Weed smokers are annoying but it doesn’t bother me
My region has been the epicenter for the explosion. We have plenty of MD’s and even rehab counselors in prison for knowingly and wrongfully scripting meds in volumes that make even me blush.
You read that correctly: Rehab Counselors. The one that made the news I knew (and hated) for years.
Just for giggles, Google up western Pennsylvania, oxycontin, doctors, etc.
There’s plenty about it.
@pfury knows a thing or two about this too.
2 Likes
Portugal =/= America
I’ve seen first hand for over a decade the destruction drugs bring.
1 Like
Absolutely not! Again, I wasn’t talking about you. It is a characteristic I’ve noticed in chronic drug users generally. And I’ve met more than a fair share. This leads me to believe that a certain element of drug users, not all, have low impulse control and lack of regard for others and the future, which likely allows them to use drugs initially. That’s all. I have not one negative opinion of you. I wish you well.
I had my own condition that caused work to be hard to deal with as well, severe depression. I even had suicidal ideation at times. I think you’re misinterpreting me as some hard-ass, callous person because some of my posts are brief or generalizing.
This is a very broad, ignorant generalisation to make. Given roughly 50%+ of the western populace (US and Aus) has smoked weed at some point. I know many who are HIGHLY successful (six or seven figure incomes) who smoke cannabis either occasionally or regularly. The substance induced effect differs from person to person, some can function as highly productive members of society on it. I find stoners to be annoying too… but I find drunk people to be worse
Well… the data introduced to doctors regarding oxycodone/oxycontin was doctored/altered. Purdue has been receiving lawsuit after lawsuit over it and has recently filed for bankruptcy. Regarding MDMA there is no pharmaceutical monopoly, thus what we know of the drug is steeped within unbiased scientific data… data of which stipulates the drug isn’t as dangerous as booze when used sparingly. Even abuse will probably only reap consequences about on par with or less than alcoholism. Tolerance to the substance builds up very rapidly, repeated use (due to serotonin depletion) will have minimal effect, thus the reinforcing nature of the compound is somewhat suppressed.
Given that doctors were LIED to… given altered/fabricated data, I don’t think it’s fair to compare “doctors prescribing oxycodone after being told and provided data indicating it wasn’t addictive” and “doctors advocating a harm minimalist/regulatory approach regarding a drug of which unbiased data showcases when used reasonably is safer than alcohol when used with the purpose of achieving a state of intoxication”
Thank you for the clarification, I thought this was a shot at me and was slightly upset. I apologise. There is certainly a genetic element regarding predisposition to drug use. But I also believe trauma/environmental factors play a big role. Those with pent up issues looking for a way to numb pain are particularly vulnerable. I don’t believe many besides those with conduct disorders/blatant disregard for normality will experiment with crack “just because”.
As to rules, I don’t believe all rules ought to be followed. Same sex sexual interaction is illegal in Singapore… would this stop me from hooking up with a guy in Singapore if someone I was attracted towards made advances… probably not, it’s an incredibly stupid, outdated law… similar to my opinion on current societal prohibition
I can relate, I was bullied fairly extensively throughout my younger teenage years… couple that with isolation/no friends I was suicidal at (two) points within my younger life (about age nine and again at age 13-14). It’s about the worst feeling in the word, that “there’s no way out, I just don’t want to live anymore” type feeling… During my chronic pain/bed-ridden phase I wasn’t suicidal, but I was depressed (reactive), led to thoughts of “I don’t want to wake up tomorrow… there’s just no point”.
As have I, though probably not to the extent you have. I’ve also seen the destruction alcohol can induced… having literally been around near fatal overdoses (requiring stomachs pumped, trips to the ER etc). I don’t like bringing personal anecdotes into this as I feel they’re irrelevant. But two of my previously good friends in America had alcoholic, abusive fathers (one was narcissistic too)… the one kid was beaten regularly… the other’s life is now FUCKED due to a complete lack of parental guidance. His mother and stepfather also drank frequently, in the house (I was there numerous times when this would occur) they’d drink excessively and fight (fairly viciously)… always booze induced, the arguments would be over futile shit like “did you put the dishes away”… furthermore he’d frequently have to drive them to and from bars, they’d always come back smashed… Alcohol tears families apart when abused, yet you’re annoyed with weed smokers…
I’d appreciate an answer @marine77
Look at Portugul, a country once so ravaged by drug use that 1% of the general populace was addicted to heroin. Incarceration rates (per 100,000) are less than 1/5th of that in America, overdose rates are about 1/5th of that in America… the drug induced death rate initially higher than that in the US is now 1/5th that of the US (population adjusted). Furthermore, even with the decriminalisation of all drugs, initiation of use between those 15-24 has decreased… Drug induced HIV transmission dropped 90%
The lifetime prevalence of drug usage increased for certain drugs amongst certain demographics, however it’s been stated this may be due to those being interviewed being more open to being honest… furthermore rates of heroin/cocaine use dramatically increased in neighbouring countries, on par with the increase seen in Portugul… this further discredits the statement of “decriminalisation alone increased usage rates”. The number of “problematic” drug users within the country declined dramatically
It should be noted when caught within Portugul, each case is looked at individualistically to determine what penalty is adequate, whether the user is a “problematic” user weighs in highly regarded treatment implemented (rehab etc) or just a small fine. It was found that decriminalisation of drug use had no adverse effect on rates of drug use.
I will admit, culturally differing societies have different standards. I understand the US isn’t Australia, and Australia isn’t the US. In Aus we have certain progressive ideologies regarding sex, what’s deemed okay (although we were the last western country to legalise gay marriage, don’t even get me started on that…). Certain laws pertaining to consent (being above the age of 12 in my state so long as partners are within 2 years of age), the age to buy certain types of pornography… generalised parental attitudes towards sex… Many Americans would scoff at such societal ideologies being implemented, state it’ll induce irreversible harm to the children… that’s okay, differing societal normalities exist between differing cultures. One must be open to the ideologies harboured by different cultures from a scientific standpoint however, entirely dismissing data on the basis of personal anecdote (to me) seems ignorant.
You might see firsthand the destruction drug addiction can induce, yet you must also acknowledge this is occurring under a country wherein a militant assault on drugs is occurring, yet usage rates are increasing… not decreasing, penalties are harsh… yet they don’t seem to be deterring anyone, at what point is it time to change policy in order to reduce death rates, reduce incarceration rates for non-violent minor drug offences (less addictive/non addictive substances known to induce less harm), reduce criminal justice system burden, racial profiling is also an issue within this specific issue… The revenue gained from taxation would be significant, new industries would open up new jobs (cannabis in particular), money gained from revenue can be set up to find deterrence programs (similar to what we do with tobacco).
Also, alcohol advertising is totally fine… why can’t we advertise cannabis
Acutely, cannabis is (supposedly) 114x safer than alcohol (in terms of physical harm induced)… chronically the harms also seem to be a far cry away from alcohol abuse… the regulations currently in place are disproportionate, nonsensical… substances should be regulated akin to how much harm they actually induce. Don’t make a statement about cocaine, heroin or meth… they’re the top of the ladder… the most harmful substances one can use.
I’d appreciate an answer though, in your opinion… if current regulations/prohibitions aren’t working… science backs a decriminalisation/legalisation scheme and usage rates are increasing despite increasingly militant sentencing/enforcement… what are we to do? Clearly things can’t stay the way they are… just look at the ice epidemic in Aus, the heroin/opiate epidemic in the US… the overdose rates comparative to societies that implement a more “harm reductionist” approach, even the rates of problematic drug use within the societies.
We had doctors getting their dicks sucked and having 3 ways in their office for scripts.
There ain’t no way around this one buddy.
For real, read up on some of this ridiculous shit.
A friend of mine is an anesthesiologist. He told me jokingly/sarcastically that the best way to get a script is to go to the doc on a Friday afternoon. He’ll send you on your way with a Z-pack and enough oxy to knock out a horse. Because Doctors are people too, and they want weekends just like everybody else.
So, many years later my wife has this problem with her ear, usually treated with an anti-inflammatory (pregnonalone or something) and a typical antibiotic like amoxicillin. It flares up so She goes to the doc on what just happened to be a Friday afternoon.
Guess what she comes home with?
A Z-pack and enough oxy to knock out 2 horses! It was a holiday weekend! 
I’m friends with a couple of MD & other medical professionals man. You might have charts and stats, but I know how medicine is practiced. And hell, I should be in the coffee club at this point, with as many times as I’ve been through the ER and whatnot.
Wow… this is horrible
I’m sorry, I can’t imagine this ever passing in Aus (as acceptable practice)
But the notion still stands
With oxycodone the doctors had something to profit from (be it payment from Purdue, sexual favours or money from visits/scripting)
If MDMA were regulated akin to a pharmacist dispensed medication (not on script) as some doctors here advocate for… there’s no incentive to want this, there’s no payment… it’s merely harm reduction
I know many MD’s within Australia (my family having many doctors from anaesthesiologists to dermatologists to GP’s etc…) this kind of practice is incredibly uncommon in Aus, though we’ve never had an opiate epidemic like the US had… probably due in part to malpractice not being as common
You can discredit my “stats and charts”, but remember that what happens within one town, one society etc isn’t representative of what happens everywhere
We can respectfully agree to disagree, Personally I’ll put a hell of a lot more credit into scientific research composing data from millions vs a few anecdotes.
Currently my ideologies stand firm, perhaps they’ll be open to change as I grow older… or if someone can provide a large body of data discrediting my beliefs.
You gotta look back at that formula I laid out about 50 post back about how to get drugs legalized.
Generate revenue and opportunity for graft.
Harm reduction and the other ideals don’t make money.
What about decriminalisation? Where’s the money there
Furthermore, revenue generated from a non prescription med doesnt equate to higher income from MD’s
I highly doubt money generated from SQDC in Quebec, money from coffee shops in Amsterdam etc goes towards doctors
Had the substance been made S4 or something (prescription only here) id argue you’re correct… otherwise I don’t see how the profit goes to doctors…
Regulation gives the government tons of money via revenue generated from tax payers… harm reduction (say removing sniffer dogs, pill testing, decriminalisation) to my knowledge doesn’t increase revenue for anyone… though it does decrease death rates.
Also I cant tell if this is a joke or not… no judgement either way
This is what I’d consider an example of hard drug use. I believe z drugs are quite incapacitating though I’ve never taken them recreationally or medicinally. Given their pharmacokinetics wouldn’t they make you VERY tired, not quite aware of what’s going on (semi conscious/blackouts etc)… what’s the point? Acutely for sleep though it’d be quite effective (and this is what it’s prescribed for)
This is a hormone, precursor to androgens, progestogens, cortisol etc… great for many medical conditions, but not for an acute earache/infection
That’s for people to feel good like their politician is working for them, and the politician gets Votes. [quote=“unreal24278, post:230, topic:265165”]
Furthermore, revenue generated from a non prescription med doesnt equate to higher income from MD’s
I highly doubt money generated from SQDC in Quebec, money from coffee shops in Amsterdam etc goes towards doctors
Had the substance been made S4 or something (prescription only here) id argue you’re correct… otherwise I don’t see how the profit goes to doctors…
[/quote]
I’m talking about money for politicians,not Md.
Md’s don’t legalize or un-legalize anything.
Give and take. Token effort for votes.
Not a joke. She came home with a script for like 30 80 mg.'s.
A Z-pack is short for Zithromax or azythromycin.
It has its own set of problems. [quote=“unreal24278, post:231, topic:265165”]
This is a hormone, precursor to androgens, progestogens, cortisol etc… great for many medical conditions, but not for an acute earache/infection
[/quote]
Yeah. It was some kind of steroidal anti inflammatory - preblownanone or what ever. Works like a charm though. Really. Joking about the name, but what ever it was, you could literally hear her eustachian tubes drain from outside of her head. Not kidding.
I’m allowed to have an opinion… And that opinion is weed smokers are annoying to me. Shit stinks like a bum’ s armpit.
Drunks are annoying too. Happy ?
You get extremely worked up over this shit. Good grief.
1 Like
Also, sorry. Quote thing is a little squirrely. Don’t know why.
No, but legalisation regarding making a substance say (US scaling here) schedule I to schedule IV would allow doctors to profit (through clinics, visits, whatever) from drug legalisation
This has happened in Aus with medicinal cannabis (where an ounce costs about 700$) but they’ve now got clinics set up (recently) that make it easier to access. In this case (and with oxyocodone in the US) profit is made.
By altering a substances scheduling from Schedule I to Unscheduled money will be made from the corporations of which monopolise the substance (like booze and tobacco)… unless restrictions are put in place to only allow the substance to be sold via small businesses… but given how this type of reform typically (unfortunately) tends to be based on profit rather than the goal of harm reduction in mind I can’t see this being the case… I find politics tend to be (through the initial facade) incredibly crooked, dependent on money.
Actually as a society we generally tend to value money/materialistic possessions over all else…
It’s depressing
Agreed, within a democratic society voters beliefs
will strongly equate to societal reform proposed within candidates. Only recently has the prospect of marijuana legalisation/reform been on the table for a large portion of candidates… this is because public opinion has changed dramatically, to the point wherein advocating legalisation has the potential to garner said candidate more votes, more campaign funding etc
You’re allowed to have whatever opinion you wish… yet if you to convey an opinion absent of data to back it up a rebuttal/backlash you need to back it with data. I personally find the “that guy smoking a joint is annoying even though he’s minding his own business, isn’t talking to me” opinion to be regressive… ignorant… especially when we’ve got bars/pubs for people to openly consume alcohol. In Australia public consumption is generally permitted too
An individualistic generalisation isn’t a coherent arguement to make within a political debate
I’m not worked up over anything lol, this is the nature of good hearted, respectful debate. If you don’t like it you don’t have to partake
When any construction is undertaken Everybody gets paid. From the codes guy up. Licenses are huge money (graft). Literally every aspect of these dispensaries from ground breaking to continued operation has “costs”.
You just have to make sure everybody gets paid.
I don’t understand… we appear to be agreeing with one another entirely here
Money makes the world go round… but scheduling (unscheduled vs sch IV or whatever) largely dictates who these profits are steered towards
The politicians. They get paid first.
I’ll be blunt- They’re corrupt.
Feelings also make the world go round too. Much of what you find repressive and regressive is done or not done is literally believed to be in obedience to god amongst much of the people of this world. Even in North America some of what you think is acceptable would have one banished from some communities.
All because of what people feel. No Pubmed searches, no studies. It suits them. Something wrong with this?
I imagined some guy saying to me “something wrong with this bro… you got a problem”… I understand this isn’t the way you’ve meant to convey this question, that’s just the way I’ve interpreted it lol
But to answer I say… sometimes.
I was born, raised jewish (modern orthodox), I was forced to go to Hebrew school, was put into a jewish school for the first two years back in Aus (age 15-17)… I studied Torah for my Bar Mitzvah. Individualistically I came to the mildly educated conclusion that it was all bullshit. I believe religion to be an outdated policy once created to instil ethics and morality within society. As a developed country (America, Australia… whatever) the general populace now knows it’s not acceptable to kill, rape or steal. I’m not an atheist , I’m agnostic… but I’ll still proudly identify as being of Jewish heritage. I don’t understand how or why we are here or what the universe holds. I believe somehow there must be something, an energy etc beyond our understanding, beyond our comprehension. Statistically within Australia, 48% of the populace don’t identify with a religion, the same cannot be said within America. I believe this is why Australia generally tends to harbour more lenient attitudes towards sex, specifically sexual activity present within adolescence. This isn’t a bash at America in any way whatsoever, this is a mere observation I’ve noticed regarding cultural differentiation.
On to whether it’s a problem. Religion has been within the past repeatedly used to marginalise, discriminate upon and even exterminate certain demographics. An example would be religion, views on homosexuality, the presence of “conversion therapy” within the US (largely being phased out) etc. Another example would be the Spanish Inquisition, in the 1400’s christian leadership educated their adherence that the jewish people were responsible for the murder of Jesus… antisemitism flourished… genocide occurs. There are many, many other examples I can find regarding religious belief demonising, harming or even exterminating certain demographics on the basis of differing beliefs. As an individual I personally believe religion induces more conflict amongst differing demographics, those who heavily preach religion and shun science tend to be profoundly ignorant (in my opinion).
If you wish to harbour such beliefs such as “homosexuals go to hell” etc… fine… So long as they don’t harm anyone else/you don’t preach hate to a larger demographic (Westboro Baptist Church). I feel very strongly about homosexual rights, I don’t feel as if it’s right to stop two consenting adults from engaging in relations or to marginalise them so they can’t get married etc. Same goes for abortion… if someone is getting an abortion (psychologically straining process for the individual getting an abortion) and someone else gets up in their face making statements such as “you’ll go to hell you harlot”… “you’re a piece of shit because… god”… I’ll politely (not politely) tell said person to fuck off
In the year of 2020, religious extremism has a strong correlation with third world countries… those who reject science on the basis of religion tend to be uneducated on the basis of science… sometimes uneducated in general (though not always, America comes to mind here, plenty of educated adults still follow values instilled by the Catholic Church… that’s fine, the MAJORITY of beliefs valued within religion teach one to be well mannered, kind, forgiving etc… but some glaring discrepancies come to mind (homosexual rights, punishments for certain activities that are illogical… premarital sex… female rights etc). I believe one should perhaps more selectively interpret the text, abide by certain philosophies preaching forgiveness, kindness, treat those as you’d like to be treated etc “treat thy neighbour as thyself”
I don’t believe restraints based upon religion absent of science is right given the amount of harm/conflict religious beliefs have the potential to induce as has been evident within historical events… this is my opinion (and the majority of Australian’s would probably agree with me)
Out of curiosity (just general friendly conversation) what’s you’re opinion regarding this exact question you’ve asked me?