I'm sorry but I have a habit of not believing people I don't know when they claim to have qualifications. Again you seem to be twisting words and not discussing my points.

 

I did not say doctors don't want to prescribe it due to no proof of negatives, but because it has no proof of positives. They have many drugs they can prescribe that have been scientifically proven to be effective, marijuana has not. Doctors are the ones who would prescribe it, they are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the care of their patients. If they don't know a drug will work, they will not prescribe it. Any preconceptions you have about a government being against it does not altar that fact.

 

I have yet to be shown evidence of the Canadian government stopping research into the benefits.

 

I will repeat this just so it is clear, this is not about any negatives, only that there is no research and evidence proving the positives. Doctors will prescribe what they know works.

Doctors prescribe what prescription drug companies tell them to prescribe. That's all I really have to say on that matter.

Doctors prescribe things to have a positive effect. If they wanted to prescribe something with no negatives the would prescribe water. It isn't that it has no negatives, it's that they have no proof it is beneficial.

A simple video is not enough for medical research. If a whole countries doctors see there is not enough proof, there is a serious lack of information out there. They are much better of prescribing something they know is beneficial than something they don't know.

Again, to the post above, I'm not saying it has negative effects. People seem to be confusing this with legalising Marijuana. This is about doctors not knowing the positives well enough to prescribe it over something else.

 

It could be in some cases. It's not hard to prove morphine is a painkiller, and as I said, a similar test can prove pot works in some cases. Not all treatments work for everybody, that doesn't mean they're illegal, criminal, and deemed as dangerous as heroin.

"Twenty-one patients from across the country testified in the case, saying they were rejected by doctors a total of 113 times.

One Alberta patient was refused by 26 doctors; another in Vancouver approached 37 physicians without finding a single one to sign off on the form."

Would you approach 37 different physicians asking for dope knowing the long delays involved when you can get other medication?

Doctors prescribe things to have a positive effect. If they wanted to prescribe something with no negatives the would prescribe water. It isn't that it has no negatives, it's that they have no proof it is beneficial.

A simple video is not enough for medical research. If a whole countries doctors see there is not enough proof, there is a serious lack of information out there. They are much better of prescribing something they know is beneficial than something they don't know.

Again, to the post above, I'm not saying it has negative effects. People seem to be confusing this with legalising Marijuana. This is about doctors not knowing the positives well enough to prescribe it over something else.

 

It could be in some cases. It's not hard to prove morphine is a painkiller, and as I said, a similar test can prove pot works in some cases. Not all treatments work for everybody, that doesn't mean they're illegal, criminal, and deemed as dangerous as heroin.

"Twenty-one patients from across the country testified in the case, saying they were rejected by doctors a total of 113 times.

One Alberta patient was refused by 26 doctors; another in Vancouver approached 37 physicians without finding a single one to sign off on the form."

Would you approach 37 different physicians asking for dope knowing the long delays involved when you can get other medication?

 

If I wanted to carry it around legally, have a steady supply and not have to pay for the marijuana. Sure. I assume the Canadian government pays for that stuff? Im not really familiar with all of their healthcare laws.

Doctors prescribe things to have a positive effect. If they wanted to prescribe something with no negatives the would prescribe water. It isn't that it has no negatives, it's that they have no proof it is beneficial.

A simple video is not enough for medical research. If a whole countries doctors see there is not enough proof, there is a serious lack of information out there. They are much better of prescribing something they know is beneficial than something they don't know.

Again, to the post above, I'm not saying it has negative effects. People seem to be confusing this with legalising Marijuana. This is about doctors not knowing the positives well enough to prescribe it over something else.

 

It could be in some cases. It's not hard to prove morphine is a painkiller, and as I said, a similar test can prove pot works in some cases. Not all treatments work for everybody, that doesn't mean they're illegal, criminal, and deemed as dangerous as heroin.

"Twenty-one patients from across the country testified in the case, saying they were rejected by doctors a total of 113 times.

One Alberta patient was refused by 26 doctors; another in Vancouver approached 37 physicians without finding a single one to sign off on the form."

Would you approach 37 different physicians asking for dope knowing the long delays involved when you can get other medication?

 

If I wanted to carry it around legally, have a steady supply and not have to pay for the marijuana. Sure. I assume the Canadian government pays for that stuff? Im not really familiar with all of their healthcare laws.

I don't think it's funded currently, no. But I'm not 100% sure.

 

But I don't think you necessarily have to legalize it for all purposes if you legalize it for medical ones. Morphine is legal as a painkiller but not as a recreational drug (although it's a much different drug).

I'm on the fence with legalizing, personally. For medical purposes (if it can be proven it actually works) then I've got no problems.

 

Recreationally, I don't know. I don't we need to give people more of a reason to use.

I find it a little silly how people go through the trouble of waiting months to get approved for MMJ, when you could literally find a normal dealer in as little as a week just through asking around. An if you get caught?(odds of a mere user being persecuted are essentially negligable) So what, maybe $100 fine?

If I wanted to carry it around legally, have a steady supply and not have to pay for the marijuana. Sure. I assume the Canadian government pays for that stuff? Im not really familiar with all of their healthcare laws.

As dusky said, it's readily available and it's hard to get caught. I don't see how it's worth the effort.

I'm sorry but I have a habit of not believing people I don't know when they claim to have qualifications. Again you seem to be twisting words and not discussing my points.

 

I did not say doctors don't want to prescribe it due to no proof of negatives, but because it has no proof of positives. They have many drugs they can prescribe that have been scientifically proven to be effective, marijuana has not. Doctors are the ones who would prescribe it, they are the ones who are ultimately responsible for the care of their patients. If they don't know a drug will work, they will not prescribe it. Any preconceptions you have about a government being against it does not altar that fact.

 

I have yet to be shown evidence of the Canadian government stopping research into the benefits.

 

I will repeat this just so it is clear, this is not about any negatives, only that there is no research and evidence proving the positives. Doctors will prescribe what they know works.

 

In addition to this

 

Doctors prescribe what prescription drug companies tell them to prescribe. That's all I really have to say on that matter.

 

Now going past the medical use, why should something be banned that has shown no negatives even though (or so you claim) there are no positives? Should it not be given the benefit of the doubt until the government can prove disputably that it is harmful enough to warrant being made illegal? Like, I dunno, cigarettes?

Oh joy, another 'legalize it' debate.

 

Thank god most of you don't vote.

If I wanted to carry it around legally, have a steady supply and not have to pay for the marijuana. Sure. I assume the Canadian government pays for that stuff? Im not really familiar with all of their healthcare laws.

As dusky said, it's readily available and it's hard to get caught. I don't see how it's worth the effort.

Alright that is true. It is usually readily availbable and I can only think of a few friends who have any sort of legal trouble with marijuana.

 

I was just more directing it at the extream of somebody approaching 37 doctors. Just if somebody approaches that many doctors, one you think they'd would have settled for some other drug by that point should there be a need for a precription pain medication. And that number either supports that the medical community is generally against medical marijuana, or that are uneducated about the pros and cons of using it as a pain killer.

 

I never really posted my stance on this yet. But I'm all for the use of medical marijuana if it can be proven benifical by a nonbiased organization/research firm. Just one thing i personally question, if it's legal, should it be smoked? When you smoke you really cannot control a dosage size. The effect of the amount you smoke is dependent on how you smoke it and your tollerance to the drug. Personally if it is legalized it should be the THC that is and perhaps is extracted from the marijuana and put into a pill form where a dosage can be controlled and consistant.

Oh joy, another 'legalize it' debate.

 

Thank god most of you don't vote.

 

Oh joy, another condescending poster contributing nothing to the thread.

Oh joy, another 'legalize it' debate.

 

Thank god most of you don't vote.

Surely you aren't implying people who support the legalization of marijuana aren't capable of making informed voting decisions, are you :?:

Oh joy, another 'legalize it' debate.

 

Thank god most of you don't vote.

 

Oh joy, another condescending poster contributing nothing to the thread.

I just say thanks for the bump.

 

I was just more directing it at the extream of somebody approaching 37 doctors. Just if somebody approaches that many doctors, one you think they'd would have settled for some other drug by that point should there be a need for a precription pain medication. And that number either supports that the medical community is generally against medical marijuana, or that are uneducated about the pros and cons of using it as a pain killer.

Well apparently, not all pain medications are equal. I wouldn't know, I'm neither a patient nor a doctor.

 

I never really posted my stance on this yet. But I'm all for the use of medical marijuana if it can be proven benifical by a nonbiased organization/research firm. Just one thing i personally question, if it's legal, should it be smoked? When you smoke you really cannot control a dosage size. The effect of the amount you smoke is dependent on how you smoke it and your tollerance to the drug. Personally if it is legalized it should be the THC that is and perhaps is extracted from the marijuana and put into a pill form where a dosage can be controlled and consistant.

Marijuana can be consumed without inhaling smoke, but if it's the dosage you're worried about, yeah, I guess that could work, except there are many psychoactive substances in cannabis, other than THC. THC alone may not have the same effect.

I don't think you can prove that marijuna is worse than alcohol. The problem is that alcohol isn't necessarily taken for its effects - marijuana always is.

Oh joy, another 'legalize it' debate.

 

Thank god most of you don't vote.

 

Oh joy, another condescending poster contributing nothing to the thread.

 

-sigh- I'm lazy, not a troll.

 

The way I see it, the benefits of legalizing it do not match the detriments. Yes, less people would be meaninglessly arrested, and jails would be less crowded. We could also tax the hell out of the legal version, to gain revenue off of the dope fiends. And I'm not saying that everyone who uses marijuana is a dope fiend, don't take that out of context. My point lies within the fact that if it were legal, it would then become a household item, as the way of alcohol. Instead of liquor cabinets in recreational rooms, there'd be 'weed gardens' in every window sill. This makes it very easy to access for people of all ages, including the children of all users [or owners]. The average age in which people admit to beginning drinking is estimated at 11 to 12 years old [sourceless quote, my apologies]. If marijuana were to become legal, the amount that would become visible, and obtainable to the public would match the accessibility of alcohol, if not trump it. As we know, marijuana causes many chemical reactions in the brain including, but not limited too, a feeling of being 'high', 'laziness', 'droziness' and a mellow feeling. That's all fine and dandy, hell I could drop some Taurine and Melotonin at the same time and get generally the same effect...but prolonged use of marijuana has a horribly noticeable effect on one's short term memory, as well as motor skill development.

 

Do we really want kids to be exposed to marijuana at such a critical age that it could permanently disrupt their development into a functioning adult?

 

My opinion? No. No we don't. Disagree if you must, but don't expect me to change my mind.

 

 

My opinion? No. No we don't. Disagree if you must, but don't expect me to change my mind.

 

[garden tool] boy, a "think of the children!" post. Thanks for actually posting some content though

 

e: You can't say [garden tool] on this site? What?

 

 

My opinion? No. No we don't. Disagree if you must, but don't expect me to change my mind.

 

[garden tool] boy, a "think of the children!" post. Thanks for actually posting some content though

 

e: You can't say [garden tool] on this site? What?

Care to actually debunk his points? Not going to win any arguments with insults...

 

 

My opinion? No. No we don't. Disagree if you must, but don't expect me to change my mind.

 

[garden tool] boy, a "think of the children!" post. Thanks for actually posting some content though

 

e: You can't say [garden tool] on this site? What?

Care to actually debunk his points? Not going to win any arguments with insults...

 

No, I don't because of the part I quoted. It'll just result in running in circles. It wasn't an insult, his post WAS a "think of the children!" post. It's parents responsibility to monitor their kids, there are a hell of a lot worse things kids could do than smoke a little weed.

Well apparently, not all pain medications are equal. I wouldn't know, I'm neither a patient nor a doctor.

 

 

Marijuana can be consumed without inhaling smoke, but if it's the dosage you're worried about, yeah, I guess that could work, except there are many psychoactive substances in cannabis, other than THC. THC alone may not have the same effect.

 

All pain medications aren't created equal. Some people react badly or even have alergic reactions to some and alright to others. And some will be stronger to you than others. But going to that many doctors just for medical marijuana is a stretch.

 

And yes I'm aware of that. It really wasnt the smoke I was refering too. Just the idea of a prescribing a prescription and issues that should be associated with that but often aren't.

 

 

My opinion? No. No we don't. Disagree if you must, but don't expect me to change my mind.

 

[garden tool] boy, a "think of the children!" post. Thanks for actually posting some content though

 

e: You can't say [garden tool] on this site? What?

Care to actually debunk his points? Not going to win any arguments with insults...

 

No, I don't because of the part I quoted. It'll just result in running in circles. It wasn't an insult, his post WAS a "think of the children!" post. It's parents responsibility to monitor their kids, there are a hell of a lot worse things kids could do than smoke a little weed.

 

I agree that parents have a responsibility to monitor their kids, but society has a responsibility to foster an environment where parents can monitor their kids. If marijuana were to be legalized, it would have to have the same restrictions as alcohol and tobacco...

 

I agree that parents have a responsibility to monitor their kids, but society has a responsibility to foster an environment where parents can monitor their kids. If marijuana were to be legalized, it would have to have the same restrictions as alcohol and tobacco...

 

Absolutely, I'm not arguing against regulation.

If marijuana were to be legalized, it would have to have the same restrictions as alcohol and tobacco...

I haven't met one marijuana advocate that wouldn't agree with you. I have no problem with it taxed, regulated, or anything. I don't think kids should use marijuana, but I don't think the "smoking age" should be 21. 18 years old is fine.

If marijuana were to be legalized, it would have to have the same restrictions as alcohol and tobacco...

I haven't met one marijuana advocate that wouldn't agree with you. I have no problem with it taxed, regulated, or anything. I don't think kids should use marijuana, but I don't think the "smoking age" should be 21. 18 years old is fine.

Yup. I see no reasonable grounds to discriminate people from doing anything based on any age other than 18. Drinking, smoking, lottery, casinos, etc...all of that should be 18. No more, no less.

My opinion? No. No we don't. Disagree if you must, but don't expect me to change my mind.

 

[garden tool] boy, a "think of the children!" post. Thanks for actually posting some content though

 

e: You can't say [garden tool] on this site? What?

Care to actually debunk his points? Not going to win any arguments with insults...

 

No, I don't because of the part I quoted. It'll just result in running in circles. It wasn't an insult, his post WAS a "think of the children!" post. It's parents responsibility to monitor their kids, there are a hell of a lot worse things kids could do than smoke a little weed.

 

How hypocritical of you to call me out on lack of content, and then not support your own side of the debate :P

 

I have further points than just 'think of the children' [which is a perfectly legitimate argument, by the way] it just happens to be the point I feel the most strong about.

 

Parent's are supposed to be responsible for their children, yes. I agree. But let's be honest for a second, and look at how the world actually functions instead of how it should function. Parent's are very uninvolved in a kid's life, between divorce [40% of all children of this current generation in the USA have separated parents], working multiple jobs to keep up with today's expensive world, and the internet...parents have very little say in how their kids turn out. Kids these days are mostly reared by Sales teams through use of the internet and TV. The problem in this lies in that they are taught vague morality, with no attachment to a physical representation of a human, with a compulsion to spend money.

 

But before I sound like a paranoid nut ranting about advertisement...

 

If marijuana were legalized, how long would it be before other drugs were legalized? Heroin was once used for medicinal purposes if I'm not mistaken. Obviously that got taken off the shelves pretty quick. What kind of catastrophe has to occur before we realize that being able to buy marijuana in a common shop was a mistake? And before you use the argument that marijuana is a plant, and heroin is a drug...the definition of a drug is a foreign substance that the body encounters resulting in a chemical reaction which then effects your state of being.

 

Sounds like marijuana is in fact a drug, plant or not. Moreover, heroin is also a plant. Most commonly seen as poppy seeds on things like bagels, but yes, heroin -> one of the most addictive substances on the planet is both a plant product, and a drug. And don't go saying that you can't be addicted to marijuana. No, you can't get addicted to the substance itself, that much is true. But you can become psychologically dependent on the feeling it brings you, which is just as bad if not worse.

 

EDIT: regulating it would be the best compromise I could come up with to the advocates of the 'legalize it' campaign, but honestly, alcohol is supposed to be 'regulated' and yet you see middle schooler's drunk off their rocker EVERY weekend

 

EDIT: regulating it would be the best compromise I could come up with to the advocates of the 'legalize it' campaign, but honestly, alcohol is supposed to be 'regulated' and yet you see middle schooler's drunk off their rocker EVERY weekend

 

I'm going to not respond to your weed is a gateway/slippery slope type part, but this part I will. You are greatly exaggerating how many kids drink. Like, by a lot. And the legalize campaign for the most part includes regulation.