|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 20, 2011 18:32:49 GMT -5
I have heard from those in California that it is that easy to get. All you need is a doctor willing to sign a form saying that there is a medical benefit for you to have it. That's not hard to do. You can find a doctor who will sign just about anything. Then you can bring that doctor up on fraud or any other charges for just signing forms for people who don't really need it for medical purposes. Not really. The doctor is offering a professional opinion. In his professional opinion, your toe ache would benefit from you using weed. That's his opinion. Unless you have overwhelming evidence from the medical community proving that weed does not help toe aches at all, there's nothing that can be done to the doc. There are docs all the time who recommend herbal remedies that are complete crap. Nothing happens to them.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 20, 2011 18:33:14 GMT -5
LEGALIZE ALL DRUGS.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Ragnarok on Oct 20, 2011 18:33:17 GMT -5
Because of medical marijuana? A ton of those people don't need medicine, they just want to get high. Legalizing weed is one thing, but hiding behind a doctor's note so you can get wasted is just pathetic. Pathetic, sure, but isn't it the individual's decision what he or she does with their body?This x100
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 20, 2011 18:38:01 GMT -5
I can get behind that. Then you can bring that doctor up on fraud or any other charges for just signing forms for people who don't really need it for medical purposes. Not really. The doctor is offering a professional opinion. In his professional opinion, your toe ache would benefit from you using weed. That's his opinion. Unless you have overwhelming evidence from the medical community proving that weed does not help toe aches at all, there's nothing that can be done to the doc. There are docs all the time who recommend herbal remedies that are complete crap. Nothing happens to them. Doctors should be in the business of helping people not advising people do some new age crap. If they want to promote those things, they should go do that instead of being a doctor.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 20, 2011 19:14:23 GMT -5
This is somewhat off-topic, but I still love it.
|
|
|
Post by extreme on Oct 20, 2011 19:23:20 GMT -5
In California, pretty much anyone who wants a MMJ license can get one. Stubbing your toe is a good enough reason to be able to get one here.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Oct 20, 2011 19:29:15 GMT -5
Kinda went off topic...sorry guys.
|
|
|
Post by Ace Bennett on Oct 20, 2011 19:31:58 GMT -5
Because of medical marijuana? A ton of those people don't need medicine, they just want to get high. Legalizing weed is one thing, but hiding behind a doctor's note so you can get wasted is just pathetic. How easy is it to get medical marijuana? You can get some if you have cancer. Hard to fake that. Maybe glaucoma again I think that'd be hard to fake. I don't know what else you could get it for but I'd think that would be one of the last resorts for pain and not one of the first. I doubt you can just go to the doctor, say you aren't well and request medical marijuana and the doctor just gives you it. I know this is a bit off topic of the actual thread, but this video here shows how easy it is to get one in CA. www.youtube.com/user/BreakingNYC?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/3/N8A-894YyvASo yeah, pretty easy.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 20, 2011 21:34:45 GMT -5
It should be easier.
As in, walk into a store, buy drugs, go home. Enjoy.
I don't participate in drugs myself, nor do I think about SHOULD, but it's not my place to step in and tell people "you can't do something that has no affect on anyone else."
|
|
|
Post by BCizzle on Oct 20, 2011 22:20:39 GMT -5
It should be easier. As in, walk into a store, buy drugs, go home. Enjoy. I don't participate in drugs myself, nor do I think about SHOULD, but it's not my place to step in and tell people "you can't do something that has no affect on anyone else." I would be okay with drugs being legal, as long as someone who committed a crime while high would be punished more than someone who wasn't. So drug users would be responsible in their use, drugs users not drug abusers (didn't the Ultimate Warrior say something like that once?) Like someone who was on PCP and beat up somebody. They would be arrested for assault as well as "Abuse of Drugs" or something to that effect. So that drug use would be something people wouldn't just go crazy with, or say "The drugs made me do it, and drugs are legal, so it's not my fault". Drinking is legal and so is driving, but being drunk while driving? Horribly dangerous. So is drugging and crime. But personally, I hate drugs and think they screw up people's lives over and over and folks never learn. I can understand pot for pain but the other stuff, "expanding your mind", that's scary to me.
|
|
|
Post by BCizzle on Oct 20, 2011 22:26:06 GMT -5
This is somewhat off-topic, but I still love it. This actually makes a ton of sense. It's what my dad would say a true liberal is like. Spending someone else's money to help people. Like once time, I found a $50 bill in my gym's parking lot. I asked the people at the gym if anyone had reported lost money, but they said no, just keep it. I asked my family what to do and my brother told me to give it to charity. And my dad said "Sure, that's a true liberal, telling you to give your money to charity, not giving his own." I just ended up spending it on whatever. I've had money stolen from me before, on this day it just fell into my lap. But my concerns with Libertarianism are it feels like it's saying "Leave me alone, let me do what I want, don't bother me, I won't bother you, don't help me, I won't help you." The last part just rubs me the wrong way. Saying screw everybody else, I only care about me, I just don't think that's how we should be as humans. It's not how I am, I try to help, be kind, be polite. Why should I throw my support behind people I think are just being selfish jerks?
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 20, 2011 22:35:29 GMT -5
But my concerns with Libertarianism are it feels like it's saying "Leave me alone, let me do what I want, don't bother me, I won't bother you, don't help me, I won't help you." The last part just rubs me the wrong way. Saying screw everybody else, I only care about me, I just don't think that's how we should be as humans. It's not how I am, I try to help, be kind, be polite. Why should I through my support behind people I think are just being selfish jerks? It's not 'Don't help me, I won't help you.' It's 'Don't force me to help you and I won't force you to help me. If I want to help, I will. If you want to help, you can.' It's all about not forcing people to do things. If you don't want A, you don't have to have A. If you want B, you can have B. As long as those things don't harm me or infringe on my rights you can disregard A or have B.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 20, 2011 22:58:01 GMT -5
But my concerns with Libertarianism are it feels like it's saying "Leave me alone, let me do what I want, don't bother me, I won't bother you, don't help me, I won't help you." The last part just rubs me the wrong way. Saying screw everybody else, I only care about me, I just don't think that's how we should be as humans. It's not how I am, I try to help, be kind, be polite. Why should I throw my support behind people I think are just being selfish jerks? I think you're mistaking Libertarianism with, well... Not libertarianism. The entire concept is basically that people SHOULD take care of one another, but they shouldn't HAVE TO take care of one another. As in, you should not be REQUIRED to give up something you've earned to someone else, just because they have been less fortunate. If you want to, great. But you shouldn't be required to.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 20, 2011 23:01:52 GMT -5
I would be okay with drugs being legal, as long as someone who committed a crime while high would be punished more than someone who wasn't. So drug users would be responsible in their use, drugs users not drug abusers (didn't the Ultimate Warrior say something like that once?) Like someone who was on PCP and beat up somebody. They would be arrested for assault as well as "Abuse of Drugs" or something to that effect. So that drug use would be something people wouldn't just go crazy with, or say "The drugs made me do it, and drugs are legal, so it's not my fault". Drinking is legal and so is driving, but being drunk while driving? Horribly dangerous. So is drugging and crime. But personally, I hate drugs and think they screw up people's lives over and over and folks never learn. I can understand pot for pain but the other stuff, "expanding your mind", that's scary to me. The dangerous thing is that we're leaving that open to interpretation. If you're under the influence of alcohol and you commit a crime, is it a worse crime? Is it a worse crime if you do it while on painkillers, weed, household paint or cat urine (South Park reference -- w00t)? Also, how do we draw the line? If I had one beer and then committed the crime, is it worse? If I was around someone else who smoked weed, is the crime worse? I've thought that your concept is a good one in the past, so I can see where you're coming from. But in the end, I think we need to focus on the crime itself.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Oct 20, 2011 23:24:33 GMT -5
I will give AC this, he's actually stating his case. As opposed to morons like Bill O'Reilly who simply dismiss their own poll because "the Ron Paul people flooded the poll". Hell, he even called out CNN anchors for mis-representing Paul in a CNN online poll. The point is, the media is starting to get the message.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 20, 2011 23:38:03 GMT -5
I haven't had a problem with how much time Ron has had in the recent debates.
The problem I have, and what I'd like them to examine, is how much they speak about him in the post-debate analysis. He's practically non-existant in those.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Oct 20, 2011 23:46:46 GMT -5
I haven't had a problem with how much time Ron has had in the recent debates. The problem I have, and what I'd like them to examine, is how much they speak about him in the post-debate analysis. He's practically non-existant in those. Well of course they focus on who spoke the most in the debates, which always turns out to be Romney, Perry, and now Cain.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 22, 2011 9:38:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Oct 22, 2011 9:50:04 GMT -5
Damn those cyber-terrorists...
Saw this on The Daily Caller this morning:
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 22, 2011 13:40:43 GMT -5
They're ruining those pedophiles' lives!
|
|