The Frankish Reich Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Well, from my experience and the people I know, every single person who uses hard core drugs - like blow, acid, meth, etc. started out using weed first. Every single one of them. I grew up in that crowd. In every instance that I am aware of - weed was the first illegal drug any of those (kids at the time) tried. Once they realized how much they liked smoking pot, they lost their fear of trying other harder drugs. At least several of them that I still know of - definitely messed up their lives with drugs and would have no doubt been better off if they had never taken that first hit of the doobie or bowl or bong or whatever. So there's that. Weed has definitely led to ruined lives. If you claim it hasn't, you are in denial of the obvious. A little status report from Legal Weed Central, a/k/a Colorado. I am generally strongly libertarian in my views on politics and morality. I voted for the Colorado ballot initiative that legalized recreational marijuana. I still believe it should be legalized at the federal level. But ....... I'm not as flippant about dismissing the negative side of pot use as I used to be. Every day I walk past a gauntlet of street people, many (most?) of whom moved to Denver because of the legal weed. And here's the thing: they're not just using legal cannabis. They're using all manner of legal and illegal drugs. It has definitely exacerbated a horrible heroin addiction problem. Homeless shelter managers report that a significant portion - maybe 30% or more - of the homeless population came here based on the legalization of weed. I'm much less optimistic about legalizing drugs today than I was a couple years ago. And I'm not alone in this. Our Democratic governor (generally a level headed guy who made his money running brewpubs, so hardly a Prohibitionist) has expressed very similar concerns. I have to say this experience has introduced a bit of old fashioned conservatism into my political philosophy. By that, I don't mean religious right Republicanism or anything like that. I mean something older and actually a bit sadder: I've come to the realization that my biases about legalization were based on a kind of upper middle class view of the world, including the notion that many people use weed in moderation for fun on weekends, etc, and it has zero negative impact on their well-adjusted lives. For a lot (a lot!) of other people living more on the margins, legal weed is just one other temptation that they really didn't need, and that has had a significant (perhaps not the major cause, but a significant one) negative impact on their ability to adjust to modern life. So consider me a skeptical libertarian now - I still don't think restricting liberty because some people can't handle too much freedom is a good thing, but no longer am I dismissive of arguments that legalization is basically a cost-free proposition for our culture. I know this gets close to the nanny statism I've abhorred, but maybe I'm seeing the world as a bit more nuanced now than when I was younger .... Good discussion, let's keep the insults out of it ... I appreciate hearing different perspectives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 You are telling me that the commissioner of the league can't lobby for change in said league? Really? Goodell has more power than you think. Suspending numerous players for a substance that is socially acceptable by a majority of the country is bad business, and he knows it. The heroin epidemic is in large part due to Big Pharma pushing doctors to prescribe oxycodone and other similar drugs at rates far beyond necessary. This led to a number of people checking into rehab such as Rush Limbaugh, Brett Farve, Jamie Lee Curtis, and Cindy McCain among countless others. Unfortunately, many people often transition to heroin from oxy and vicodin, which in turn has left far too many dead. Weed is not the answer to the problem, but it is a much safer stopgap than prescribing legal forms of heroin to players. Yes. that is exactly what I am saying. Goodell has no vote in setting rules or penalties or how the NFL does it's business. If you fantasize about a Commissioner walking into the annual owners meeting and saying "look, you're all wrong about banning weed. Get with the times MAN!" As for the bolded part--that's probably the dumbest take I have seen on this topic at TBD so far. It's laughable. This article cites a study showing 25% fewer opiate overdoses in states that have allowed medical marijuana. http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/25/health/medical-marijuana-overdose-deaths/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Also, the earlier study that you discounted in this thread, showed that pain patients with access to both opiates and cannabis reduced their opiate use by 2/3. Certainly nothing to discount given the stigma still attached to cannabis use. Your earlier response too seems to indicate that you think that medical insurance is paying for doctor visits to get cannabis authorization. That is not the case in Michigan or NY. I happened to speak to a NY cannabis doctor's office assistant regarding costs just a month ago. Their policy was two office visits before prescribing. These would NOT be covered by insurance and the cost for the two visits would be $450. Then the patient could buy extremely expensive cannabis extracts (easily $150/month) but these would not be covered by insurance. Then, every 3 months patients would need another uncovered office visit at the cost of $150 each. So, is cost a barrier? You bet it is - a big one. It is pretty clear to me that doctors are generally anti-cannabis despite ever more evidence that cannabis can be medically quite useful. Frankly, it is doctors such as yourself that are standing in the way of relief for at least some of your patients. You are experts in every other medical topic and so, somehow feel you are the expert on this topic too. Most doctors know less than their self medicating patients as they have no more formal education, have done far less research, and have less practical experience. Some learn from their patients but others seem too arrogant to let information flow in that direction. The article you cite clearly states that they don't know why they got the results they reported and the rebuttal from the U Fla guy is spot on. There are several other explanations for the findings. The study doesn't draw a line between increased medical marijuana use and decreased opioid related deaths. It can't. As for other studies, marijuana euphoria may decrease the amount of narcotic an addict takes, but rarely eliminates it (it cannot counter the addiction to opioids). As for your doctor friend--he choses not to accept insurance reimbursement for such visits, I assume. Others likely do, even Medicaid. Finally, I don't care if patients use medical marijuana, or acupuncture or whatever seems to bring them relief of their pain. But let's stop pretending that there is some sinister cabal that is preventing physicians from accepting routinely the use of MJ over opioids for chronic pain treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heitz Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Finally, I don't care if patients use medical marijuana, or acupuncture or whatever seems to bring them relief of their pain. But let's stop pretending that there is some sinister cabal that is preventing physicians from accepting routinely the use of MJ over opioids for chronic pain treatment. I don't think it's a cabal, more the Schedule 1 designation which makes it hard to study, thereby not giving physicians the historical data that they need to make informed decisions on prescribing to patients. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 The article you cite clearly states that they don't know why they got the results they reported and the rebuttal from the U Fla guy is spot on. There are several other explanations for the findings. The study doesn't draw a line between increased medical marijuana use and decreased opioid related deaths. It can't. As for other studies, marijuana euphoria may decrease the amount of narcotic an addict takes, but rarely eliminates it (it cannot counter the addiction to opioids). As for your doctor friend--he choses not to accept insurance reimbursement for such visits, I assume. Others likely do, even Medicaid. Finally, I don't care if patients use medical marijuana, or acupuncture or whatever seems to bring them relief of their pain. But let's stop pretending that there is some sinister cabal that is preventing physicians from accepting routinely the use of MJ over opioids for chronic pain treatment. In this time of opiate epidemic, how can a scientific mind dismiss a 25% decrease in opiate deaths and a 2/3 reduction in opiate use as insignificant? Here is the study http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1898878 That U of Fla expert, Kevin Sabet, is infamous for his anti-cannabis propaganda. He is an addiction specialist and his livelihood depends upon the under educated buying into his BS. Don't be one of them - educate yourself on the endocannabinoid system. Wouldn't a pain patient reducing their opiate intake by 2/3 be better for the patient, even if that meant they were using cannabis? Does it need to replace the opiates 100% to be considered beneficial by you? I know pain patients can manage their pain and often stave off opiate dependence by using cannabis for daily pain levels and reserving their opiates for breakthrough pain. Many pain management doctors continue to urine test for THC in spite of CDC recommendations to stop THC testing pain patients. Also, patients MUST consume opiates the day before their doctor appointment whether they need them or not because testing clean for opiates means they must be selling them. The deck is clearly stacked in favor of opiates over cannabis for pain control. That is backward, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Have the Cheaters sent a message and cut this worthless piece of trash yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 I don't think it's a cabal, more the Schedule 1 designation which makes it hard to study, thereby not giving physicians the historical data that they need to make informed decisions on prescribing to patients. It's been available in California to study for what, 20 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 In this time of opiate epidemic, how can a scientific mind dismiss a 25% decrease in opiate deaths and a 2/3 reduction in opiate use as insignificant? Here is the study http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1898878 That U of Fla expert, Kevin Sabet, is infamous for his anti-cannabis propaganda. He is an addiction specialist and his livelihood depends upon the under educated buying into his BS. Don't be one of them - educate yourself on the endocannabinoid system. Wouldn't a pain patient reducing their opiate intake by 2/3 be better for the patient, even if that meant they were using cannabis? Does it need to replace the opiates 100% to be considered beneficial by you? I know pain patients can manage their pain and often stave off opiate dependence by using cannabis for daily pain levels and reserving their opiates for breakthrough pain. Many pain management doctors continue to urine test for THC in spite of CDC recommendations to stop THC testing pain patients. Also, patients MUST consume opiates the day before their doctor appointment whether they need them or not because testing clean for opiates means they must be selling them. The deck is clearly stacked in favor of opiates over cannabis for pain control. That is backward, imo. Calling a guy "infamous" does not negate his points about that article (which even the authors concede leads to no direct conclusions regarding its findings). Why bring that up then? As for suggesting that he would purposefully lie about cannabis or opioid use in order to keep his waiting room full--these are the types of assertions that pro-cannabis people such as yourself must put forward in lieu of widely accepted evidence to support your position. Mixed in with "big pharma", weak doctors and a few anecdotes about "a doctor (you) know who doesn't take insurance" or "forces patients to take opioids" before their office visits. It's really not a convincing argument, to be kind. As I said, my practice has nothing to do with managing chronic pain. Many more states have far less restrictions on medical marijuana (or recreational use) than NYS. I let the pain specialists make decisions with their patients as to what they think will work best. Nationally, they have not been recommending marijuana on any large scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 from my experience everyone I know(probably a few people you know) started with alcohol. Every. Single. One. Alcohol led to something different. Some smoked cannibis (just because that guy is annoyed by it) others went to harder stuff. I would say it's probably 2 out of 10 ended up doing something harder than alcohol or cannibis. But every case when trying something new alcohol was consumed. My nephew was a good kid and did not even drink but was introduced to MJ at job site and basically if you did not smoke you did not fit in and would quickly be out of a job. His personality changed a lot and was busted. He lost job and court gave him choice of rehap or jail and he choose rehab. After rehab he got good job from family member, started smoking it again and finally resorting to stealing from family members to pay for his habit. This time court did not give him choice when he was caught. He never did ANYTHING by MJ - no alcohol, barbs (illegal and legal), opaits, etc. He had no discipline issues in school or work place until he started smoking MJ so do not tell me alcohol is cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87168 Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 My nephew was a good kid and did not even drink but was introduced to MJ at job site and basically if you did not smoke you did not fit in and would quickly be out of a job. His personality changed a lot and was busted. He lost job and court gave him choice of rehap or jail and he choose rehab. After rehab he got good job from family member, started smoking it again and finally resorting to stealing from family members to pay for his habit. This time court did not give him choice when he was caught. He never did ANYTHING by MJ - no alcohol, barbs (illegal and legal), opaits, etc. He had no discipline issues in school or work place until he started smoking MJ so do not tell me alcohol is cause. no offense, but I don't really expect individuals that succumb to peer pressure to posses much ability fending off a habit or addiction. I also don't buy the whole "smoke, or lose your job" scenario you've presented, but then again, who am I to say differently. all I know is people handle habits, and addictions differently. I for one struggled with video games my freshman year of college and had to physically remove them from my "world" until i was more disciplined or responsible to practice moderation. at some point, the person has to take responsibility for their own lack of discretion or restrain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Calling a guy "infamous" does not negate his points about that article (which even the authors concede leads to no direct conclusions regarding its findings). Why bring that up then? As for suggesting that he would purposefully lie about cannabis or opioid use in order to keep his waiting room full--these are the types of assertions that pro-cannabis people such as yourself must put forward in lieu of widely accepted evidence to support your position. Mixed in with "big pharma", weak doctors and a few anecdotes about "a doctor (you) know who doesn't take insurance" or "forces patients to take opioids" before their office visits. It's really not a convincing argument, to be kind. As I said, my practice has nothing to do with managing chronic pain. Many more states have far less restrictions on medical marijuana (or recreational use) than NYS. I let the pain specialists make decisions with their patients as to what they think will work best. Nationally, they have not been recommending marijuana on any large scale. OK Doc, let me ask you this since you feel money or employment would have no impact on a person's opinion: Say you need to buy a car, a used car. Say also, you have two sources of information on that car. The used car salesmen tells you that this make and model is super reliable. Consumer Reports says that this is one of the least reliable cars ever. Who ya gonna believe and why? Also, please do a little research to see who actually puts up money to battle legal cannabis. Insys Therapeutics just contributed half a million dollars to the campaign to defeat legal cannabis in Arizona. Can you guess why that might be? That's right, competition. Competition with the cannabinoid based drug that they are putting through clinical trials. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/09/a-maker-of-deadly-painkillers-is-bankrolling-the-opposition-to-legal-marijuana-in-arizona/ Who else stands to lose - rehab facilities, big alcohol, big pharma, prison guard unions, police unions - all involved financially in the fight against easing cannabis laws. Follow the money, just like so many other things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87168 Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 OK Doc, let me ask you this since you feel money or employment would have no impact on a person's opinion: Say you need to buy a car, a used car. Say also, you have two sources of information on that car. The used car salesmen tells you that this make and model is super reliable. Consumer Reports says that this is one of the least reliable cars ever. Who ya gonna believe and why? Also, please do a little research to see who actually puts up money to battle legal cannabis. Insys Therapeutics just contributed half a million dollars to the campaign to defeat legal cannabis in Arizona. Can you guess why that might be? That's right, competition. Competition with the cannabinoid based drug that they are putting through clinical trials. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/09/a-maker-of-deadly-painkillers-is-bankrolling-the-opposition-to-legal-marijuana-in-arizona/ Who else stands to lose - rehab facilities, big alcohol, big pharma, prison guard unions, police unions - all involved financially in the fight against easing cannabis laws. Follow the money, just like so many other things. very very true. people fail to see the market impact of cannabis. other industries would also suffer big, such as the lumber industry and even the fuel industry. cannabis was used heavily for both prior to 1937. i know many individuals personally, all "up standing citizens" as we like to call them, that have stopped using prescription pills and switched to cannabis. imagine the impact that would have on pharma if it were actually readily available, equally, as a legitimate alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 (edited) OK Doc, let me ask you this since you feel money or employment would have no impact on a person's opinion: Say you need to buy a car, a used car. Say also, you have two sources of information on that car. The used car salesmen tells you that this make and model is super reliable. Consumer Reports says that this is one of the least reliable cars ever. Who ya gonna believe and why? Also, please do a little research to see who actually puts up money to battle legal cannabis. Insys Therapeutics just contributed half a million dollars to the campaign to defeat legal cannabis in Arizona. Can you guess why that might be? That's right, competition. Competition with the cannabinoid based drug that they are putting through clinical trials. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/09/a-maker-of-deadly-painkillers-is-bankrolling-the-opposition-to-legal-marijuana-in-arizona/ Who else stands to lose - rehab facilities, big alcohol, big pharma, prison guard unions, police unions - all involved financially in the fight against easing cannabis laws. Follow the money, just like so many other things. Competing producers bankrolling opposition to competing products? Wow. Pulitzer prize right there. Anyway, so now even a company that produces the cannabinoids that you advocate over opioids for pain control is the devil? "Big Pharma" now includes companies that... are looking for alternatives to opioids for pain control? I also love the nonbiased "reporting" by this WaPo guy who keeps, hysterically, calling fentanyl a "killer drug". How did you not notice that? This line of argument is devolving into gibberish. And get back to me when you find out exactly who/what funded the California pro-legalization lobby. Good luck. very very true. people fail to see the market impact of cannabis. other industries would also suffer big, such as the lumber industry and even the fuel industry. cannabis was used heavily for both prior to 1937. i know many individuals personally, all "up standing citizens" as we like to call them, that have stopped using prescription pills and switched to cannabis. imagine the impact that would have on pharma if it were actually readily available, equally, as a legitimate alternative. So the lumber and fuel industry would suffer big because prior to 1937, cannabis was used for...lumber and fuel? Imagine? Here's a news flash: cannabis is legally available in more than half the states in this country (the entire West Coast allows recreational use) and the number is growing. Yet "big pharma" keeps makimg many billions of dollars, as will "Big Weed". Edited November 23, 2016 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted December 3, 2016 Author Share Posted December 3, 2016 @adamschefter Patriots' DT Alan Branch has won his appeal of his 4-game suspension and will not be suspended, per @FieldYates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 @adamschefter Patriots' DT Alan Branch has won his appeal of his 4-game suspension and will not be suspended, per @FieldYates. So our guy has a disease but being a Pat trumps it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted December 3, 2016 Author Share Posted December 3, 2016 I really need to know how he won his appeal and Seantrel did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EmotionallyUnstable Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 @adamschefter Patriots' DT Alan Branch has won his appeal of his 4-game suspension and will not be suspended, per @FieldYates. Wait what. How does this even happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 I really need to know how he won his appeal and Seantrel did not. Agree. This is completely fuct. Why is Seantrel not protected by the ADA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 Well, from my experience and the people I know, every single person who uses hard core drugs - like blow, acid, meth, etc. started out using weed first. Every single one of them. I grew up in that crowd. In every instance that I am aware of - weed was the first illegal drug any of those (kids at the time) tried. Once they realized how much they liked smoking pot, they lost their fear of trying other harder drugs. At least several of them that I still know of - definitely messed up their lives with drugs and would have no doubt been better off if they had never taken that first hit of the doobie or bowl or bong or whatever. So there's that. Weed has definitely led to ruined lives. If you claim it hasn't, you are in denial of the obvious. 1) How many people do you know like that and are they a representative sample of all pot smokers? 2) How many of those people started with alcohol before weed? Maybe that's the problem? @adamschefter Patriots' DT Alan Branch has won his appeal of his 4-game suspension and will not be suspended, per @FieldYates. Branch: Commissioner Goodell, I play for the Patriots. Goodell: Appeal granted! Am I square with Bob yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manbeast Posted December 3, 2016 Share Posted December 3, 2016 A little status report from Legal Weed Central, a/k/a Colorado. I am generally strongly libertarian in my views on politics and morality. I voted for the Colorado ballot initiative that legalized recreational marijuana. I still believe it should be legalized at the federal level. But .... ... I'm not as flippant about dismissing the negative side of pot use as I used to be. Every day I walk past a gauntlet of street people, many (most?) of whom moved to Denver because of the legal weed. And here's the thing: they're not just using legal cannabis. They're using all manner of legal and illegal drugs. It has definitely exacerbated a horrible heroin addiction problem. Homeless shelter managers report that a significant portion - maybe 30% or more - of the homeless population came here based on the legalization of weed. I'm much less optimistic about legalizing drugs today than I was a couple years ago. And I'm not alone in this. Our Democratic governor (generally a level headed guy who made his money running brewpubs, so hardly a Prohibitionist) has expressed very similar concerns. I have to say this experience has introduced a bit of old fashioned conservatism into my political philosophy. By that, I don't mean religious right Republicanism or anything like that. I mean something older and actually a bit sadder: I've come to the realization that my biases about legalization were based on a kind of upper middle class view of the world, including the notion that many people use weed in moderation for fun on weekends, etc, and it has zero negative impact on their well-adjusted lives. For a lot (a lot!) of other people living more on the margins, legal weed is just one other temptation that they really didn't need, and that has had a significant (perhaps not the major cause, but a significant one) negative impact on their ability to adjust to modern life. So consider me a skeptical libertarian now - I still don't think restricting liberty because some people can't handle too much freedom is a good thing, but no longer am I dismissive of arguments that legalization is basically a cost-free proposition for our culture. I know this gets close to the nanny statism I've abhorred, but maybe I'm seeing the world as a bit more nuanced now than when I was younger .... Good discussion, let's keep the insults out of it ... I appreciate hearing different perspectives. As a person who used to be big into that portion of our culture I can tell you that the two hard drugs and weed do not go hand in hand. What you may not realize is even in area's where it is legal most user's are not open about it. I would be more concerned with alcohol and lottery addictions and issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted December 3, 2016 Author Share Posted December 3, 2016 @mikegarafolo The NFL rescinded Pats DT Alan Branch's suspension before the actual appeal even occurred, source said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts