By "I personally oppose recreational marijuana" do you mean opposing legalisation? I don't see how criminalising a drug that does less physical harm than alcohol is beneficial to anyone but organised crime, and for-profit prisons.
Yes, I mean that I endorse legalization for medicinal purposes, but not recreational.
In part, so that it does not become as rampant as alcohol in our society (and I say that as an alcohol drinker!).
But I understand your point about organised crime and prisons. That is another reason for reclassifying it from Schedule I to less serious Schedule III. Although the recent action only changes the classification for medical use--recreational would still treat it as Schedule I. I would agree that it should be Schedule III whether medical or recreational.
Still, while we may disagree on how far to go, I think we can agree that this is a good step (and, in fact, Biden was also looking to do something similar but he was following the slower regulatory process rather than just having a high official decree it).
But marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, so why would it be a problem if recreational use was more widespread? I don't use recreational marijuana or drink alcohol (or use any recreational drug besides caffeine), but most of the negative effects of marijuana use comes from its illegality and not marijuana itself (even the negative effects on the lungs from smoking marijuana come from smoking it rather than anything intrinsic to marijuana - smoking anything is bad for the lungs). If marijuana was sold like alcohol - requiring ID, subject to taxation, not sold to intoxicated people - you would halt organised crime's use of illegal growing overnight.
Would you be in favour of making alcohol illegal? If not, I don't understand wanting to keep recreational marijuana illegal.
I consider reclassifying marijuana to be a good decision. While I personally oppose recreational marijuana, the old classification prohibited it from being used for medical purposes---while happily letting doctors prescribe narcotics like hydrocodone and even morphine. That never made sense to me. The old classification put severe obstacles in front of American scientists to even properly research the medicinal benefits of marijuana.
It was almost like the pharmaceutical companies didn't' want research on whether a plant-based substance might be as effective at pain control as their high-priced pharmaceuticals!
So, yes, I applaud Trump for his actions in this regard. It was long overdue.
I agree that this is a good thing, but opioid drugs are very much also plant-based substances. Opioids very much have their valid medical uses too - they are very effective, the problem is the physiologically addictive issues with them. Pharmaceutical companies are very interested in medical marijuana so any lobbying was likely from religious organisations - my main suspects would be the Mormons, personally.
By "I personally oppose recreational marijuana" do you mean opposing legalisation? I don't see how criminalising a drug that does less physical harm than alcohol is beneficial to anyone but organised crime, and for-profit prisons.
Funny, I got a dental procedure done a few years ago and jumped a little when the ortho told me he was going to put me on fentanyl. He explained that fentanyl was simply the most effective painkiller for the job, and there was absolutely no risk to it if it was dosed appropriately. No side effects, no problems.
The problem with drugs isn't the use, it's the abuse.
Yes, fentanyl patches are quite common as a veterinary painkiller for example (I don't know if they're used for humans too, although a surprising number of medications can be used for both humans and non-human animals).
Canada is incredibly close to Europe, Pomona. St. Pierre et Miquelon are just off the coast of Newfoundland not to mention the proximity of Greenland to Baffin Island.
If Australia can take part in the Eurovision Song Contest, I don't see why Canada can't join the EU. And thinking about it, I can see quite a few benefits for both sides. Not that it will ever happen, though.
By "I personally oppose recreational marijuana" do you mean opposing legalisation? I don't see how criminalising a drug that does less physical harm than alcohol is beneficial to anyone but organised crime, and for-profit prisons.
Yes, I mean that I endorse legalization for medicinal purposes, but not recreational.
In part, so that it does not become as rampant as alcohol in our society (and I say that as an alcohol drinker!).
But I understand your point about organised crime and prisons. That is another reason for reclassifying it from Schedule I to less serious Schedule III. Although the recent action only changes the classification for medical use--recreational would still treat it as Schedule I. I would agree that it should be Schedule III whether medical or recreational.
Still, while we may disagree on how far to go, I think we can agree that this is a good step (and, in fact, Biden was also looking to do something similar but he was following the slower regulatory process rather than just having a high official decree it).
But marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, so why would it be a problem if recreational use was more widespread? I don't use recreational marijuana or drink alcohol (or use any recreational drug besides caffeine), but most of the negative effects of marijuana use comes from its illegality and not marijuana itself (even the negative effects on the lungs from smoking marijuana come from smoking it rather than anything intrinsic to marijuana - smoking anything is bad for the lungs). If marijuana was sold like alcohol - requiring ID, subject to taxation, not sold to intoxicated people - you would halt organised crime's use of illegal growing overnight.
Would you be in favour of making alcohol illegal? If not, I don't understand wanting to keep recreational marijuana illegal.
Agreed—I don’t think either should be illegal at all.
I have no good counter argument, @Pomona . I guess it is just an irrational prejudice on my part.
But, to get the thread back on topic, would you agree that, even though it is just a baby step, the change is a good thing that the Trump Administration has done?
Comments
But marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, so why would it be a problem if recreational use was more widespread? I don't use recreational marijuana or drink alcohol (or use any recreational drug besides caffeine), but most of the negative effects of marijuana use comes from its illegality and not marijuana itself (even the negative effects on the lungs from smoking marijuana come from smoking it rather than anything intrinsic to marijuana - smoking anything is bad for the lungs). If marijuana was sold like alcohol - requiring ID, subject to taxation, not sold to intoxicated people - you would halt organised crime's use of illegal growing overnight.
Would you be in favour of making alcohol illegal? If not, I don't understand wanting to keep recreational marijuana illegal.
Yes, fentanyl patches are quite common as a veterinary painkiller for example (I don't know if they're used for humans too, although a surprising number of medications can be used for both humans and non-human animals).
Agreed—I don’t think either should be illegal at all.
But, to get the thread back on topic, would you agree that, even though it is just a baby step, the change is a good thing that the Trump Administration has done?