patrick.net

dude, I am so against jail as a form of punishment, you have NO idea! A violent crime should result in swift execution by hanging. Selling drugs is a violent crime. Raping kids is a violent crime. Murdering babies in the womb is a violent crime. Drunk driving and killing people is a violent crime. All violent crime should be met with the same swift punishment.

what exactly do you find violent about the act of growing/trading/consuming marijuana?

using your mind as a litter box, and the government as a weapon of mass destruction is a crime that should be met with the harshest of punishments, but i digress

you are what you hate, you just aren't cognizant the implications of your actions enough to realize it, you liberal statist

why do you hate personal freedoms?

The use of alcohol is much more natural than smoking, because drinking is a natural act. Smoking anything is unnatural and disgusting

um, there is nothing more natural then a plant that grows in nature, and takes ZERO processing prior to consumption. Alcohol, on the other hand, takes a fair amount of processing

cannabanoids are lipophilic, so why not consume marijuana orally? Eating things is a natural act, no? And as far as i know, the only liquid that is 'natural' to drink, is water

The worst part of your silly so called rationalization in attempt to make some limp wristed argument, is that ALCOHOL IS TOXIC, while marijuana is non-toxic.

You'd sound less confused if you just honestly stated "the government told me dope is bad, hence dope is bad", because that seems to be the depth of your argument

140

Dan8267 2012 Sep 16, 3:25pm

Selling drugs is a violent crime.

There are about 5,264 hard drugs that are legal to sell. They are called prescription drugs. Is selling these drugs a violent crime? Should those sellers be hung? If not, why should a drug far less dangerous than any of these five thousand drugs be criminal to sell?

And by your analysis, shouldn't it be perfectly legal to grow and use your own weed if you aren't selling it? This would harm the legal drug industry and the prison industry, but why should it be illegal?

All violent crime should be met with the same swift punishment.

So a barroom fight and first degree murder should result in the same punishment: execution. Can't say I agree with that.

But, doing drugs is just a really bad choice

Lots of things are really bad choices including what you mentioned: not wearing seat belts and helmets. Why should the state punish people for making bad choices that do not harm other people? The state is also very inconsistent in which bad choices it punishes. When was the last time you were fined for eating at McDonald's or Chick-fil-A? As someone who is against the nanny state, you should be against the state prohibiting people from ingesting whatever they want including drugs. The only justifiable drug law is one that prohibits a drug which directly causes people to become violent. Weed does not do this.

Oh, and liberals don't believe in the state forcing people to wear seat belts and helmets. Liberals oppose all nanny states and father-knows-best states. You're confusing leftism and liberalism. Remember, the root of liberalism is liberty. Liberals are pro-freedom.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/muHg86Mys7I

like masterbating in a public area or in public view.

What right does the state have to prevent or punish anyone from masturbating in public? What right does the state have to punish anyone for activating nerve cells that send signals to the brain which then interpret these signals as pleasure? It is utterly ridiculous to think the state has any right to interfere with such personal liberty. Where does the state get such a right? Not from the people. If I don't have the right to control your body, then I can't give that right to the state. I can't give what I don't have. Since no one has the right to control another person's sexuality, the people cannot give the state that right.

And why should the state be allowed to prevent people from doing anything that causes no harm to others? Just because you find something disgusting or offensive does not give you the right to prevent others from engaging in it even in public places. You know how disgusting and offensive I find religion. I find it at least as offensive as you find a guy jacking off. Does that mean I get to use the state's monopoly on violence to arrest anyone who tries to say a prayer in public?

Oh, that's a religious matter and it's protected by the First Amendment. Well, orgies are also religious matters going all the way back to ancient Greece (and actually even further). So public orgies should be protected by the First Amendment as well. And yes, even weed can be as rightfully called a religious sacrament as anything Christians do. After all, weed and other now illegal drugs were the inspiration for almost all of religion including Christianity. All those ancient religious experiences? Drug hallucinations.

So you see, what you really are advocating is that the state uses violence to enforce arbitrary cultural preferences. Such use of violence for completely arbitrary preferences held by only some of the members of a society is hardly the hallmark of freedom. And if the state can violently enforce arbitrary cultural preferences, then some day it will enforce cultural preferences that you appall, perhaps coming from Islamic culture. All it would take is a sufficient number of people with those cultural preferences, and Islam is the fastest growing religion.

The use of alcohol is much more natural than smoking, because drinking is a natural act. Smoking anything is unnatural and disgusting.

So then you would have no problem with marijuana if the active ingredient THC were dissolved in water and drank like alcohol? Then it should be legal by your reasoning, right?

How about ecstasy? That is already dissolved in water and drank. Are you for legalizing that?

How about tobacco? Shouldn't that be illegal since it is smoked?

The fact is that the law does not reflect any consistent philosophy, and your proposals don't make it any more consistent.

141

Dan8267 2012 Sep 16, 3:35pm

And as far as i know, the only liquid that is 'natural' to drink, is water

Then again, natural does not mean good, so it's a mute issue.

I'm very much in favor of drinking decaffeinated ice tea without any sweeteners. It's calorie free and even healthier than water as it provides antioxidants, and you're less likely to get bored with it and crave a soda.

The worst part of your silly so called rationalization in attempt to make some limp wristed argument, is that ALCOHOL IS TOXIC, while marijuana is non-toxic.

Very true. The only motivation consistent with the behavior of our government, is that it does not want marijuana to compete with prescription drugs because, if marijuana were legal, there would be no profits in it or the prescription drugs as anyone can easily grow hemp. Why pay for something you can freely grow yourself?

Profit seems to be the only motivation for anti-marijuana laws. The thing is, it's not profitable to society to
1. Lock up enormous number of people.
2. Pay prison guards for this.
3. Keep the prisoners from being productive members of society.
4. Prevent those people from being able to get jobs and become productive members of society when they leave prison because they have a record.

It's actually utterly ludicrous from an economic perspective. It's only profitable to a few corporations and the prison industry. For the rest of society, the war on drugs is a major economic disaster. And that's ignoring the vileness of violating people's rights and freedom.

142

curious2 2012 Sep 16, 5:12pm

Dan8267 says

it's a mute issue.

Like a cow's opinion, it's moo!

143 anonymous 2012 Sep 16, 10:44pm

Do you ever wonder why people that consume sugar (a mind altering, highly addictive stimulant) en masse, never utter a peep about how sugar should be illegal, yet these same addicts and drug users wave their finger at people that consume a non toxic plant with health benefits?

That doesn't sound like an organic, nor a rational, line of thought. It sounds much more like somebody else planted that idea inside your head (propaganda)

Sugar is toxic
Sugar is the gateway drug
Sugar has no nutritional benefits
Sugar has had much greater, negative affects on society

Relative to marijuana, which has industrial uses, medicinal uses, recreational uses, is non-toxic, not a gateway drug, has nutritional value, and does not negatively impact society

Enjoy your sugar in your caffeinated coffee, as it rots your teeth, brain, body and soul!!

144

freak80 2012 Sep 17, 1:03am

I never realized how addictive sugar was (at least for my brain) until I stopped eating it "cold turkey." There was a week of mild "withdrawal" and then I had no desire for it. Then I started eating it again and was "hooked." Maybe it's not as bad as tobacco (never used it) but I still think sugar is addictive.

Sounds like marijuana has different effects for different people. Sort of like "legal" prescription drugs for anxiety/depression. When I was having anxiety "issues" the doctor told me I had to "experiment" with different drugs in order to find the "right" one. I ended up in the ER with a panic attack after starting out with Prozac. Gotta love experimenting with mind-altering drugs. Timothy Leary would be proud.

145

freak80 2012 Sep 17, 1:05am

Sugar is the gateway drug

Sugar is a gateway drug? To what? ;-)

146

Bigsby 2012 Sep 17, 1:10am

errc says

Sugar is the gateway drug

Sugar is a gateway drug? To what? ;-)

A shit diet?

147

rooemoore 2012 Sep 17, 1:13am

Bigsby says

freak80 says

errc says

Sugar is the gateway drug

Sugar is a gateway drug? To what? ;-)

A shit diet?

Marijuana is a gateway drug to sugar.

148

Y 2012 Sep 17, 1:43am

turning into a fat fuck for the rest of your life....

errc says

Sugar is the gateway drug

Sugar is a gateway drug? To what? ;-)

149

elliemae 2012 Sep 17, 2:54am

Sugar is toxic
Sugar is the gateway drug
Sugar has no nutritional benefits
Sugar has had much greater, negative affects on society

You're narrowing down the list of things that I can do... But you're wrong about sugar having a negative effect on society...

I used to give my nieces & nephews sugar about 20 minutes before I left my sister's house. It paid her back for the time she cut my doll's hair (when I was 8) and she told me it would grow back...

THAT sugar had a positive effect on me!!!

150

freak80 2012 Sep 17, 5:25am

Isn't marijuana a gateway drug to sugar (twinkies, Haagen Dasz, etc)?

151 bob2356 2012 Sep 17, 5:28am

No it isn't fair to people who are in pain that they are used as hostages with ransom paid to the medical industrial complex. You've been away lately but a big deal in the US now is the mandatory coverage for "preventive care" with no copay which means PhRMA is rolling out new patented contraceptives with hardly any testing, because it's more profitable than the old familiar Pill that went generic years ago; everyone is forced to pay PhRMA for the new patented ones, and the prescribers are coerced into prescribing them, and the patients who take them will discover the currently unknown side effects as they arise. No one ever said the law is fair, except you did just now and really I think it's because of the cognitive dissonance that would result from admitting you profit personally from an unfair law. It's profitable, not fair.

So where exactly in all this ramble is the part where people are "forced" to use on patent meds. Anyone can ask either their doctor or their pharmacist for generics. I do it.

152

curious2 2012 Sep 17, 5:59am

So where exactly in all this ramble is the part where people are "forced" to use on patent meds. Anyone can ask either their doctor or their pharmacist for generics.

Please read more carefully. Everyone is forced to PAY FOR patent meds. If you don't see how, read it again.

Yes, people who are knowledgeable can ask permission to buy something cheaper, and some doctors will grant that permission when requested. But, doctors are on a treadmill, caught between PhRMA, CME, and insurance; they need to prescribe profitably. They can easily think of reasons why a particular patient should have the patent drug, reciting claims presented in CME or touted by drug industry reps that visit the doctor's office, and it takes a rather confident patient to argue in that situation. In particular, the less educated patients are in a much weaker position. This may be one reason why education is the best predictor of longevity, not money and certainly not medical insurance.

As for asking the pharmacist, that usually doesn't work. In some states, if the doctor has allowed generic substitution, you can get a generic "equivalent" with the same active ingredient, if the pharmacy has one. (These may not actually be equivalent, and you are not allowed to compare generic manufacturers the way you can with OTC drugs.) You are never allowed to substitute a similar Rx drug with a different active ingredient the way you can with OTC drugs. For example, if you're shopping for OTC analgesics, you can choose freely among different active ingredients and multiple brands of each. You definitely can't do that with Rx analgesics. The discrepancy is part of why Americans, who pay the lowest prices in the world for OTC drugs, pay the highest prices in the world for Rx drugs. Again, the key to understanding the persistence of the system is to recognize that it's profitable, not fair.

153

curious2 2012 Sep 17, 6:10am

sugar is addictive.

Definitely. Interestingly, even artificial sweeteners can set off a similar chain of events, with the consequence that people who switch to "diet" soda don't lose weight.

I ended up in the ER with a panic attack after starting out with Prozac.

Prescription drugs are a leading cause of emergency hospitalizations, in some age groups #1. That's part of why RomneyCare led to a 30% increase in emergency hospitalizations, after supporters promised that "preventive care" would lead to fewer. ("Preventive" CT scans in asymptomatic patients will lead to more hospitalizations, for cancer, but those will take longer to show up.) Funny how boosters of ObamneyCare recycled the same claim to advocate the same plan nationally, and the semi-"smart" people who trust commercial news (where literally a majority of the ads come from PhRMA) fell for it again. One might think the industry would need to come up with new lies at least to sell the same policy, but no, with enough lobbying $ they can get politicians to echo the same lies over and over again. The main difference between Rx drugs and illegal drugs is, Rx drugs are backed by a powerful "legitimate" industry that shares the "legitimate" $ with lobbyists and politicians, while illegal drugs are backed by a powerful illegal industry that launders its $ through money-center banks that share their "legitimate" $ with lobbyists and politicians. They are different categories, with the markups finding their way back to the politicians via different routes, but safety and efficacy are not really related to the political and financial categorization.

154

elliemae 2012 Sep 17, 12:18pm

Wow! They like me! Right now, they really like me!!!

155

Patrick 2012 Sep 17, 12:35pm

It's just division: dislikes / likes

That's all there is to it. Not very useful really, except as a kind of measure of how much people like your comments.

156 bob2356 2012 Sep 17, 10:01pm

Please read more carefully. Everyone is forced to PAY FOR patent meds. If you don't see how, read it again.

I read it again, I don't see it the first time, I still don't see it. Most people are already covered for contraceptives. Look it up, almost all employer insurance plans already cover contraception. Why would everyone suddenly change their contraception? Doesn't make sense. Trust me, doctors truly don't give a shit whether someone uses the pill or norplant or burning incense with chanting for contraception. The other seven items of affordable health care act womens preventative care don't involve drugs at all so they have no relevance.

Yes, people who are knowledgeable can ask permission to buy something cheaper, and some doctors will grant that permission when requested. But, doctors are on a treadmill, caught between PhRMA, CME, and insurance; they need to prescribe profitably.

Not any doctors I know. My wife the doctor is very curious how all this works. . So please give us the benefit of your extensive inside knowledge of how medical practices work. A couple free drug samples (that she and most doctors give to patients that they know have a hard time paying for meds) and the every other month rubber chicken dinner with power point presentation isn't exactly being in bondage to big pharma. She has never seen on patent drugs discussed at a CME course. She has never had an insurance company ask about prescriptions. Never, not once. She's spent years in practice and running her practice. I have spent years doing medical billing and medical practice management software for doctors offices, Neither of us has a clue what you are talking about when you say prescribe profitably. Enlighten us, starting with some type of description of your vast experience working day to day in the medical field.

No matter what she prescribes, on or off patent, there is zero affect on my wife's income from prescription drugs. So cognitive dissonance is not in play here. Nice try, but it ain't so joe.

157

elliemae 2012 Sep 17, 11:50pm

No matter what she prescribes, on or off patent, there is zero affect on my wife's income from prescription drugs.

People are under the impression that MD's make $$$$ from prescribing, which would be wonderful if it could happen. Then every MD would be outrageously wealthy and wouldn't have to worry about dumb stuff like ethics & sick people...

There are some MD's who participate in research and receive grants from big pharma, but imho most don't. So far as Bob's comment that samples are normally given out to people who can't afford, big pharma is giving out smaller amounts of samples for the normal stuff any more. They try to push the more expensive meds, so MD's don't have as much in their drug closet as they used to . It sucks.

The issue with the healthcare law is morals. Women are supposed to be demure little creatures who don't outwardly display their desire for sex (but are tigers in bed with the man that owns them), and should pop out babies like a pez dispenser.

Of course, if the man is gone or can't afford to pay for all of them thar babies, that's not our problem either. We need to cut back on welfare programs so that these "victims who are reliant on government handouts" can go out and get a fucking job. Leave the kids at home to watch each other, I guess.

158

Rightswingtrader 2012 Sep 18, 1:15am

I like that this conversation all started when I said I like to smoke weed.#120
Notice the tone here overall has become a bit more "mellow" than usual with out the usual "harsh" back and forth.

159

freak80 2012 Sep 18, 1:30am

elliemae says

Women are supposed to be demure little creatures who don't outwardly display their desire for sex (but are tigers in bed with the man that owns them), and should pop out babies like a pez dispenser.

Ellie, I do not look at women that way.

160

Y 2012 Sep 18, 2:00am

thats cause your a 'freak'....

elliemae says

Women are supposed to be demure little creatures who don't outwardly display their desire for sex (but are tigers in bed with the man that owns them), and should pop out babies like a pez dispenser.

Ellie, I do not look at women that way.

161

freak80 2012 Sep 18, 3:55am

SoftShell says

thats cause your a 'freak'....

I'm a Super Freak, Super Freak, I'm Super Freaky, YEAH!

162

curious2 2012 Sep 18, 4:09am

Promotion of Prescription Drugs Through Payments and Gifts [including valuable trips and prizes, according to the Office of the Inspector General at HHS]

Not any doctors I know.

You can read more on ProPublica and even check some names if you like:

Dollars for Docs

Lawsuits Say Pharma Illegally Paid Doctors to Push Their Drugs

drug companies pay $7 billion fines over illegal marketing [a fraction of what they made from it btw]

"Drug makers spent about $6.3 billion on marketing visits to doctors in 2009, the last year that such figures were available, according to IMS Health... [S]ome federal regulators and medical societies argue that drug makers are simply mining the data to identify and go after the doctors who would be most likely to prescribe the latest, most expensive brand-name medicines â€” driving up health care costs and exposing patients to newer drugs whose side effects may not yet be fully known."

After Sanctions, Doctors Get Drug Company Pay

This pattern has been so widely reported for so long that I wonder how long it's been since you've been in this country.

"What's new is that CT is being marketed as a preventive or proactive health care measure to healthy individuals who have no symptoms of disease. [There are] No Proven Benefits for Healthy People."

Why would everyone suddenly change their contraception?

Why do you think PhRMA spends so much on DTC advertising? The #1 complaint of general practitioners is patients lying to get prescriptions for drugs they saw on TV but that would be bad for them. If they are "preventive" (i.e. mandatory with no copay) then everybody has to pay for the "free" drugs. Even if established patients stick to the old products, every year millions of new patients enter a market where everything is "new and improved."

And then you have the "preventive care" full body CT scans for asymptomatic patients:

As a friend put it, it's an investment in future patients. Cancer patients.

163

Patrick 2012 Sep 18, 6:07am

Call it Crazy says

What if you did it comparing "likes" versus total posts... wouldn't that give you a ratio on how much the poster's overall comments are "liked"?

Yes, if I did it starting from the time I instituted the "like" thing. The forum existed for years before that, so those earlier comments shouldn't count I guess.

164

Dan8267 2012 Sep 18, 6:35am

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich | 23.5593

Ergo, Apocalypsefuck is both troll and anti-troll. If he ever encounters himself, he will annihilate himself liberating vast quantities of gamma radiation.

Just goes to show that you can't say anything important without offending someone.

165

elliemae 2012 Sep 19, 1:27am

Dan8267 says

Ergo, Apocalypsefuck is both troll and anti-troll. If he ever encounters himself, he will annihilate himself liberating vast quantities of gamma radiation.

So - if AF attacks himself, he would beat himself off?

(ellie never, ever misses an opportunity for a good masturbation joke)

166 bob2356 2012 Sep 26, 10:52am

This pattern has been so widely reported for so long that I wonder how long it's been since you've been in this country.

What pattern do you see here exactly? There are 3 reports that there are doctors are paid to speak for drug companies. So what, shilling for the drug companies isn't prescribing to patients. I notice any mention of the number of doctors involved is very lacking. There aren't a lot and I've never met one. The hhs report is from 1991 for christ sakes. Almost everything mentioned in it hasn't been allowed for 10 years or more. Try to focus on what is actually happening in today's world, not what happened 2 decades ago. The other 2 are about how drug companies data mine to make more focused pitches to doctors. That's news? Drug companies are marketing, shocking to hear that I tell you, just shocking. So how does any of this relate to your concept of profitable prescribing? Where in any of this does it show what doctors prescribe has any affect what they earn?

The #1 complaint of general practitioners is patients lying to get prescriptions for drugs they saw on TV but that would be bad for them.

Ding, ding, ding. Wow, you finally got a winner after all that. Yes THE BIGGEST PROBLEM is drug companies advertising to consumers. It should have never been allowed. Patients demand what they have seen advertised. Doctors go along if it isn't counterproductive. Why not, patients are the customer. If they want to spend a lot on drugs that won't do any better job than cheaper drugs then that's their right. This goes directly against your assertion that doctors are forcing expensive pharma on poor unwilling uninformed patients to line their pockets. What you are saying is patients are sophisticated enough to mis describe their symptoms to get expensive drugs they want because they saw them advertised, but are so unsophisticated they can't say hey doc could you to prescribe a generic if they want to pay less. Which is it, you can't have it both ways.

So again how does this amount to profitable prescribing? Where is the profit for the doctor in any of this short of owning pharma stock or working for a drug company? I used to do a lot of practice management/accounting work and I don't understand how it's done. Explain the accounting ins and outs of "profitable prescribing" in an average practice to me instead of throwing up a lot of basically irrelevant articles. Debits and credits I understand.

Sorry I missed the part where you talked about how you acquired all your extensive day to day experience in the operation of physicians practices. Could you post it again perhaps.

Since you are so curious, I've been overseas 5 years. As hard as it is for the average American to understand even in the wilds of uncivilized countries like NZ there is mail service, phones, emails, even "gasp" internet. Even harder to believe, you can get on a jet plane and go back sometimes. I do keep up with what people are doing in the states. My wife spends 2-3 weeks a year at conferences in the states and spends a lot of time asking about what is going on. Keeping up on what is happening in medicine and practice management is of great interest for when we return.

Maybe you should give up on this whole profitable prescribing collusion idea and look at real problems. Start with doctors that refer to labs and diagnostic centers they have ownership in. Now that's a conflict of interest and pretty unethical in my opinion but it's legal in most states. Or why the area's that have the most doctors per capita have the highest medical cost per capita. Didn't you say licensing more doctors would make costs go down? Doesn't look like that works out in real life. So many real problems yet you are fixated on one that isn't.

167

curious2 2012 Sep 26, 11:48am

This exchange does not relate directly to the OT but I do appreciate learning more about the subject so I will reply.