The Official Obama Scorecard Thread

[Balloon guy 158]

Actually the research shows that patients have a much harder time regulating the dose of marinol, because of the slow time course of response. With a joint, they can smoke until they are at the right level and then stop. Also, marinol is not as effective as marijuana, likely because it only contains THC which is one of potentially hundreds of active compounds in the plant which no one understands as of yet.

Well then let's give pot heads complete access to the plant and legal rights to ingest whatever amount they feel is the correct dosage for their body weight. Med school is for suckers

[Balloon guy 158]

That is a faulty premise, and causes much harm. Protecting people by harming people is a seriously bad policy.

Harm by your definition is denying anything a person wants. You can't argue that desire equals rights

[El Guapo 8]

1st sorry about Mom2nd Please do not butt in with your "I've got personal experinece that is relative to the discussion" unless you are going to support your republican brothers from now on.3rd I only know of like 3 drugs by name and what they do, and the funny thing is that it was the Medical Use of Maryjuanda doc who perscribed the Zofran for my wife for our snorkle trip to swim with the turtles...which was cool. and the Zofran was incredible, but the second one put my wife to sleep.4th Please reread number 2 and don't let me catch you breaking RR's 11th commandment again

Actually I was agreeing with you saying that instead of medical marijuana they can take marinol which is a legal schedule 3 narcotic, vs. pot which is a schedule one.

[vbnautilus 48]

Well then let's give pot heads complete access to the plant and legal rights to ingest whatever amount they feel is the correct dosage for their body weight. Med school is for suckers

But the doctors also want to give patients marijuana. It's only the politicians who don't.

[El Guapo 8]

But the doctors also want to give patients marijuana. It's only the politicians who don't.

That guy two blocks away from you isn't a REAL doctor.

[strategy 4]

.

[vbnautilus 48]

That guy two blocks away from you isn't a REAL doctor.

I am going to try and take a picture of that guy. Not sure if you actually saw him or you are just assuming, but he looks exactly like what you would imagine.

[vbnautilus 48]

But if you do not own your body, you do not have any standing to ask the government to legislate to protect it. You can't have it both ways.

Huh? I own my car but the government still regulates how I can use it. I really don't get your point.

[85suited 0]

edited for being mean spirited

[LincolnK 1]

Huh? I own my car but the government still regulates how I can use it. I really don't get your point.

the government regulates what you can do with your vehicle in a public context. like, you can't go driving on the wrong side of the road or mowing down pedestrians for points. if you want to buy a big plot of open land and spend all day doing donuts or dukes of hazzard jumps you go right ahead. you don't even have to title the car for that. :)something I just thought of that may be relevant: you're not allowed to get drunk and drive, based on the idea that you are significantly more likely to do harm to someone else. [let's assume the law appropriately determines what "drunk" is and not worry about the qualifications for now.] I'm pretty hard line personal freedom but I don't think I can argue against the general merit of this. a few posts back BG implied that users of heroin and the like pose a similar risk to the public. so, 1. can anyone confirm/deny this and 2. what's the counter argument if he's correct? how is it different than drunk driving laws? does anyone want to argue the idea of drunk driving laws?

[vbnautilus 48]

the government regulates what you can do with your vehicle in a public context. like, you can't go driving on the wrong side of the road or mowing down pedestrians for points. if you want to buy a big plot of open land and spend all day doing donuts or dukes of hazzard jumps you go right ahead. you don't even have to title the car for that. :)something I just thought of that may be relevant: you're not allowed to get drunk and drive, based on the idea that you are significantly more likely to do harm to someone else. [let's assume the law appropriately determines what "drunk" is and not worry about the qualifications for now.] I'm pretty hard line personal freedom but I don't think I can argue against the general merit of this. a few posts back BG implied that users of heroin and the like pose a similar risk to the public. so, 1. can anyone confirm/deny this and 2. what's the counter argument if he's correct? how is it different than drunk driving laws? does anyone want to argue the idea of drunk driving laws?

Seems like you're agreeing with me that the real issue is whether the behavior affects anyone else in a negative way. ( i was only disagreeing with Henry's implication that the government would have to own your body in order to regulate what you do with it. )

[CaneBrain 95]

Actually I was agreeing with you saying that instead of medical marijuana they can take marinol which is a legal schedule 3 narcotic, vs. pot which is a schedule one.

I know some people who have taken marinol recreationally and by all accounts it is like pot on steroids. They likened it to eating a fistful of pot brownies.Nothing's happening, nothing's happening, nothing's happening, WHAM----you're high for 8 hours.

[Jeepster80125 0]

the government regulates what you can do with your vehicle in a public context. like, you can't go driving on the wrong side of the road or mowing down pedestrians for points. if you want to buy a big plot of open land and spend all day doing donuts or dukes of hazzard jumps you go right ahead. you don't even have to title the car for that. :)something I just thought of that may be relevant: you're not allowed to get drunk and drive, based on the idea that you are significantly more likely to do harm to someone else. [let's assume the law appropriately determines what "drunk" is and not worry about the qualifications for now.] I'm pretty hard line personal freedom but I don't think I can argue against the general merit of this. a few posts back BG implied that users of heroin and the like pose a similar risk to the public. so, 1. can anyone confirm/deny this and 2. what's the counter argument if he's correct? how is it different than drunk driving laws? does anyone want to argue the idea of drunk driving laws?

I can only consume marijuana in the privacy of my own home, not in public view. My open garage, deck, and back yard constitute public view, it's even in our legislation. If I were to get pulled over and the officer suspected that I was under the influence of drugs, I could be arrested for DUID(rugs) which carry the same penalties as a DUI for booze. I would imagine there would only be an issue if I got pulled over with a lit joint or something like that.

[CaneBrain 95]

I can only consume marijuana in the privacy of my own home, not in public view. My open garage, deck, and back yard constitute public view, it's even in our legislation. If I were to get pulled over and the officer suspected that I was under the impression of drugs, I could be arrested for DUID(rugs) which carry the same penalties as a DUI for booze. I would imagine there would only be an issue if I got pulled over with a lit joint or something like that.

I think there are a lot of older people on the fence about legalizing soft drugs that would feel a lot better about it if we had some sort of breathalyzer for pot. I feel like they could figure that out pretty quickly if need be though.

[Balloon guy 158]

I think there are a lot of older people on the fence about legalizing soft drugs that would feel a lot better about it if we had some sort of breathalyzer for pot. I feel like they could figure that out pretty quickly if need be though.

Just get one of those remote control fart machines.If the perp starts giggling uncontrollably everytime you activate it...they're stoned.

[Jeepster80125 0]

I think there are a lot of older people on the fence about legalizing soft drugs that would feel a lot better about it if we had some sort of breathalyzer for pot. I feel like they could figure that out pretty quickly if need be though.

There are mouth swab tests that are more immediate than a blood test, but they're not widely used. There is research showing false positives, but it's not like the police care about those.

[strategy 4]

.

[hblask 1]

Harm by your definition is denying anything a person wants. You can't argue that desire equals rights

No, I'm talking mostly about the harmful side effects of the notion that the government needs to protect us from ourselves. Nobody on earth seriously believes that the effects of drug abuse are anywhere near as harmful as the effects of the Insane War on Drugs. We have enough years of data to prove that. Pretty much any example you can name where the government has decided it knows better than the individual what is best for that person, great harm ensues. The problems of prohibition are always worse than the original problem.And it starts because the government thinks they own your body.If you seriously believe the government owns your body, you have no right to object to increases in taxes; no right to object to smoking/eating bans, no right to object to pretty much anything, because it's the government's property to do as they please.

[hblask 1]

Huh? I own my car but the government still regulates how I can use it. I really don't get your point.

The government does not regulate how you use your car on your own property when it violates nobody else's rights. It's only when it affects other people's rights that they regulate it.

[hblask 1]

Seems like you're agreeing with me that the real issue is whether the behavior affects anyone else in a negative way. ( i was only disagreeing with Henry's implication that the government would have to own your body in order to regulate what you do with it. )

Oh, I see.... what I'm saying is private drug use does not infringe on other people's rights. If you believe that you own your body, the government has no right to tell you what to put into it. If you think the government owns your body, then you have no actual rights at all, just privileges granted by benevolent lawmakers.

[Balloon guy 158]

No, I'm talking mostly about the harmful side effects of the notion that the government needs to protect us from ourselves. Nobody on earth seriously believes that the effects of drug abuse are anywhere near as harmful as the effects of the Insane War on Drugs. We have enough years of data to prove that. Pretty much any example you can name where the government has decided it knows better than the individual what is best for that person, great harm ensues. The problems of prohibition are always worse than the original problem.And it starts because the government thinks they own your body.If you seriously believe the government owns your body, you have no right to object to increases in taxes; no right to object to smoking/eating bans, no right to object to pretty much anything, because it's the government's property to do as they please.

Does the government have a right to demand you get your children through school?We have many examples of government checks on our 'freedoms' for the betterment of society as a whole.Community standards should have a say on the makeup of the community they live in.If that means Nevada wants to legalize prostitution, and Maryland does not, that is a reasonable extension of this.Your desire for us to be closer to the lifestyle of anarchy isn't the solution for society's ills, it is the natural progression of the selfishness that our country is dealing with.I have less faith that if everyone can do any drugs they want that this will result in positives for a community than you. If that makes me a statoist than that's what I am.I accept that the best form of government has some checks on our freedoms for the betterment of the whole.

[hblask 1]

Does the government have a right to demand you get your children through school?

Children are a special case, that's why the Dem's every third sentence includes the phrase "for the children". Are you going to resort to it, too?

We have many examples of government checks on our 'freedoms' for the betterment of society as a whole.

Sometimes we infringe on freedoms in order to provide equal freedom to others. I can't go around shooting into the air in a crowded city because it infringes on other people's rights to wander peacefully. When my freedom is infringed just because other people like being nosy, the system is harming society as a whole.

Community standards should have a say on the makeup of the community they live in.If that means Nevada wants to legalize prostitution, and Maryland does not, that is a reasonable extension of this.

A state is a bit of a stretch for "community". I agree communities can do this, maybe even counties. States doing it leads to problems. At the federal level, it's a complete joke, there is no national "community". That's just a buzzword to bring in socialism.

I accept that the best form of government has some checks on our freedoms for the betterment of the whole.

Such as welfare for people who don't want to work? Housing projects? Single-payer medicine? Or are only your central planning schemes destined to succeed, while everyone else's is a terrible idea? You don't see a small problem with this philosophy?

[timwakefield 68]

Oh, I see.... what I'm saying is private drug use does not infringe on other people's rights.

That's looking at the issue through an extremely narrow tunnel. No, injecting yourself with heroin does not immediately cause harm to anybody except yourself. But you've blatantly ignored the fact that millions of addicts end up in jail because of the crimes they committed in order to buy more drugs. Imagining that now-illegal drug use is one subject, and that violent crimes committed by addicts are a totally unrelated subject is...I dunno. Tunnel-vision or whatever.

If you believe that you own your body

I really don't think that this is a logical argument. I literally am my body. I don't own it, nor does the government or anybody else.

[Balloon guy 158]

Children are a special case, that's why the Dem's every third sentence includes the phrase "for the children". Are you going to resort to it, too?

That's a low blow

Sometimes we infringe on freedoms in order to provide equal freedom to others. I can't go around shooting into the air in a crowded city because it infringes on other people's rights to wander peacefully. When my freedom is infringed just because other people like being nosy, the system is harming society as a whole.

Which brings us to what is the normal conclusion of a person who does X, if it is normal for other to get hurt (Drunk Driving ) then we make it against the law. We just disagree whether or not legalizing drugs would result in a normal out come of a positive or a negative.

A state is a bit of a stretch for "community". I agree communities can do this, maybe even counties. States doing it leads to problems. At the federal level, it's a complete joke, there is no national "community". That's just a buzzword to bring in socialism.

Or to acknowledge things that all communities accept like DUI being illegal.

Such as welfare for people who don't want to work? Housing projects? Single-payer medicine? Or are only your central planning schemes destined to succeed, while everyone else's is a terrible idea? You don't see a small problem with this philosophy?

Henry I don't think you are being crazy...and I admire your obvious trust in your fellow man to be responsible with unbridled freedom.I guess I am ashamed to admit I don't share your belief in the goodness of masses of people as a whole.

[vbnautilus 48]

I really don't think that this is a logical argument. I literally am my body. I don't own it, nor does the government or anybody else.

It's an interesting question - not quite as straightforward as you've made it seem -- but I don't see any evidence that someone other than me owns my body. If my finger gets chopped off, they send it back to me. When I die, my body goes to my family along with all of my other possessions.