EPTOklahoma hash conversion - up to life in prison - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
Tatari
United States1179 Posts
| ||
|
SpiritAshura
United States1271 Posts
| ||
|
ladytr0n
United States51 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
| ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind. One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case? | ||
|
Kurr
Canada2338 Posts
On April 24 2011 04:21 N3rV[Green] wrote: Speaking of that, those Depression medications, antacid medications, nausea medications, Honestly just think back to the last commercial you saw for some type of medication on TV. Think about that loooooong list of things that can go wrong if you take that medication. Ya you remember those. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, sore _____, allergic reactions (some of which can be life threatening), uncontrolled muscle spasms, (for depression suicidal thoughts or tendencies is ALWAYS listed, and that pisses me the fuck off. Giving a depressed person something that will not make them happier, but push them a little closer to actually doing something....even if that something is just killing themself. It doesn't matter, society just needs them to do SOMETHING right?) The list goes on and on, with DEATH mentioned at least once every commercial. Sickens me. Pharmaceuticals companies have to protect themselves which is why they list those side effects. Usually, there are 2-3 common side effects (IE they happen in around 10% of people or slightly more or less) which are for example nausea and diarrhea with most antibiotics. When they give you the medication, pharmacists have an obligation to warn you about the side effects and what to do if they occur to you. Rarely are these side effects very significant. Then, there are side effects that happened in around 1-3% of people, also some minor effects (headaches for example). Major side effects (for example uncontrolled muscle spasms) are always rare (because if they weren't the medication would be taken off the market or never have made it there if the side effect was discovered before it was published) and pharmacists/doctors also have a duty to warn patients and follow up on people at risk to develop these effects. As far as allergic reactions go, it is written on literally every medication. Every time you put a foreign substance in your body, there is a chance of your body rejecting it. Previous allergic reactions (penicillin allergy for example is common) are kept in patient files and people are warned of what to look for towards these reactions to make sure they take the proper action if they suffer them (ambulance if you have trouble breathing, stopping the antibiotic and seeing the doctor if they develop a rash). You didn't address it, but for pain killers or medication that can be addicting, pharmacists also follow very closely the medication refill dates to keep people in check and will not serve such medication in advance. Patients that are thought to be abusive of them are followed closely (we have people in our pharmacy that we only serve 1 day at a time for example because of abuse). Overall, your attacks on medication are unfounded. It is a very different from just giving you medication and telling you to get out. Pharmacists have a responsibility to assure correct treatment for patients, notice interactions (so that patients are subjected to the least amount of side effects possible, although this can be an impossible task when patients have several diseases and take several different medication) and follow up on patients when they refill their medication to be sure they are responding well to the treatment. This is why you can't compare medication gotten in a pharmacy to substances acquired on the side of the street. | ||
|
Deja Thoris
South Africa646 Posts
On April 24 2011 04:46 Thorakh wrote: Excuse me, I'm terribly uninformed on the matter of marijuana, but doesn't it have any severe negative drawbacks with longterm use? Like addiction, development of psychotic disorders, cancer, etc.? I wonder why it's illegal in so many countries (and American states) while, according to you guys, it is actually the best thing that has ever happened to mankind. One explanation I can think of is the mass public being as uninformed as I am and being indoctrinated by the government that weed = bad. Is this the case? Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years" | ||
|
plated.rawr
Norway1676 Posts
Of course yea, targeting production means having a few private plants for own use will also be a lot more "dangerous", as well as local supply going down, but there's always import from other states, right? It's not like this law is adding extra punishment to the average users. This law needs to be a part of a set of laws though, either against or for local MJ legalization. For; it could be used to stop private growing and help institutionalize governmnent controlled growning. Against; to clip the production and thus reduce the ammount dealers can access. If it's just a law standing on its own without any future addendums, then all this will do is force people to import more. | ||
|
loveeholicce
Korea (South)785 Posts
| ||
|
wwer
United States53 Posts
On April 24 2011 05:07 plated.rawr wrote: I don't really see the problem here. The article states that what the law will target, is the producers, not distributors and users, meaning that for the vast majority of those involved in MJ, only a small percentage will be affected. Of course yea, targeting production means having a few private plants for own use will also be a lot more "dangerous", as well as local supply going down, but there's always import from other states, right? It's not like this law is adding extra punishment to the average users. This law needs to be a part of a set of laws though, either against or for local MJ legalization. For; it could be used to stop private growing and help institutionalize governmnent controlled growning. Against; to clip the production and thus reduce the ammount dealers can access. If it's just a law standing on its own without any future addendums, then all this will do is force people to import more. Yes and this benefits large criminal organizations which have the resources to mass produce and transport hash by guaranteeing them more business. Does that not seem like a bad thing to you? | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
What happened to punishments fitting the crime  | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
On April 24 2011 04:51 Deja Thoris wrote: I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it).Following your line of logic we should criminalise normal cigarettes, alcohol and junk food since some are addictive and all have adverse health effects when not used in moderation. I can just see the headlines. "Man pleads guilty of cheeseburger posession, gets 20 years" | ||
|
ShamTao
United States419 Posts
| ||
|
hehe
United States132 Posts
http://www.tokecity.com/forums/showthread.php4?t=43183 | ||
|
gerundium
Netherlands786 Posts
Drug policy here is a house of cards, they are already drastically reducing number of shops and attacking the production much the same way Oklahoma is doing. Continued pressure from the EU and i see the Netherlands regressing within 20 years. Fingers crossed that the US leads the way and just does the deed and legalizes it. But this does not make me hopeful of that happening any time soon. | ||
|
Arnstein
Norway3381 Posts
| ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
On April 24 2011 06:20 Arnstein wrote: That is just so idiotic. People are allowed to drink themselves to death, but smoking hashish? WELL THAT'S JUST TOO DANGEROUS, RIGHT?!?!? Well, to be fair, Oklahoma also forbits beer to have over 3.2% alcohol by volume lol. But I live right by Fort Sill, which isn't considered state land, so they sell whatever the shit they want :p | ||
|
drivec
United States354 Posts
| ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On April 24 2011 05:43 Thorakh wrote: I am indeed for criminalising alcohol and ciggarettes as they are both extremely dangerous, not only towards the person using them, but also to other people. But I'm also not stupid and I realise that that is never going to happen. Cheeseburgers do not have any adverse effects on people other than the person eating one. I guess marijuana doesn't either, but you kinda misunderstood my post since I meant to ask if there are any negative longterm effects of weed (which would kinda vote against the use of weed, although when it doesn't adversely affect people other than the one using it, I'm not against legalising it). Ah... people like you... can't comprehend in the slightest your train of thought. But that might stem from me having a more libertarian (although, moderate, which is kinda an oxymoron in itself) mindset. Criminalize those things because of their potential for harm (what exactly is a cigarettes potential for harm by the way?)... haha oh man. | ||
| ||
