51–60 of 96 posts
Why would any organization fighting for funding be inclined to undermine their reason for existing? And why would any rational person be interested in what they have to say about a topic that is well outside their area of expertise (medicine)?
> It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
not saying you're claiming otherwise, but both THC and CBD are derived from marijuana! edit: this comment is wrong.
Cbd is generally derived from hemp (which is legal federally in the us) not marijuana
Why would any organization fighting for funding be inclined to undermine their reason for existing? And why would any rational person be interested in what they have to say about a topic that is well outside their area of expertise (medicine)?
Ethics. Morality. The desire to not be a horrible excuse for a human being inflicting needless pain and suffering and destroying the lives of the people their agency is ostensibly charged with serving. Not perpetuating the horrible status quo that's corrupted the spirit of their mission and accepting the will of the people.
And they will continue to do so until directed otherwise by the White House, in this administration or the next (or the next, or the next...).
I knew a guy who assumed that if marijuana would be legalized, the streets would be consumed by masses constantly walking and driving around stoned. Props to him though, for at least having some level of consistency. The same person also admitted to me he was strongly against alcohol and wish prohibition had succeeded.
As someone who rides a bike in a state where Pot is legal, there are a fair number of people who are smoking and driving, many more than before legalization. And the homeless population seems to have embraced pot as well. The sky hasn't fallen, but when riding I give a wide berth. There is a lot of inconsistency, but the lines between "drug" and "Recreational substance" are certainly blurred, be it for Opiates or Pot…
The risk factors are probably ranked something like alcohol > using mobile/driving while sleep deprived > eating/applying makeup >>>>>>> talking to someone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>high on weed.
If we want recreational use, just legalize for recreational use rather than backdoor the medical system. This would unclog a criminal justice system, reduce police encounters, and a host of other benefits that I think are desirable.
I'm curious as to why did they needed to amend the constitution to ban alcohol, but they didn't need to amend it for the war on drugs
If I understand correctly, the answer is "they probably did need to, but didn't bother". You'll sometimes see articles say "these states have legalized marijuana, but it remains illegal at the federal level". If the DEA did choose to try and enforce marijuana prohibition in one of these states, the state would be able to sue, making the argument that the US constitution does not give this power to the federal governm…
There is so much federal policy based on commerce clause jurisprudence that overturning Raich and others is a pipe dream. Change will only come from slow erosion by giving the Supreme Court the opportunity through some creative cases.
I think it's OK say that Marijuana should be legal but acknowledge that the concrete proven medical benefits attributed to it are pretty marginal.
With that in mind I think starting with medicalization was a smart strategic move. The only other options were to make a lot of Americans less controlling, or to convince them that they're wrong, and, well... good luck with either of those.