Drug Control

[Pard]

Here is how the law works in California (to my understanding... read what Rush told me! )...

It is illegal to smoke outdoors (more or less). You can smoke in your house but if someone claims that they could smell the smoke from inside of your house than you can be fined/arrested for it. Same goes for NYC now.

I'm not for smoking (at least not cigarettes and not until I hit an old age when it won't even matter any more ) but that's just ridiculously stupid.

 

[jasoncran]

yet pot is legal and somebody like me who reacts to blowing dirt out of the heavy equipment(if i forget to wear the mask) has to suffer with second hand pot! i have asthma and for the most part it doesnt bother me, but if i have smoke or dust particles i will have the coughing fit for a few minutes or hours.

 

[Jake]

Here is how the law works in California (to my understanding... read what Rush told me! )...

It is illegal to smoke outdoors (more or less). You can smoke in your house but if someone claims that they could smell the smoke from inside of your house than you can be fined/arrested for it. Same goes for NYC now.

I'm not for smoking (at least not cigarettes and not until I hit an old age when it won't even matter any more ) but that's just ridiculously stupid.

I live in CA and I'm not sure about the outside smoking law, maybe someone else on this forum knows for sure, but I see people smoking outside. I thought it was just 30 ft or so from an entrance of a bldg where you can't smoke, you can't smoke inside an enclosed bldg, you can't drive in a car and smoke with children in the car. I think CA has the strickest laws though.
None of my siblings smoke, nor do I, so don't really keep up with all the laws.

 

[Jake]

yet pot is legal and somebody like me who reacts to blowing dirt out of the heavy equipment(if i forget to wear the mask) has to suffer with second hand pot! i have asthma and for the most part it doesnt bother me, but if i have smoke or dust particles i will have the coughing fit for a few minutes or hours.

Pot is legal for medical use in 14 states, in which Ca is one of those. There are alot of restrictions to the use though, yet I'm not sure how heavily they are enforced.

 

[jasoncran]

Pot is legal for medical use in 14 states, in which Ca is one of those. There are alot of restrictions to the use though, yet I'm not sure how heavily they are enforced.

yes, pot uh lets be real, how many of those are actually needed? theres no pharmacies that fill that just grow house and amateurs aka former dealer. a doper/dealer moved to cali and started growing when that law passed.

dora, posted a while back on the joke of that stuff. its de facto legalisation.

 

[Pebbles]

Second hand smoke from weed is just as bad as from tobacco (not that I am even suggesting such a thing as "second-hand" smoke actually exists in tobacco products). It has been proven that you can get a contact high from marijuana smoke. That right there is illegal in all 50 states! it is illegal to intoxicate another person in anyway. And you may say that the marijuana smoking didn't intend it to happen but it is a action that any logic person could deduce and thus falls under a "voluntarily induced involuntary action". That means it's still like drugging me!

What about cannabis brownies? XD

Your really naive about tobacco you just lick up that propaganda.
Smoking pipes and chewing tobacco cause just as much if not more cancer than cigarettes it just causes different cancers. Mouth cancer, Esophageal cancer. largely. Also has the same risks for elevated heart disease and cardiovascular problems as cigarette smokers. their is also a much higher rate of tooth loss through pipe smoking.

Second hand smoke for tobacco of course it exists... Under what insane reasoning could it not exist?
Inhaling carcinogenic smoke causes cancer even you acknowledge that so how do you reason that it dosen't cause cancer if it comes out the other end??

 

[jasoncran]

What about cannabis brownies? XD

Your really naive about tobacco you just lick up that propaganda.
Smoking pipes and chewing tobacco cause just as much if not more cancer than cigarettes it just causes different cancers. Mouth cancer, Esophageal cancer. largely. Also has the same risks for elevated heart disease and cardiovascular problems as cigarette smokers. their is also a much higher rate of tooth loss through pipe smoking.

Second hand smoke for tobacco of course it exists... Under what insane reasoning could it not exist?
Inhaling carcinogenic smoke causes cancer even you acknowledge that so how do you reason that it dosen't cause cancer if it comes out the other end??

my reply

or eating raw marijuana can cause a number of effects, including feelings of euphoria, short-term memory loss, difficulty in completing complex tasks, changes in the perception of time and space, sleepiness, anxiety, confusion, and inability to concentrate. In studies, cannabinoids have been linked with dizziness, depression, paranoia, and hallucinations. Other side effects include low blood pressure, rapid heart beat, and heart palpitations. Instances of death are rare. A review of studies looked at cannabinoid use in chemotherapy patients and found that one in eleven would stop using it because of side effects.
Many researchers agree that marijuana contains known carcinogens, or chemicals that can cause cancer. Results of epidemiologic studies of marijuana and cancer risk have been inconsistent, and most recent epidemiologic studies have not found a substantial effect on cancer risk. However, some researchers caution that these studies are difficult to conduct, as some people may not be truthful about illegal habits such as smoking marijuana, and that these negative results should not be interpreted as convincing evidence of safety. They caution that smoking marijuana may decrease reproductive function, cause lung disease, and increase the risk of cancer of the lungs, mouth, and tongue. It may also suppress the body's immune system and increase the risk of leukemia in children whose mothers smoke marijuana during pregnancy. Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding should not use marijuana.
The symptoms of a marijuana overdose include nausea, vomiting, hacking cough, disturbances to heart rhythms, and numbness in the limbs. Chronic use can also lead to laryngitis, bronchitis, and general apathy. With chronic use, the ability to learn and remember new information may become impaired.
Although it is rare, severe shutdown of blood circulation to the arms or legs has been reported in young people who smoked marijuana. In some cases, it was so severe that amputation was required. Marijuana may also serve as a trigger for a heart attack on rare occasions, usually within an hour after smoking. Allergic reactions, some severe, have been reported.
Dronabinol, the prescription drug form of THC, also can cause complications. People with heart problems may have trouble with increased heart rate, decreased blood pressure, and fainting. Dronabinol can cause mood changes or a feeling of being "high" that is uncomfortable for some people. It can also worsen depression, mania, or other mental illness, and it may increase some effects of sedatives, sleeping pills, or alcohol, such as sleepiness and poor coordination.
Driving, operating machinery, or engaging in hazardous activities that require clear thinking and good coordination are not recommended until dronabinol’s effects are known. People taking dronabinol should be under the supervision of a responsible adult at all times when they start taking the medication and after any dose adjustments.
Like marijuana, dronabinol should not be used during breast-feeding because the drug is concentrated in breast milk and is passed to the baby. It is not recommended during pregnancy. People who have had emotional illnesses, paranoia, or hallucinations may become worse when taking dronabinol or marijuana.
Older patients may have more problems with side effects and are usually started on lower doses.
Relying on this type of treatment alone and avoiding or delaying conventional medical care for cancer may have serious health consequences.

from cancer org. they need to study that more.

 

[Jake]

yes, pot uh lets be real, how many of those are actually needed? theres no pharmacies that fill that just grow house and amateurs aka former dealer. a doper/dealer moved to cali and started growing when that law passed.

dora, posted a while back on the joke of that stuff. its de facto legalisation.

I agree, most of them were probably already addicted in the first place OR their problems were caused from previous drug use...I don't know, prayer would do them much better.

 

[Pebbles]

most of those things are certainly true (barring the circulatory shutdown) Jason but they are also true with alcohol and tobacco.

I suppose my comments aren't directed at you because you suggested you want to outlaw smoking and alcohol along with weed.

Least your position is consistent on this issue I can't fault you there.

 

[Christ_empowered]

I think we should legalize all drugs, allow manufacturers to make them to a standardized, regulated strength, and sell them (with a hefty tax) to interested adults. I think it would solve so many problems. The gangs would go bankrupt. The drugs would be cheaper, so people wouldn't have as many financial problems, nor would they get in as much legal trouble. We could have free clean needles available for IV drugs. The tax money could be spent on rehab and health programs.

 

[jasoncran]

I think we should legalize all drugs, allow manufacturers to make them to a standardized, regulated strength, and sell them (with a hefty tax) to interested adults. I think it would solve so many problems. The gangs would go bankrupt. The drugs would be cheaper, so people wouldn't have as many financial problems, nor would they get in as much legal trouble. We could have free clean needles available for IV drugs. The tax money could be spent on rehab and health programs.

ok? since i have broke the law where doest that logic stop. those who do steal wont just live right because its ok to do that thing that is legal.

look at gambling. did it reduce crime in las vegas? nope most of that legalised gambling supported illegal activities elsewhere. the gangs wont change as that never adressses why they do that. hint: broken homes with no male role model.

so the gangs will go do something else to stay in operation say front operations for the more organised criminals. or other things.

 

[Potluck]

Yeah, I can see now.

"Gee, dope and other drugs are legal now. Well, I suppose I'll just have to get a job and maybe an education. Dang it. Hey, maybe I can do some research and do some entrepreneurial work. I'll get started right away!"

 

[stovebolts]

This thread was made to clean up the rights thread. All drug disscussion from that thread goes in here.

My position on drug control. I don't think the government has any bussienss telling a person what they can consume/ put into their own body.

Drugs are dangerous, and Never said they weren't, but each drug reacts differently with the body's chemistry and needs to be evaluated separately. Now, this dose not mean I am encouraging drug use. Far from it, drug use is very dangerous and I support schools educating about the harmful effects of drugs. The main reason I don't support the illegality of drugs, is that it gives the government the power to tell us what we can eat and put into our own body and collects tax dollars to fund this.

I think the government would be better off spreading general awareness and putting more resources into murder, theft, and rape departments rather then a specific department just for drugs.

Now, I say don't do heroin because its highly addictive and dulls reaction time. I also say don't do Ecstasy or acid because it burns out neurotransmitters. For other drugs I'm not so much read up on. We would have to discuss them.

Here is where you can state why you think drugs are bad.

I think drugs are bad for several reasons.
I remember getting high with my brother when we were teens, and my sister had went from weed to Cocaine. Both my brother and I thought that she was crazy. She still maintains to this day that if you havn't had a needle in your arm, you'll never understand the high.

I guess my brother wanted to understand the high. We burried him a few months ago. He died because his girlfriend was licking the needles after preparing them to be sold to others. It was so precious, that she couldn't let a drop go to waste and you see, because of his drug and alcohol problem, he resorted to dealing as a means of income after loosing his job. Before he died, they also lost their house.

What does licking the needle have to do with his death? It put deadly bacteria directly into his blood stream and caused heart failure, and he died several days later.

He knew he had a drug problem, and months earlier he told Mom that he would probably die from drugs. He knew the direction he was heading, but his lifestyle really took his will to live away from him. He was heading for a brick wall that would take his life, and he knew it, and he didn't change course.

Through the years, I can't tell you how drugs have shaped our family, and how they still do. There isn't a family memeber in our family that hasn't felt, or is still feeling the results of another brother or sister who's on drugs. My Dad was an alcololic and it was normal for mom and dad to spend their weekends at the bar. I've seen Dad drunk several times, even got drunk with him a few times. Seems time at the bar was always more important than spending time with us kids. It's really no wonder we ended up the way we did.

I could write many, many pages of stories why I'm against the abuse of alcohol, and no, I'm not anti alcohol and I even enjoy a glass of wine on occation. But I can write more stories how alcohol and drugs lead to a destructive lifestyle that causes pain, and inflicts wounds within a family that reach out into the community in very destructive ways. But I won't write about them, cause honestly, I don't want to remember all of them.... I've got the physical scars that remind me any day I want to look at them, and remind me of the mental scars that are just below the surface.

 

[tim-from-pa]

This thread was made to clean up the rights thread. All drug disscussion from that thread goes in here.

My position on drug control. I don't think the government has any bussienss telling a person what they can consume/ put into their own body.

Drugs are dangerous, and Never said they weren't, but each drug reacts differently with the body's chemistry and needs to be evaluated separately. Now, this dose not mean I am encouraging drug use. Far from it, drug use is very dangerous and I support schools educating about the harmful effects of drugs. The main reason I don't support the illegality of drugs, is that it gives the government the power to tell us what we can eat and put into our own body and collects tax dollars to fund this.

I think the government would be better off spreading general awareness and putting more resources into murder, theft, and rape departments rather then a specific department just for drugs.

Now, I say don't do heroin because its highly addictive and dulls reaction time. I also say don't do Ecstasy or acid because it burns out neurotransmitters. For other drugs I'm not so much read up on. We would have to discuss them.

Here is where you can state why you think drugs are bad.

You're apparently worried about governmental mandates regarding us to allow drugs into our bodies. Actually, they DON'T. The issue is what they can control for monetary gain. Of course they don't want people making up their own minds whether they can do pot, speed, coke or whatever. There's no money there. But then they want to turn around and drug everyone up with legal drugs, because THAT'S where the money is. That's my core concern of universal healthcare that the requirement for insurance (which we all must now have or else we will break the law) is to take whatever the doctor says you have to take, whether they be utterly and abysmally useless cholesterol meds, high BP meds, or whatever else they are trying to get everyone over 55 on. They even "dummy down the numbers" to prove that we all "need" them. Those are far worse IMO because everyone thinks they are safe otherwise the doctor would not put anyone on them. I get so sick of going to the doctor once in a blue moon (let's say a bad cold every couple of years) and then told I "need" something else like a mechanic digging up problems that don't exist just to have you running back and making more money. And the government approves of that.

One of the biggest medical/governmental fads was to put gen x and their kids on meds for "hyperactivity" when there is usually nothing wrong with the kid or maybe needs good disciplining. Judges even force ruled that on parents. "Drug your kids up or go to jail". But everyone is a "victim" and "sick" and if we don't stop to think for ourselves but stay on continual meds, then one day they will introduce something that alters the mind into every med.

I just hate it when an erroneous philosophy is crammed down a person's throat by government and establishments, not because they have the smarts, but because they have the power to say so. Well, a gorilla in the wild has power, too, but that does not mean it is justified. It's still a smelly gorilla.

 

[Nick]

I think we should legalize all drugs, allow manufacturers to make them to a standardized, regulated strength, and sell them (with a hefty tax) to interested adults. I think it would solve so many problems. The gangs would go bankrupt. The drugs would be cheaper, so people wouldn't have as many financial problems, nor would they get in as much legal trouble. We could have free clean needles available for IV drugs. The tax money could be spent on rehab and health programs.

It's not such a terrible idea. Have you heard about safe injecting rooms?

 

[Jab-Jab]

You're apparently worried about governmental mandates regarding us to allow drugs into our bodies. Actually, they DON'T. The issue is what they can control for monetary gain. Of course they don't want people making up their own minds whether they can do pot, speed, coke or whatever. There's no money there. But then they want to turn around and drug everyone up with legal drugs, because THAT'S where the money is. That's my core concern of universal healthcare that the requirement for insurance (which we all must now have or else we will break the law) is to take whatever the doctor says you have to take, whether they be utterly and abysmally useless cholesterol meds, high BP meds, or whatever else they are trying to get everyone over 55 on. They even "dummy down the numbers" to prove that we all "need" them. Those are far worse IMO because everyone thinks they are safe otherwise the doctor would not put anyone on them. I get so sick of going to the doctor once in a blue moon (let's say a bad cold every couple of years) and then told I "need" something else like a mechanic digging up problems that don't exist just to have you running back and making more money. And the government approves of that.

One of the biggest medical/governmental fads was to put gen x and their kids on meds for "hyperactivity" when there is usually nothing wrong with the kid or maybe needs good disciplining. Judges even force ruled that on parents. "Drug your kids up or go to jail". But everyone is a "victim" and "sick" and if we don't stop to think for ourselves but stay on continual meds, then one day they will introduce something that alters the mind into every med.

I just hate it when an erroneous philosophy is crammed down a person's throat by government and establishments, not because they have the smarts, but because they have the power to say so. Well, a gorilla in the wild has power, too, but that does not mean it is justified. It's still a smelly gorilla.

Do you want to actually source any of your clains against medicine? Any Medical journal will do.

 

[stovebolts]

Do you want to actually source any of your clains against medicine? Any Medical journal will do.

Just curious what you're looking for. Are you looking for a particular study which has been regulated to only look at a particular aspect of a drug or is testimony obsolete and non important through your perspective?

 

[Jab-Jab]

Just curious what you're looking for. Are you looking for a particular study which has been regulated to only look at a particular aspect of a drug or is testimony obsolete and non important through your perspective?

I want to see studies, then if there was a rebutal to that specific study, I would like to see that as well. The main reason is because Paw listed off a ton of claims without backing them up.

I also think its really far fetched to think that the government would spend so much time on a conspiracy to get people to take drugs made by private pharmaceutical companies, that are optional to take, and optional to buy. Not to mention that there are real diseases that are treated with these medications. I've seen real add, autism, and aspergers.

Is it misdiagnosed? Yeah, are there people that really need blood preasure medication and ADD meds? Yes.

Are they useless? NO.

 

[stovebolts]

I want to see studies, then if there was a rebutal to that specific study, I would like to see that as well. The main reason is because Paw listed off a ton of claims without backing them up..

I understand. What would you honor as an authoritative study? I mean, what qualifications do you deem important to qualify the authorship of the study?

I also think its really far fetched to think that the government would spend so much time on a conspiracy to get people to take drugs made by private pharmaceutical companies, that are optional to take, and optional to buy. Not to mention that there are real diseases that are treated with these medications. I've seen real add, autism, and aspergers. .

I agree, but I also understand that often, decisions by the government are driven by money (lobbiest) and you have to admit, the pharmaceutical companies are out to make a dollar. Do they do good? Absolutely, but I can guarantee you that the CFO is driven by the bottom line, and they protect that bottom line pretty heavily.

Also, the government already mandates certain vaccinations, or your kid won't go to school. I'm not saying that the vaccinations are bad, but have you ever stopped to ask why we weren't mandated to have more vaccinations that may have been lobbied for by pharmaceutical companies?

Is it misdiagnosed? Yeah, are there people that really need blood preasure medication and ADD meds? Yes.

Are they useless? NO.

Here is something to think about. Our food has been so radically modified at the genetic level that for instance, 20 years ago 90 bushels an acre was a bumper crop. Now days, on that same farm 120 bushels is the norm. And we wonder why were having the glucose problems that are just starting to crop up? My point is this, just because something is good, doesn't mean it's good for you.

Also, take obesity for example. I think it has as much to do with the food we're eating as it is the lack of exercise our kids are getting now days. When I was in school, we had P.E. every week all year round through H.S. My son is in middle school and he didn't even get P.E. his last quarter.

As humans, I think we're naturally lazy... It's easier to take a pill to feel better, than it is to change your life style. I've been active now for just over 2 years. My resting heart rate used to be right around 60. It's now down to 48 and my blood pressure is perfect. I'm almost 45 and I'm very fit, but it wasn't easy after years of being dormant. I guess what I don't like is the idea that there are people too lazy to do anything about their health, and they go the easy way (medication). Maybe China had something with daily exercise

 

[Jab-Jab]

I understand. What would you honor as an authoritative study? I mean, what qualifications do you deem important to qualify the authorship of the study?

The paper would have had to been peer reviewed by other scientists in the field of study. In this case Pharmacologists and Bio chemists. Posibly, but not needed, a psychologist that specializes in human mental development when it comes to medications that tree Add, Psychosis, etc. A double blind study because then those doing the study can't scew the results by seeing to far into the group taking the mediation.
That is my litmus test. If there is no Pharmacologist or chemist on a paper, I tend to ignore it because they are the people who make these drugs in the first place and are trained to observe the reactions.

I agree, but I also understand that often, decisions by the government are driven by money (lobbiest) and you have to admit, the pharmaceutical companies are out to make a dollar. Do they do good? Absolutely, but I can guarantee you that the CFO is driven by the bottom line, and they protect that bottom line pretty heavily.

Oh I agree, and yes there are times when slip ups happen, but thanks to peer review, it kept to a very minimum.

Also, the government already mandates certain vaccinations, or your kid won't go to school. I'm not saying that the vaccinations are bad, but have you ever stopped to ask why we weren't mandated to have more vaccinations that may have been lobbied for by pharmaceutical companies?

I can understand this parninoia as well. I'm for vaccination, but I also think there is a fine line between how far the government can make us take them.

As humans, I think we're naturally lazy... It's easier to take a pill to feel better, than it is to change your life style. I've been active now for just over 2 years. My resting heart rate used to be right around 60. It's now down to 48 and my blood pressure is perfect. I'm almost 45 and I'm very fit, but it wasn't easy after years of being dormant. I guess what I don't like is the idea that there are people too lazy to do anything about their health, and they go the easy way (medication). Maybe China had something with daily exercise

I can agree to that. I do think people are overly medicated, but I think its from being lay or stuborn more then conspiracy. Cheers. :waving