|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Reefer madness. Legalisation of marijuana, are there no negatives?
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by John D. Ward:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
If we're talking about toddlers, then the issue is child-proof storage.
Some years ago when "child=proof" containers for pills, the sort where you have to twist and push the cap at the same time, were first introduced in Britain, there were a number of press reports of elderly people suffering from arthritis who had to get their nimble-fingered grandchild, aged about four, to open their pills for them! It's not quite that simple.
Especially given that we're talking about childproof containers for Grandma's batch of special brownies...
Because children will not get into Gran's illegal brownies?
I think this issue of kids getting into the stash is a little ginned up. Yes, kids might get into unsafely stored hash brownies. They might also get into unsafely stored liquor, toothpaste(a whole tube'll kill ya), nail polish, etc. We don't seem to be living through an ongoing epidemic of household poisonings, probably because most people use common sense when deciding where to place things around the house.
Golden Key wrote:
quote:
From various interviews I heard, it seemed clear to me that many activists just wanted to use that as a step to full legalization, and didn't particularly care about the people with medical need.
I've been convinced right from the start that medical weed was a front for recreational use. I don't doubt for a second that it has pain-killing or other salutary qualities for some people. So do liquor and even coffee(cures fatigue!). But we don't present those substances as pharmaceutical items available by prescription, because they're already readily available to anyone who wants to self-medicate.
Interestingly, if it gets to the point where only medical weed is legalized, and doctors sign the vast majority of permission slips handed to them, vetoing only a handful, then you've essentially got a situation where instead intervening to allow some people to use weed, they're intervening to prevent some people from using it. In other words, unlike with regular prescriptions, permission to use becomes the default setting.
Imagine that you needed a doctor's note to buy booze, but doctors only refused about 5% of the applicants. It's basically an authoritarian system, where a minority of people are denied the right to do something otherwise considered a matter of personal choice.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
