Today I learned that information an infringement upon rights.
Gosh, Sam, I don’t know where we would find such a person in a crowd like this. I mean, someone who has actually smoked weed over a thirty year period? Could such a person type?
But this:
He didn’t say anything about forbidding you to have it. Simply said you should know what it was, and what it would do. Period. Full stop. The rest is your own extrapolation and suggestion.
Care to answer the question? In that totally unregulated market, is the quality of weed going up or down? Do you hear about people being killed by poisoned weed?
Huh? If he wasn’t talking about a regulation, then it was a total non-sequitur. When someone from your side of the aisle says, “you have the RIGHT to know that you’re safe from the company’s product. You have a RIGHT to know what’s in it.”, it’s totally fair to think that they’re talking about safety regulation and information disclosure laws - especially in a discussion talking about government regulation vs market forces.
The Republican ascendancy that really began in 1980 cannot be attributed to benefits most Americans have received from Republican economic policies. Since 1980 real after tax income for eighty percent of the American population has declined, even as it has increased dramatically for the richest one percent.
http://investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=971&mn=389436&pt=msg&mid=10153698
Nevertheless, from 1960 to 1970 the crime rate doubled. During this time liberal Democrats told the American people that punishment was ineffectual in reducing crime, but that reducing poverty would cut crime. During this decade poverty declined because of a broadly based economic expansion, and because of War on Poverty programs. The prison population declined.
Since 1980 poverty has increased, but the crime rate has declined, because the prison population has tripled.
http://www.jacksonprogressive.com/issues/lawenforcement/punishment.pdf
On issues of crime and punishment most of the voters trust the Republicans rather than the Democrats. They should.
Apparently you want a return to the days of the Snake Oil salesmen. They offered “medicine” when, in fact, there was very little to no medicinal effect. Often the remedies were toxic. But hey, at least you have your right to be fooled intact.
I would also say that if certain (currently) illicit drugs were legalized that the government would likewise mandate that when someone sells you, say, cocaine of a certain purity that it is, in fact, cocaine of that purity and does not contain toxic substances used to cut it (as happened recently in California that caused user’s skin to rot).
Indeed avoiding such problems is one of the arguments for legalization. The government would regulate it.
Lots of things that are bad for us are legal and you are welcome to choose to partake of it but you should know what it is you are taking is as advertised.
There is little in the American prison system for a civilized nation to take pride in.
I think we should take pride in the fact that the high incarceration rate in the United States has reduced the crime rate.
The liberal approach to crime was an obvious failure.
Good point. By that way of thinking if we were more aggressive in imprisoning Wall Street types and bankers and elected officials we’ll have a damn near perfect society.
If there’s infighting between the socials and the fiscals, I haven’t heard much about it. They typically seem to be one and the same. When I started hearing about the tea party it was all about fiscal issues, which didn’t bother me much, but it wasn’t long at all before those same groups were yelling and carrying on about all of the same social issues taken up by the religious right.
I am pro-legalization of all drugs, but I haven’t given much thought to the whole issue of access to powerful prescription drugs. I would like to see the power taken out of the hands of the pharmaceutical companies and lobbyists, and see the truth come out. Right now, it seems to be legal for them to exaggerate the benefits and downplay the side effects of all these prescription drugs, and that’s BS in every way.
Bloomberg is trying to take away our choice to eat trans-fats? Cite? And I’m not aware of democrats being against us choosing where our children go to school. So I’d be interested in a cite for that as well. Basically, I think there’s a huge difference in taking away a woman’s bodily autonomy and fighting for fair working conditions. The two things aren’t even in the same universe, IMO.
It amazes me how republicans have been critical of Michelle Obama’s healthy kids inititative (or whatever it’s called). They act like her encouraging a good diet and physcial activity is a socialist plot to control us and take away our junk food. I can’t find any fault with what she’s been doing, because it seems like a much-needed, and very positive plan. I guess the republicans don’t remember that Laura Bush’s cause was literacy, and implemented programs to encourage learning and education. I don’t remember anyone calling that a socialist plot, or assuming it was somehow an insult to those who can’t read. Both first ladies had good motives in doing these things, but someone always has to make it out to be more sinister than it really is. And that’s the stuff that gets under my skin.
You can call it what you want, but there are tons of people who are just like the man described in this article. My state is full of people who feel this way, and blame every societal ill on the “other.” I don’t believe it’s in the interest of the poor and middle class to vote for a party that is consumed with fighting for the richest of the rich. They are more worried about tax breaks for their rich buddies than they are about the tens of thousands of people in this country who can’t even go to the doctor when they get sick. They don’t want to give us affordable, accessible healthcare. They don’t want to put money into our schools. And they have wet dreams about taking away any and all social programs that they don’t like (which seems to be all of them). I have a hard time seeing how voting for republicans serves these folks in any positive way at all.
.
Except for that whole abortion thing. And trying to force their “christian” principles on the rest of us.
And don’t think by me saying this that I’m 100% for the democrats either. I, like many others, have been voting for the lesser of the evils for as long as I can remember. But it doesn’t mean I’m happy about it.
Cite?
Comment #144.
more punishment = less crime
While I am overall sympathetic I promise there are some you would not be cool with legalizing.
The worst I have ever seen is Krokodil which seems to be gaining popularity in Russia. It literally disintegrates the meat off your bones. From what I have read it is nearly instantly addicting and takes weeks to months to kick the habit. Kicking the habit is apparently so painful and long lasting hospitals induce the patient into a coma because it is unbearable.
The name comes from the scaly skin you get shortly before your tissue disintegrates.
Following is video of a user. It is very, VERY graphic. I want to repeat that. VERY not nice. In spoiler box for a reason. If you are brave enough keep watching because a couple minutes in the damage is terribly apparent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REP6NCDfAtg
Make no mistake. I used to party…a lot (and miss it some now but growing older changes things) and I think marijuana is a no brainer to legalize. Just saying that there clearly have to be limits to that stuff.
Damn, just when you think you’ve seen and heard of the worst drugs, something even more heinous comes out. I’ve never heard of this, but it sounds terrible. I’m not going to watch the video, but I did read the article.
I guess I should be more specific when I say I’m pro-legalization. I do feel that currently illegal drugs should be legalized for basic reasons of human freedom, and also in an attempt to reduce harm. Obviously, this is an oversimplified way of explaining my reasoning, but it would take hours to write out exactly why/how/when I think it should be done.
Anyhoo…
I hear ya.
I am all for freedom to do what you want (as long as you cause no harm to others) but unfortunately I watched that video and that thing is messed up (guy is receiving medical treatment in video but Russian medical treatment…a horror on a horror).
It is seriously messed up. I appreciate you not wanting to watch it. I wish I hadn’t (but I am a sucker for watching things people tell me I shouldn’t watch). Never outgrew that.
Anyway, I am mostly with you on the legalization front. Just figure there really is a line to be drawn somewhere.
Crime dropped steeply during Clinton. Incarcerating a huge chuck of the population is expensive and a stupid way to mend a society. A third of those jailed are there for using or selling weed and drugs. I am sure you can point out how that has ended our drug problem in America.
The Repubs announced their picks for the “super committee”. Every one signed the Nordquist pledge to not raise taxes, that means deficits can not be dealt with in an intelligent manner. It guarantees a stalemate.
I’m not arguing one way or another on the legalization issue, but based on the article it sounds like this drug is so harmful because it is made at home in the kitchen of some severely toxic stuff. The only reason people use it is that its cheaper than heroin. If drugs were legal, and regulated so that standards could be maintained I doubt that anyone would use Krokodil, preferring instead to stick to safer* heroin.
*Hard to believe I’m using the words safer and heroin in the same sentence
If drugs were legal, would you take them? Lots and lots of people would not. You could leave a brick of coacaine on a street corner with a sign and the majority would walk -past it. Some might take a chance to get rich. But the vast majority would have no interest.
We haven’t taken away your right to buy, we have taken away the company’s right to sell. This impacts your ABILITY to buy but even after approval your RIGHT to buy is truncated by the fact you need a prescription. The concept of self medication is not a working model for medical dispensation of drugs for shit like cancer or heart disease especially if the side effects of these drugs is significant or is contraindicated if you have some other condition.
Not in any meaningful way you don’t.
So you think that consumer reports would be able to step in and do what the FDA does? Come on, pull the other one. Is consumer reports going to gather up a bunch of cancer patients and perform trials for every drug that comes along to see which ones actually do anything?
If you want to prescribe pot for some therapeutic purpose then yes it absolutely should jump through hoops to be able to claim it does what it says it does. If it is merely for consumption then it should jump through the same hoops that we make other foods jump through. Perhaps we have a huge surgeon generals warning about the health effects of smoking pot.
Yes labelling requirements should be required under law (perhaps a THC content like we do with alcohol) and food safety shouold eb observed just as much for pot as for other stuff, perhaps there will be a market for organically grown pot compared to stuff that is produced with chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Quality on the other hand is largely a matter of taste, perhaps there will be magazines that rate different brands.
I don’t know about now but back when i was in college, you had two choices, you could go to Pico Blvd and get what could be oregano or really shitty ditch weed or you could go to your neighborhood pot dealer who DID have a reputation to protect. My understanding is that the quality of pot increased dramtically when it was decriminalized in California and a lot of the pot isn’t smuggled in or grown locally so much as it is imported from california.
I don’t think it was malathion (which was a pesticide used to combat the medfly). If they could spray pot farms with malathion, they could just bust those guys.
There is no real incentive to sell poison when you can just sell Oregano or basil.