Medical marijuana

[tango]

There are all sorts of people who "think" they can drive at 100 miles and hour because they are more alert than other people.

... and whether they can do so safely or not depends largely on the circumstances. There's a big difference between driving 100mph on an empty interstate in good conditions and driving at 100mph in the rain weaving through the heavy traffic.

But how driving fast is relevant to marijuana isn't entirely clear.

And there are people who think they can refuse to pay their taxes because, you see, they feel entitled to decide on which laws they will adhere to and which they will not recognize.

I'm not sure how that's relevant to what we're saying.

And lately, we have people who believe that they can help themselves to whatever is on the shelves in a Target or Walmart store since, you know, they or their relatives were not treated right by society at some time in the past.

I'm not sure how that's relevant either.

Most of us do not agree with such rationalizations.

I'm not sure how making random unrelated observations expresses your disagreement.

 

[Albion]

... and whether they can do so safely or not depends largely on the circumstances.

Really? What ARE the circumstances under which a person can drive on a public highway at 100 miles per hour and not endanger anyone?

There's a big difference between driving 100mph on an empty interstate in good conditions and driving at 100mph in the rain weaving through the heavy traffic.

And I'll bet that you will be able to MODIFY every one of the examples I offered until they bear no relationship to what I wrote or to the real world situation.

 

[Messy]

So what do you expect? Are you seriously saying that because one person might need protecting from something nobody else should be allowed to use it? You can't ban things because a child might get their hands on it - if you start down that path it doesn't go anywhere good.

Perhaps we should ban alcohol in case a child gets drunk? Ban cars, in case a child steals their parents' keys and gets in a wreck? Where does it stop? Bicycles? Regular over-the-counter painkillers?

Your point about medical drugs is valid - some of them can have all sorts of nasty side effects. A friend of mine showed me the prescription sheet for his antidepressants and my first thought was that I wouldn't want to chance any of them, but based on his situation he obviously believed it was better to take them than to refuse them.

Yeah that's no use, but now it's the opposite. I remember in the 70s in Holland you had a fun sketch about a man going to a psychiater. Haha so funny. And now: feel bad because of marriage problems? You have to be a happy mom! Here take 10 happy pills. That was the first thing the doc said. Kid is wild? Lets push pills. You can't forbid stuff. It won't work either. The church has to stand up and come with a better alternative than pills. Don't take away a dog's old bone. Throw a new one in front of him.

 

[Messy]

At some point parents have to take responsibility for their kids. If you're on a medication that doesn't play nicely with other products you need to take responsibility and not mix them. It's crazy to say we should ban everything that might clash with anything else.

Where I used to live we had a neighbor who was an alcoholic. When he was sober he was the nicest guy you could imagine but every once in a while something would trigger him and he'd walk to the end of the road to buy alcohol. His drink of choice was cheap rum - he'd buy two or three bottles of it, then the next day he'd go and buy more. He literally drank himself to death - another neighbor who had a key to his house noticed he hadn't been seen for a few days, and found him dead just inside his front door. Cause of death - alcohol poisoning. And yet millions of people drink a beer or two of an evening and don't do anything stupid.

I wouldnt have mixed it if they hadnt forced that stuff on me or if that guy had listened. I called him and said I now wanted to kill myself for no reason. It was also a christian psychiatrist. What is that even? Psychiatry is not christian. I blame the church that pushed it though. You can't blame those ppl that they know nothing about the spiritual. I should never have been so dumb to listen to them.

 

[tango]

Really? What ARE the circumstances under which a person can drive on a public highway at 100 miles per hour and not endanger anyone?

How about a well maintained car on an empty road?

I've personally driven 140mph on a public road. I'm still here. There was nobody else on the road - the road had good visibility, no junctions for at least a couple of miles and no other road users for the couple of miles ahead I could clearly see. Who was I endangering?

(ETA: I'm sure you've heard of the German autobahns where people drive quite fast without crashing into stuff)

And I'll bet that you will be able to MODIFY every one of the examples I offered until they bear no relationship to what I wrote or to the real world situation.

Well, you did ask a question that begged for a real-world example where it doesn't work, and that isn't purely theoretical.

But if you really want to pull at the road safety issue, how does someone smoking a blunt in their living room endanger anyone else? Are they more or less of a threat to the general social fabric than someone sipping a beer or enjoying a shot of fine single malt Scotch whisky? For that matter, what about the person whose relationship just ended and is drowning their sorrows with as much beer as they can drink before they pass out?

 

[tango]

Yeah that's no use, but now it's the opposite. I remember in the 70s in Holland you had a fun sketch about a man going to a psychiater. Haha so funny. And now: feel bad because of marriage problems? You have to be a happy mom! Here take 10 happy pills. That was the first thing the doc said. Kid is wild? Lets push pills. You can't forbid stuff. It won't work either. The church has to stand up and come with a better alternative than pills. Don't take away a dog's old bone. Throw a new one in front of him.

It's certainly worrying how quick doctors can be to prescribe antidepressants and how they may make you feel better about a situation (even ignoring the known side-effects) without actually doing anything to solve the problem. Maybe what we need is a general push towards healthier living rather than popping pills for every little thing that ails us.

My former next door neighbors had a son who was a bit troublesome for a time. His mother was convinced he needed to be on ADHD medication. The problem was that he wasn't used to testosterone flowing through his system and his mother was the ultra-progressive type who didn't like the idea that boys aren't the same as girls, and he didn't want to sit down and sing kumbaya.

 

[Albion]

How about a well maintained car on an empty road?

Or a car on a manufacturer's test track? None of this actually addresses the issue.

I've personally driven 140mph on a public road. I'm still here.

Well, there are other people we are also concerned about and who could become your victims.

There was nobody else on the road - the road had good visibility, no junctions for at least a couple of miles and no other road users for the couple of miles ahead I could clearly see. Who was I endangering?

The person who might have stepped out from behind a tree or any kind of structure on his way to the mail box, among other possibilities. Or, for that matter, any of the property you might have damaged when you lost control because a dog or deer suddenly ran across your path. I'm certain that you know all of this.

Besides, isn't your suggestion that what you are capable of doing exempts you from the rules that are needed in the case of most other people?

Well, you did ask a question that begged for a real-world example where it doesn't work, and that isn't purely theoretical.

I think what I got was theoretical. It certainly cannot be applied to all drivers, nor did you argue that it should be.

But if you really want to pull at the road safety issue, how does someone smoking a blunt in their living room endanger anyone else? Are they more or less of a threat to the general social fabric than someone sipping a beer or enjoying a shot of fine single malt Scotch whisky?

So....you also favor the elimination of all laws concerning drunk driving, right?

 

[Messy]

It's certainly worrying how quick doctors can be to prescribe antidepressants and how they may make you feel better about a situation (even ignoring the known side-effects) without actually doing anything to solve the problem. Maybe what we need is a general push towards healthier living rather than popping pills for every little thing that ails us.

My former next door neighbors had a son who was a bit troublesome for a time. His mother was convinced he needed to be on ADHD medication. The problem was that he wasn't used to testosterone flowing through his system and his mother was the ultra-progressive type who didn't like the idea that boys aren't the same as girls, and he didn't want to sit down and sing kumbaya.

Some boys in my kids' classes were on adhd meds. The teacher complained that one didn't listen and he just said: Can't help it. Haven't gotten my pill yet.

 

[tango]

Or a car on a manufacturer's test track? None of this actually addresses the issue.

If you could explain how it's relevant to the topic of medical (or recreational) marijuana that might help.

Well, there are other people we are also concerned about and who could become your victims.

On an empty road? Who might they be?

The person who might have stepped out from behind a tree or any kind of structure on his way to the mail box, among other possibilities. Or, for that matter, any of the property you might have damaged when you lost control because a dog or deer suddenly ran across your path. I'm certain that you know all of this.

See, this is about circumstance, like I said. Someone stepping out from a mail box would happen in a residential area. Last time I checked there aren't mail boxes on expressways. Likewise children running into the road, balls flying out from someone's yard, dogs running out into the road - all those things happen in residential areas.

Had I hit an animal that suddenly ran into the road (the road in question didn't have deer in the area, for what it's worth) I'd have totally wiped out. But on an empty expressway at least half a mile from the nearest house and probably more, whose property would I damage?

And here we see the problem - you're objecting to a real situation based on a whole bunch of "what if"s, while speaking from a position of not knowing the circumstance. You complain about me modifying scenarios, all while you throw in irrelevant comments that are little more than "but what if you did it somewhere else"? And that's the point - I didn't do it "somewhere else", I did it on an open expressway where there aren't mailboxes, there aren't driveways, there aren't houses, there aren't children hiding behind the bush waiting to run into the road, there weren't even any other cars that might have changed lanes in front of me.

Besides, isn't your suggestion that what you are capable of doing exempts you from the rules that are needed in the case of most other people?

The point is that circumstance can make a big difference. Driving at 140mph on an empty expressway in a well maintaned car is a very different proposition from driving at 50mph through a residential area, past a school, or some other setting. Driving at an illegal 140mph on an empty expressway is safer than driving at a legal 70mph in heavy traffic when it's dark, you're tired and it's raining hard.

For a counterpoint, some years ago I was driving north through New York state. The posted speed limit was 55mph. I was driving at 25-30mph and even that felt like I was pushing my luck a little because of snow on the road. Driving at the speed limit would have been dangerous - there were still plenty of people overtaking me at speed but as I made my annoyingly slow progress up the expressway there were cars upside down in the ditch at just about every turn in the road.

I think what I got was theoretical. It certainly cannot be applied to all drivers, nor did you argue that it should be.

My point is that driving fast and safely is anything but theoretical, given the very real circumstances. It's not necessarily dangerous to drive faster than the posted speed limit, and not necessarily safe to drive at the posted speed limit.

So....you also favor the elimination of all laws concerning drunk driving, right?

I'd love to know how you could possibly conclude that from what I've posted thus far. We're talking about someone smoking or drinking in their living room. If you read what I posted you'd know very well that I believe people should be allowed to drink as much as they want, smoke weed, but not combine that with driving. It's not rocket science - you can drink/smoke/inject yourself stupid, or you can drive.

 

[Messy]

And I just gave 2 euro to a guy who said he needed a place to stay and then a girl yelled at him that he shouldnt beg for money, because he was gonna use it for pot. Sigh. Next time I make sure I have no cash with me. Once a guy asked for money. He didnt even do effort to make me think it was for food or a place to sleep. He walked straight to the coffee shop at the other side of the road. Luckily Stravinsk said marijuana isn't that bad, so I felt a tiny bit less guilty.

 

[Albion]

If you could explain how it's relevant to the topic of medical (or recreational) marijuana that might help.

All right. You said this:
"If you think it's a bad idea you are, of course, free to act on that belief and not smoke weed."

That comment supposes that what some people do cannot possibly impact the people who do not do whatever it is. Or else, you were meaning to say that it's just "tough luck" if what they do makes you sick, increases crime, or etc. That's the beauty of freedom, you explained.

My response was to say that it's shortsighted to think that, in society, everyone should be at liberty to do whatever he or she wants to do, regardless of any infringement on the rights or safety of others.

On an empty road? Who might they be?

I don't want to entertain any more elaborate and unlikely "what if" scenarios that are concocted solely in order to avoid coming to grips with situations that really do occur to people in normal life.

See, this is about circumstance, like I said. Someone stepping out from a mail box would happen in a residential area.

Mail boxes at the side of the road are most often found in rural areas. But in any case, there are all sorts of objects that may exist in any rural area which could momentarily obscure a human figure, not to mention any other obstacle (such as I mentioned) that could lead to an accident when the driver has a significantly shortened reaction time.

Had I hit an animal that suddenly ran into the road (the road in question didn't have deer in the area, for what it's worth) I'd have totally wiped out. But on an empty expressway at least half a mile from the nearest house and probably more, whose property would I damage?

That is really a silly argument you're trying to rescue. You posited that you are going 140 miles per hour!

At that speed, almost anything, including a bug hitting one's windshield or a rock on the pavement, is likely to cause a fatal accident, and we all know it.

 

[Messy]

And I'd stand by that. Why should we outlaw a plant? It may have benefits, drawbacks or both. Most things have both. If we can get some benefit from it, whether that's a medical benefit or a recreational enjoyment, and we are willing to accept any drawbacks as the price to gain the benefit, why should the law have anything to do with it at all?

It's easy to point at things we might not personally like, or might not personally want to use, and find reasons why they shouldn't be used. I personally have no interest in using all sorts of things (including marijuana) but that doesn't mean I get to say nobody else should use them either.

Many natural things can harm us if taken in large enough quantities. It's possible to die from drinking too much water. But with most things we let people make their own decisions. Why does the law need to get involved where marijuana is concerned?

And meanwhile I just read this in the Newspaper:

Consumers must be better protected against cheap items from abroad that are dangerous or unhealthy. Minister Micky Adriaansens (Economic Affairs and Climate) therefore announces strict rules: "You cannot go far enough to get unsafe products off the market and protect consumers."

At the moment, the Dutch still buy all kinds of cheap stuff in Asian webshops. Intermediaries also benefit from this. But many of the products are dangerous or unhealthy, as the Consumers' Association has shown several times.

This concerns, for example, smoke detectors that do not go off, toys that break off dangerous pieces or tooth whitener with too much hydrogen peroxide. Several electronic devices also exploded.

When the new rules come into effect, there must be a manufacturer or person established in the European Union for each product who is responsible for the safety of the product. If that is not the case, sales in the Netherlands and in Europe may not take place.


No tooth paste with too much hydrogen peroxide, but as much alcohol and marijuana as you like is fine.

 

[tango]

All right. You said this:
"If you think it's a bad idea you are, of course, free to act on that belief and not smoke weed."

That comment supposes that what some people do cannot possibly impact the people who do not do whatever it is. Or else, you were meaning to say that it's just "tough luck" if what they do makes you sick, increases crime, or etc. That's the beauty of freedom, you explained.

Yes, and if we're talking about someone smoking a blunt in their living room it doesn't affect anyone else. Unless you've got some curious scenario in which it does, in which case by all means have at it.

My response was to say that it's shortsighted to think that, in society, everyone should be at liberty to do whatever he or she wants to do, regardless of any infringement on the rights or safety of others.

Yes, and you have yet to explain how someone smoking a blunt in their own living room does infringe the rights or safety of others.

I don't want to entertain any more elaborate and unlikely "what if" scenarios that are concocted solely in order to avoid coming to grips with situations that really do occur to people in normal life.

Except this was a real situation. I know, I was there. It's not an elaborate and unlikely "what if" scenario - you're the one creating improbable "what if" scenarios to try and refute it.

Mail boxes at the side of the road are most often found in rural areas. But in any case, there are all sorts of objects that may exist in any rural area which could momentarily obscure a human figure, not to mention any other obstacle (such as I mentioned) that could lead to an accident when the driver has a significantly shortened reaction time.

You're really desperate to salvage whatever point you're trying to make here, aren't you? More and more assumptions. How many mail boxes do you see beside the road I was driving on? I'll tell you. None at all. Zero. Nada. Zip. Zilch. There weren't even any houses within at least half a mile and - get this - in the area in question there aren't any mailboxes at the side of any roads, anywhere.

There are all sorts of objects that might obscure a human in some theoretical road that you're thinking of while complaing about my coming up with theoreticals. On the road in question there were none. Remember that bit where I said there were no other road users for a mile or two ahead? How do you suppose I knew that? (Clue: I was there)

That is really a silly argument you're trying to rescue. You posited that you are going 140 miles per hour!

It's not a silly argument at all. You're the one coming up with improbable "what if" scenarios. What if someone crossed the road from the house that wasn't there to a mailbox that wasn't there, and the child ran out of from the driveway that wasn't there chasing a ball, and, and, and....

I was there. I know the road well. I know there are no intersections, no junctions, no houses, nothing. You don't know the road so speculating about "what if" scenarios is pointless. As I said in my last post, I hit that speed on a very specific road and on some other hypothetical road it may not have worked. On the same road in bad conditions, or in traffic, or if I was tired, it wouldn't have worked. On another hypothetical road I could have gone faster still and been safe. You have at least heard of the German autobahns, right?

At that speed, almost anything, including a bug hitting one's windshield or a rock on the pavement, is likely to cause a fatal accident, and we all know it.

I think a bug or two may have hit my windshield. It didn't end well for the bugs. But even rolling with your comment about the fatal accident - maybe hitting a rock on the pavement would have killed me. Pray tell, who else was I endangering given I've said many times now the road was empty. Read that again if you have to - E M P T Y. No pedestrians. No houses. No other cars. No cars on the other carriageway. No horses, no cyclists, no nothing.

 

[tango]

And meanwhile I just read this in the Newspaper:

Consumers must be better protected against cheap items from abroad that are dangerous or unhealthy. Minister Micky Adriaansens (Economic Affairs and Climate) therefore announces strict rules: "You cannot go far enough to get unsafe products off the market and protect consumers."

At the moment, the Dutch still buy all kinds of cheap stuff in Asian webshops. Intermediaries also benefit from this. But many of the products are dangerous or unhealthy, as the Consumers' Association has shown several times.

This concerns, for example, smoke detectors that do not go off, toys that break off dangerous pieces or tooth whitener with too much hydrogen peroxide. Several electronic devices also exploded.

When the new rules come into effect, there must be a manufacturer or person established in the European Union for each product who is responsible for the safety of the product. If that is not the case, sales in the Netherlands and in Europe may not take place.


No tooth paste with too much hydrogen peroxide, but as much alcohol and marijuana as you like is fine.

There is something of a difference between a product that fundamentally doesn't do what it says on the box, and a product that does exactly what you'd expect it to do even if some think you shouldn't be allowed to do that.

If I want to drink 20 beers that's one thing. If I find my beer has been tainted with bleach that's a different thing entirely.

 

[Messy]

There is something of a difference between a product that fundamentally doesn't do what it says on the box, and a product that does exactly what you'd expect it to do even if some think you shouldn't be allowed to do that.

If I want to drink 20 beers that's one thing. If I find my beer has been tainted with bleach that's a different thing entirely.

I have always found it weird that you have to pay 80 euro if you don't wear a helmet on a moped, but if you want to climb some dangerous mountain it's fine, nobody cares.
Alcohol and marijuana, yes it's clear what it does and there is a warning on medical drugs, but there are loads of warnings and gruesome pics on cigarettes to warn you plus they cost a fortune, cause they think you should quit, but I have never seen that on a bottle of wine or medical drugs or marijuana.

 

[Albion]

Yes, and if we're talking about someone smoking a blunt in their living room it doesn't affect anyone else. Unless you've got some curious scenario in which it does, in which case by all means have at it.

Well, I have to say here that I do not look at widespread drug use and its consequences as something confined to smoking a blunt in one's living room. You apparently do, however, considering that you come back to that one example time and again.

Yes, and you have yet to explain how someone smoking a blunt in their own living room does infringe the rights or safety of others.

(groan)

There are all sorts of objects that might obscure a human in some theoretical road that you're thinking of while complaing about my coming up with theoreticals.

In the real world, there are all manner of objects near the roadway that could and do interfere with the driver's vision ahead, particularly if he's going 140 miles an hour! So this is certainly not something that's just theoretical.

I was there. I know the road well. I know there are no intersections, no junctions, no houses, nothing.

If you want to "win" this disagreement, be mindful that by reducing it to what YOU ALONE saw or experienced on one drive...

you are doing exactly what I noted before, which is taking a most improbable scenario and trying to make it seem like something commonplace. If you do not do that, you know that your story proves nothing about what the state or nation is forced to confront as a consequence of increased marijuana use.

But we don't even need to point out the flaw in your argument like this, and that's because we have cold hard facts to consider. Among them is this one: drugged drivers (most often on MJ) on our highways now are more dangerous than drunk drivers, a fact that didn't exist before marijuana became widely legal and easily obtained.

Drugged driving more fatal than drunk driving, report says

For the first time, drivers killed in car crashes in the U.S. were more likely to be on drugs than drunk, according to new data

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Stravinsk]

Drugged driving more fatal than drunk driving, report says

For the first time, drivers killed in car crashes in the U.S. were more likely to be on drugs than drunk, according to new data

www.cbsnews.com

Lol.

The organization's members: Our Members

Lot of alcohol companies there. Message is clear. More alcohol, less Cannabis.

Corporate partners: Corporate Partners

Haha. Wine and distillation companies, pharmaceuticals. Take more of our drugs and alcohol! Less Cannabis. Because...morals of course, not $$.

Honestly dude. I'm sure the portrayal of the report (which isn't linked, btw) is COMPLETELY unbiased. Just for people like you who need a source to back up your ever-failing arguments and appeal to authority.

 

[Messy]

How about a well maintained car on an empty road?

I've personally driven 140mph on a public road. I'm still here. There was nobody else on the road - the road had good visibility, no junctions for at least a couple of miles and no other road users for the couple of miles ahead I could clearly see. Who was I endangering?

(ETA: I'm sure you've heard of the German autobahns where people drive quite fast without crashing into stuff)

Birds. A cat that ran away from home. An ant.

 

[Messy]

Well, I have to say here that I do not look at widespread drug use and its consequences as something confined to smoking a blunt in one's living room. You apparently do, however, considering that you come back to that one example time and again.

(groan)

In the real world, there are all manner of objects near the roadway that could and do interfere with the driver's vision ahead, particularly if he's going 140 miles an hour! So this is certainly not something that's just theoretical.


If you want to "win" this disagreement, be mindful that by reducing it to what YOU ALONE saw or experienced on one drive...

you are doing exactly what I noted before, which is taking a most improbable scenario and trying to make it seem like something commonplace. If you do not do that, you know that your story proves nothing about what the state or nation is forced to confront as a consequence of increased marijuana use.

But we don't even need to point out the flaw in your argument like this, and that's because we have cold hard facts to consider. Among them is this one: drugged drivers (most often on MJ) on our highways now are more dangerous than drunk drivers, a fact that didn't exist before marijuana became widely legal and easily obtained.

Drugged driving more fatal than drunk driving, report says

For the first time, drivers killed in car crashes in the U.S. were more likely to be on drugs than drunk, according to new data

www.cbsnews.com

I may be wrong, but it sounds like you talk about driving with drugs, but tango talks about driving hard without drugs on a German autobahn, which may kill a bird, but is safe or do it on a circuit alone, even safer, as an example of doing something that is forbidden, yet doesn't hurt anyone. Just like walking through a red light at night when there's absolutely noone around.

 

[Albion]

I may be wrong, but it sounds like you talk about driving with drugs, but tango talks about driving hard without drugs on a German autobahn, which may kill a bird, but is safe or do it on a circuit alone, even safer, as an example of doing something that is forbidden, yet doesn't hurt anyone. Just like walking through a red light at night when there's absolutely noone around.

There is no question about the fact that smoking dope is widespread and increasing. Our friend wants us to think that it's confined to one's own living room, but it was reported recently that in one large American city the stench of marijuana now continuously hangs over almost every public location such as subway stations and rail platforms.

So how widespread is driving all alone at 140 miles per hour on just the "right" highway where there are no turns, trees, or anything else? In other words, you and I are both aware that his defense against a growing social problem is to say that something that might happen once, under just the right circumstances, to one person in a billion...proves that there's no problem. He's just arguing for the sake of keeping the debate going because there's not much activity on the forum at present.