OTC drug and/or item purchasable by adults? (In fact, with most of these, children can buy them too).

Is the overall outcome (long-term effects) of the incident and hospital visit related to marijuana (a) better, or (b) worse than those related to acetomenophan, ibruprofen, naproxen sodium, nicotine products, household cleaners/insect sprays/other noxious household chemicals, inhalants, and any other OTC drug and/or item purchasable by adults? (In fact, with most of these, children can buy them too).

Is the immediate harm (short term), are those related to marijuana (a) more, or (b) less than those related to: acetomenophan, ibruprofen, naproxen sodium, nicotine products, household cleaners/insect sprays/other noxious household chemicals, inhalants, and any other OTC drug and/or item purchasable by adults? (In fact, with most of these, children can buy them too).

I can tell you that the answer is (b) in all circumstances across the run of cases.



I remember what you said about supporting prohibition. That may be a personal stance. Maybe you have powerful personal reasons for taking it. Just about everyone I know who has taken a position that strong does. But because of that, their positions are not reasonable; the intensity of position seems to stand in for reasonableness.

Let's get pragmatic and crude: you are basically pissing into the wind if you argue policy from that position for the simple reason that you're simultaneously swimming uphill against people like me AND people who aren't happy about marijuana legalization but also find your overall view too strong.

I'd suggest taking a pragmatic approach, to stake out what might be possible and argue for that relative to what is and is not already allowable. And to do so while considering the total balance of interference in personal life you think government should have; a risk vs. freedom analysis.



As for the OP, let's bear in mind what was actually found here:

- The incidence of calls for single-substance cannabis exposure increased 140 percent during the study period -- from 0.4 per 100,000 population before medical marijuana was legalized to 1.1 per 100,000 population after legalization.

MA population: 6.9 million.
Absolute increase: 27.6 calls to 75.9 calls

- Nearly 80 percent of the calls to the poison control center came from healthcare facilities, and, in terms of medical outcomes, most of the exposures resulted in moderate and minor effects. Four cases with major effects and no deaths were reported.

Need I go on?





Bottom line:

This is a tiny handful of people. And one way you can gauge, thus reassess, the reasonableness of your position is to ask yourself that if taking something legal and making it illegal - make sure to include things you use around the house yourself - is to ask whether 50 less calls a year, all but four being about something without 'major effects' and with no deaths at all, is enough to cause you to make that thing illegal.

If you don't agree to make things illegal that you use for any purpose illegal if that threshold his passed, your position on legal marijuana is not rational.
 
Last edited:
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Did anybody legalize cannabis use for children?
Click to expand...

No, and the FDA never authorized prescribing many psychoactive drugs to children either, yet the medical profession does so on a regular basis. Off label prescribing of such medications is a violation of federal rules, but nobody talks about it. "mother's little helper" keeps her kids submissive and quiet you know.
 
Praxas said:
So where has it been legalized for kids or has been encouraged that kids use it? Oh yeah, it hasn't. Neither has alcohol. There is a reason that there is an age limit to purchase it (currently 21).

Also, I have yet to see a death due to the use of marijuana (unlaced of course) unlike alcohol where we have deaths due to alcohol poisoning each year.
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^
There you have it.
 
Felis Leo said:
Certainly, Prohibition was a colossal failure because it criminalized the sale and distribution of alcohol rather than simple possession. The government focused on the supply of alcohol rather than criminalizing demand of alcohol (focusing on the buyers). That and the government focused very few resources into the agencies expected to enforce the Prohibition laws.



Two points, Surrealistik. First, my moralizing and pearl-clutching is based on the fact that allowing the consumption of mind-altering substances leads to horrible and irreparable harm within society. I do not put my liberty to engage in activities that rob me of my senses and lead me to reckless action over the lives of my fellow citizens. That is not liberty. That is license.

Second, to the point of collecting money on taxes for extremely profitable industries which cater to our most base pleasures, I must ask: was the tax on the sales of alcohol worth 88,000 lives in 2018? How many lives would alcohol have to cost the United States in a year for us to rethink how we allow its production, sale, marketing and distribution over all the tax dollars that are netted by the government? 100,000 dead in a year? 500,000? Perhaps one million? Just because an illicit industry is highly desired and might prove extremely profitable in terms of tax revenue is not an argument for allowing that industry, unless the only thing that matters is how much money the government can squeeze out of every form of economic intercourse imaginable.
Click to expand...

The question is not whether legal use of alcohol, marijuana, or tobacco is harmful. There is no question that such use causes societal problems. The question is whether attempting to outlaw such use causes even more problems.
 
Figures idiot parents would ruin it for the rest of us, new restrictions ahoy!
 
Felis Leo said:
And cigarettes were not technically specifically marketed toward children who could not legally purchase them either (at least not since 1980). And yet children managed to buy cigarettes, and were subtly (and not so subtly) encouraged to do so. Cigarette and Alcohol use is legally encouraged through constant commercialization and marketing of the products, so long as the tagline "drink responsibly" is quickly posted at the end of the commercial. This is not only in the popular media, but on posters, on billboards, etc. Unless you have parental controls over everything your children or your younger siblings watch, they almost certainly see a constant stream of messaging telling them that beautiful, fun, exciting people drink the delicious cool spirits advertised, and they can join in the fun if they drink too.



No one has to die for a drug to ruin lives. If you are forced to care for a son or daughter or brother or sister for the rest of their lives because they suffered from the on-set of brain damage or schizophrenia after taking a mind-altering substance that ruined their brain function, your life can be equally as miserable to the instance of your child or sibling dying.

EDIT: And you will not find any hypocrisy from me on the question of alcohol. I am a teetotaler who, if I could, would make the sale, distribution, purchase and possession of alcohol in quantities greater for anything except perhaps cooking illegal.
Click to expand...

You are aboslutely right, let's keep it illegal so we imprison more people than all of the totalitarian regimes combined. Just makes sense, the lives of millions of people being ruined vs one kid that has schizophrenia exacerbated, not caused exacerbated, is exactly the approach we need to take.

Not to mention lives lost from police confrontation, and targeting certain communities who are done with police bull**** and are fighting back.

And of course it's worth funding huge criminal empires that love the black market.

Because lil Jimmy may steal one his dad's joints and get a lil more crazy than he already is going to be. Which he's going to do any ****ing way regardless if you make illegal or not. Because just like with alcohol and yes guns, prohibition is the dumbest most harmful way.

You are so right, let's do it the dumbest way possible because it's more convenient for you.
 
Thoreau72 said:
No, and the FDA never authorized prescribing many psychoactive drugs to children either, yet the medical profession does so on a regular basis. Off label prescribing of such medications is a violation of federal rules, but nobody talks about it. "mother's little helper" keeps her kids submissive and quiet you know.
Click to expand...

Not what I asked. I am aware of rare instances where a doctor prescribes CBD oil for epilepsy and what not.
I asked if anyone legalized cannabis use by children, and of course that is a rhetorical question because the answer is NO...they didn't.

Tired of hearing the same nonsensical "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!" response all the time.
Children should not be allowed anywhere near any of this stuff, and we know that.
It's not like legalizing it made it somehow become more available...it's been around forever, and bad parents have been around forever too.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Not what I asked. I am aware of rare instances where a doctor prescribes CBD oil for epilepsy and what not.
I asked if anyone legalized cannabis use by children, and of course that is a rhetorical question because the answer is NO...they didn't.

Tired of hearing the same nonsensical "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!" response all the time.
Children should not be allowed anywhere near any of this stuff, and we know that.
It's not like legalizing it made it somehow become more available...it's been around forever, and bad parents have been around forever too.
Click to expand...

Whew, I'm relieved to know it was a rhetorical question, absolving me of any requirement to answer it! :mrgreen:

I agree with your general criticism of the "think of the children" retort, but sometimes we must think of the children. The fact that so many powerful psychoactive drugs ARE prescribed to children, in violation of rules governing prescribing, demonstrates that when push comes to shove, many don't give a damn about the harmful effects on the children. They are more interested in their own (perceived) peace and quiet, and that especially includes teachers who advocate for such prescribing.

That's my rant this morning. ;)
 
Thoreau72 said:
Whew, I'm relieved to know it was a rhetorical question, absolving me of any requirement to answer it! :mrgreen:

I agree with your general criticism of the "think of the children" retort, but sometimes we must think of the children. The fact that so many powerful psychoactive drugs ARE prescribed to children, in violation of rules governing prescribing, demonstrates that when push comes to shove, many don't give a damn about the harmful effects on the children. They are more interested in their own (perceived) peace and quiet, and that especially includes teachers who advocate for such prescribing.

That's my rant this morning. ;)
Click to expand...

Then go after the medical professionals who are playing fast and loose with the prescription pad.
Leave the responsible adult users alone. It is time for the Feds to end this idiotic prohibition on pot.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, and like pot, the consequences of banning them would be far worse than the actual use of the drugs. Can you imagine the underground market there would be if cigarettes were to be banned? Gangs would be fighting for "turf" to sell cigarettes. Cartels and gangs would make a fortune and become even more powerful than they are today.

Sure, if it were possible to simply ban tobacco (especially tobacco!) and alcohol and pot and all of the other drugs people take, and not have them around any more, that would be a good thing over all. We'd be a lot healthier and money wouldn't be going to violent gangs.

If it were possible, that is.
Click to expand...

Well certainly, Dittohead not!. I think the current raising of awareness of the health risks and hammering tobacco companies and alcohol producers is the best thing that can be done at the moment. As I said, while I am for prohibition of alcohol and cigarettes in principle, it is not politically or practically feasible. What is feasible is advocating for stricter marketing and regulation of alcohol, increasing penalties for alcohol abuse, and essentially limiting where and when alcohol (especially hard alcohol) can be sold.
 
Felis Leo said:
Well certainly, Dittohead not!. I think the current raising of awareness of the health risks and hammering tobacco companies and alcohol producers is the best thing that can be done at the moment. As I said, while I am for prohibition of alcohol and cigarettes in principle, it is not politically or practically feasible. What is feasible is advocating for stricter marketing and regulation of alcohol, increasing penalties for alcohol abuse, and essentially limiting where and when alcohol (especially hard alcohol) can be sold.
Click to expand...


People are well aware of the health risks of tobacco use and alcohol abuse, but then, people are weak.

What penalties can you foresee for alcohol abuse that would be worse than the actual effects of such abuse? it's a bit like warnings like this (from the funny pictures thread):

touching wires.jpg

and the penalty for tobacco use is poor health and a likely earlier death. Smokers know this, but kicking the habit is very difficult. I've been told by people who should know, as they've been addicted to both, that it's actually easier to kick cocaine than nicotine.
 
Mr Person said:
He said in another thread that he thinks alcohol prohibition was a good idea, just not executed right. You're not going to get any sane substance policy discussion from someone who has such intense beliefs - for whatever reason (usually something personal that deeply affected them, though I don't mean to speak specificially about him with that) - about such a hopeless and harmful program.
Click to expand...

Well, I do not think that it can be argued that it was not executed right, Mr Person. Hardly any resources were allocated to the law enforcement agencies responsible for enforcing Prohibition. It would be like giving the Federal Agencies responsible for investigating and prosecuting cases of child pornography twenty agents and a shoestring budget and then expecting them to effectively combat child exploitation across the entirety of the United States.

The main argument against Prohibition was its inefficacy and the fact that the creation of a black market for alcohol which allowed violent crime lords to take it over. And that is certainly a huge problem. And again, it was because the law only prosecuted supply and not demand, and those responsible for investigation had extreme resource limitations. But except those very real problems that people constantly raise regarding the practice, I have yet to hear any morally cogent argument against the principle of Prohibition of Alcohol, except the libertarian argument that the government should not be used to enforce moral standards of a subsection of the population (i.e., the Temperance Movement) upon the entire population. But that principle is a very dangerous one when one thinks about it, and leads us down rather unsightly paths when we take it to its logical conclusion, as most of our laws (most especially regarding sexual impropriety) revolve around our morality.
 
Last edited:
Felis Leo said:
Well, I do not think that it can be argued that it was not executed right, Mr Person. Hardly any resources were allocated to the law enforcement agencies responsible for enforcing Prohibition. It would be like giving the Federal Agencies responsible for investigating and prosecuting cases of child pornography twenty agents and a shoestring budget and then expecting them to effectively combat child exploitation across the entirety of the United States.

The main argument against Prohibition was its inefficacy and the fact that the creation of a black market for alcohol which allowed violent crime lords to take it over. And that is certainly a huge problem. And again, it was because the law only prosecuted supply and not demand, and those responsible for investigation had extreme resource limitations. But those very real problems that people constantly raise, I have yet to hear any morally cogent argument in principle against Prohibition of Alcohol, except the libertarian argument that the government should not be used to enforce moral standards of a subsection of the population (i.e., the Temperance Movement) upon the entire population.
Click to expand...

yes, and prohibition of pot or any other drug is bound to create a black market which allows crime lords to take it over. The fighting we see today among gangs competing for a share of the market is no different in kind from the fighting that took place for a share of the alcohol market during prohibition, but it certainly is different in scale. Gangs and cartels have become so powerful that they have taken over small nations and are able to out gun the Mexican authorities on our border.

Drug abuse is a bad thing, but the remedy we have chosen is worse than the disease.
 
You can't die from overdosing on pot, even edibles. You may feel like you are going to die, I've known some people that ate too much and it was a miserable experience. BUt you are not going to die.

The parents needed to be more responsible, particularly when they have kids and the edible pot is candy. Lock that up tight
 
Felis Leo said:
Who would have thought that unprescribed mind-altering drugs could in any way be possibly harmful to children? And here I was told that the dangers presented by soft drugs like marijuana from programs like D.A.R.E. was overwrought fear-mongering.
Click to expand...

Pot is an INCREDIBLY dangerous, massively addictive drug.
 
Barnacle said:
Who would have thought the dope heads are trying to poison their own kids ...
Click to expand...

I taught in an urban public high school for almost 30 years. The main negative I saw with pot use was the lack of any ambition it produces in students. It compromises their ability to concentrate, their memory, and their ability to function intellectually.

I once had a kid say to me when we were doing a fairly simple math problem," Man, I used to know how to do that".

Are we preparing people for the boring, low paying menial jobs of the future? Is that the plan?
 
Waddy said:
I taught in an urban public high school for almost 30 years. The main negative I saw with pot use was the lack of any ambition it produces in students. It compromises their ability to concentrate, their memory, and their ability to function intellectually.

I once had a kid say to me when we were doing a fairly simple math problem," Man, I used to know how to do that".

Are we preparing people for the boring, low paying menial jobs of the future? Is that the plan?
Click to expand...

Let's hope not. Most of those boring, low paying, menial jobs have been or soon will be taken over by robots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom