Colorado's Marijuana Banking Problem

[saevel25]

25 minutes ago, billchao said:

I think the pro-legalization side of this debate tends to look at things from an academic pint of view and I wonder how many of these people have been around or have been affected by drug addiction. Increasing the number of potential addicts is not something I would ever propose as a possible solution to this problem.

That's a good point. 

I am all for medical use. I think it needs to be more than just going to the doctor and saying, "Oh, advil doesn't help my back pain can you give me a prescription for some pot". 

[bubble]

Paradoxically I remember having read in science mag that "medically" marijuana has no addiction substances. Addiction may come to tobacco when mixed with for consumption purposses.

Therefore legalization cannot add to drug addiction.

[ghalfaire]

6 hours ago, billchao said:

It will reduce some violence at the cost of increased users, which has serious implications I don't think you're considering.

Heroine, crack-cocaine, crystal-meth, etc. , all are highly addictive and destroy not only the lives of its abusers, but their families as well. These people can stop functioning as part of the society and become problematic, often resorting to committing crimes to pay for their addiction. Some end up dying from drug overdose.

It sounds nice to say we should treat them as addicts, which I assume you mean they should be given treatment, but then you're also placing a huge financial burden on the state for medical care to those who cannot afford it.

This of course all hinges on the assumption that drug related violence will end if drugs are made legal, which I don't think it will. Organized crime didn't end when Prohibition ended.

I think the pro-legalization side of this debate tends to look at things from an academic pint of view and I wonder how many of these people have been around or have been affected by drug addiction. Increasing the number of potential addicts is not something I would ever propose as a possible solution to this problem.

For reasons I don't care to share on this forum I will assure you i know very well the effects and affects drugs can have on individuals, families and other loved ones, and on society at large.  I am of my opinion coming from not some academic point of view but from some very real and personal experiences and I am not in law enforcement.  We have, without question, lost the war on drugs and need to seek another solution as the solution we have not just doesn't work.  As to the financial burden what do you believe the present situation is?  When statistics say that more the 70% of our crime is drug related in one way or another it might be possible to supply methadone or other treatment for much less than what it is costing us now to catch, prosecute, and incarcerate drug users/dealers now.  Not to mention the cost to the victims of these crimes.  I don't like drugs either, but what we are doing now just isn't doing anyone any good.  If you have a better idea than legalizing drugs I am all ears, but to keep doing what we have been doing for years and expect things to get better is insane.

[Abu3baid]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't think so. The point I was making is that you're not taking a medical approach to this at all - you're only looking at marijuana's history. Some have made the case (I'm venturing into devil's advocate territory a bit here, as I don't care that much about this) that while wine and alcohol in general is legal, marijuana can be less detrimental to tasks like driving a car. One is legal; the other is not.

I have no issue with the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes if it is truly a medicinal purpose at all..  What I am against is the use of marijuana for recreational purposes.  If I could, I would also lobby to make wine and alcohol illegal but that's another discussion.  :)

6 minutes ago, iacas said:

Eyad, man, do yourself a favor and step outside the viewpoints in which you've been indoctrinated. Every one of these discussions seems to yield an incredibly shallow response from you… a response you can't back up because it's just the way it is for you or something. 

http://www.saynotodrugs.org.uk/reasons-not-to-take-drugs <- I hold the same view point as the people on this site, which is say no to drugs. I am drawing the line between recreational use of drugs vs. necessary medical use of it, that's all.

14 minutes ago, iacas said:

You said before that you were against legalizing drugs. Define "drugs" please? Is alcohol a drug? Nicotine? Steroids? All of them are used medically, too… as is marijuana.

Not sure what you are looking for but from the net: "a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body."

Yes, they are all drugs..  so be it if they are used medicinally.. great.  I would rather them not be available over the counter anywhere..

15 minutes ago, iacas said:

don't know how to respond to that. What??? Smoking (cigarettes) is legal and I fully expect that my daughter will not smoke. She knows the difference between "legal" and "right" or "good for you." Ditto drinking - I expect her to drink responsibly. There are plenty of times when what's legal/illegal and what's right/wrong are misaligned for any given individual.

I smoked cigarettes even though my parents expected me not to, if it was illegal and hard to find who knows.. maybe I would not have done so right?

All parents expect their kids to drink responsibly, doesn't mean it happens does it?  I knew at least 3-4 friends that died of drinking and driving and at least another 4-5 that I wasn't friends with in high school. (maybe more I can't remember) 

---

I still think much of the above is OT for this thread.  I am against drugs, I don't need to explain what I mean as it should be virtually known without me going into details.  Although, I can spell it out.

I'm against the use of recreational marijuana but have no problem having it dispensed by a hospital or pharmacy with strong oversight and controls. 

Now take the above in bold input what ever drug you like.

[iacas]

8 hours ago, Abu3baid said:

I have no issue with the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes if it is truly a medicinal purpose at all..  What I am against is the use of marijuana for recreational purposes.  If I could, I would also lobby to make wine and alcohol illegal but that's another discussion.  :)

Why? You're against it, but why? You're against "all drugs" but you couldn't define them earlier.

8 hours ago, Abu3baid said:

http://www.saynotodrugs.org.uk/reasons-not-to-take-drugs <- I hold the same view point as the people on this site, which is say no to drugs. I am drawing the line between recreational use of drugs vs. necessary medical use of it, that's all.

That's fine but it feels like you're wanting to push your morality on others.

Very few of those reasons affect other people. If I was a slightly neurotic type who worried a lot, and wanted to drink a glass of wine before bed to calm myself down and help with the insomnia I have, why shouldn't I be allowed to? It's not affecting anyone else. It's affecting me, and it's helping me. Substitute "glass of wine" with "eat a pot brownie" and, to me, they're the same thing.

Now, you're against wine, but obviously you'd readily accept that to most people (or at least most governments) wine is legally consumed by people older than a certain age. Many people drink wine as a form of "self medication" (among other reasons, for example "I like how it tastes.").

Almost none of those reasons affect society. Yes, if you get hooked on drugs and spend all of your money on them, they can lead to "messing with your wallet" as the site says. But so can becoming addicted to golf. Or collectible porcelain dolls, etc. People can make choices, and it's not the role of government to restrict the choices.

Just as it's illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol (but not illegal to have a glass of wine in your own home before bed), why should it be illegal to eat a pot brownie in your own home? Again, I fully understand that you would not choose to do so, but what's it to you if your neighbor does? How is that affecting your rights?

Truth be told I don't really have strong feelings on this. The government could pass out free pot on the corners and I probably wouldn't partake. But I hate weak arguments, particularly when they feel like they're given no thought.

8 hours ago, Abu3baid said:

Not sure what you are looking for but from the net: "a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body."

Food and oxygen are "substances which have a physiological effect." That was my point. You said "drugs" but couldn't define the word.

"Drugs" exist on a gradient. Several, really: a cost gradient, an efficacy gradient, a beneficial/detrimental gradient, a "directly related to criminal enterprise" gradient… You said something like "I am against drugs" or something and yet didn't define:

• What gradients were in play.
• Where on those gradients you draw the line.
• Where on those gradients you feel marijuana sits.

8 hours ago, Abu3baid said:

Yes, they are all drugs..  so be it if they are used medicinally.. great.  I would rather them not be available over the counter anywhere..

Why? What's it to you if I have a pot brownie before going to bed because it helps quiet my mind so I can get a good night's sleep? (Again, hypothetically, as it's simply not my thing.)

8 hours ago, Abu3baid said:

I smoked cigarettes even though my parents expected me not to, if it was illegal and hard to find who knows.. maybe I would not have done so right?

So educate your kids to make better choices than you did. The government does not exist to make choices for your children (or you). They exist to protect our rights. How are your rights infringed if a guy three doors down from you has a pot brownie in his living room before bed?

8 hours ago, Abu3baid said:

All parents expect their kids to drink responsibly, doesn't mean it happens does it?

What parents expect and what they deserve to expect are very different things. You seem to want to foist responsibility for parenting on the government. Just educate your children. If you do your job, perhaps they'll make better choices than you made.

8 hours ago, Abu3baid said:

I still think much of the above is OT for this thread.  I am against drugs, I don't need to explain what I mean as it should be virtually known without me going into details.  Although, I can spell it out.

It's not off topic. I created the topic, after all.

You've done it again: you're against drugs. So you don't take tylenol/aleve/aspirin? You don't eat food? Where on the gradients do you draw the line, and where on the gradients do you put "marijuana"?

8 hours ago, Abu3baid said:

I'm against the use of recreational marijuana but have no problem having it dispensed by a hospital or pharmacy with strong oversight and controls. 

Now take the above in bold input what ever drug you like.

Okay: "I'm against the use of children's tylenol but have no problem having it dispensed by a hospital or pharmacy with strong oversight and controls."

"I'm against the use of cough syrup but have no problem having it dispensed by a hospital or pharmacy with strong oversight and controls."

"I'm against the use of breathing in oxygen but have no problem having it dispensed by a hospital or pharmacy with strong oversight and controls."

"I'm against the use of caffeine but have no problem having it dispensed by a hospital or pharmacy with strong oversight and controls."

"I'm against the use of protein shakes and powders but have no problem having it dispensed by a hospital or pharmacy with strong oversight and controls."

---

Again, I don't really even have a position on this. I voted yes in the poll but haven't really given it much thought aside from "it seems to be working fine in Colorado." But I hate weak arguments, man, and you can't even define "drugs."

[LagShaft]

I voted no for one reason only and that would be the lack of a test that can measure a persons level of intoxication properly.  Working in a fairly dangerous environment with heavy equipment I can send someone to be tested if I smell alcohol or believe someone to be inebriated  and know for sure that they were or were not at that given moment.  With pot an accurate and agreed upon test to do that does not exist YET.  So if we fire or suspend some one for being high at work( or in a vehicle for that matter) it becomes my word against theirs and based upon my observations which I may have to attest to in court.  I'm not sure how Colorado is handling this but I would imagine that with the federal law to back them up employers may still be able to enforce a no drug policy.  I'm not sure how that would hold up if it would be legalized nationally.  So if they fix that problem and whether I agree with it or not I think it would be pretty hypocritical of me as a consumer of caffeine and alcohol to oppose legalization.  Anything stronger will never get my vote.

Edited November 16, 2015 by LagShaft

[chspeed]

23 hours ago, Jeremie Boop said:

I only hope that it doesn't set a  precedence, and/or follow other people's thoughts to legalizing other much more harmful drugs. 

 

There's no reason to think it will. The concept of Marijuana as a "gateway drug" (which has been shown to be correlative, but not causative) applies to individuals, not legislative bodies ;)

23 hours ago, Jeremie Boop said:

 

In my eyes, it's not logic, it's selling out in basically the literal sense. Can't stop it, let's just make money off of it. It strikes me as defeatist and opportunistic.

Although I'm not sure this is what was actually meant, I agree that pure argument that we can't effectively stop some sort of activity is sufficient ground for legalizing the activity.

23 hours ago, Jeremie Boop said:

 As I state previously, I'm very biased here, I won't apologize for it. When you have family members who destroy their lives and hurt their family and friends because of their drug abuse and addiction it tends to give you a different view on things.

Sorry to hear you know people who've been affected by addiction, and it is very understandable that you are biased (and commendable that you know that you're biased). But remember that bias, by definition, is unfair and unfounded prejudice towards an idea or person.

Edited November 16, 2015 by chspeed
typos

[chspeed]

42 minutes ago, chspeed said:

 

Although I'm not sure this is what was actually meant, I agree that pure argument that we can't effectively stop some sort of activity is sufficient ground for legalizing the activity.

 

Oops, didn't really finish the sentence.

"I agree that the argument that we can't effectively stop some sort of activity is sufficient ground for legalizing the activity, is not a good one."

[Abu3baid]

14 hours ago, iacas said:

Why? You're against it, but why? You're against "all drugs" but you couldn't define them earlier.

Because drugs make for an ugly society.  I believe more people would abuse drugs rather than eating that pot brownie to relax.. Heck, look at the number of deaths drunk driving causes every year.. I can tell me kids not to drink, but I can't prevent some idiot from killing them because he wanted to have a 12 pack before going home from the bar.

14 hours ago, iacas said:

You said something like "I am against drugs" or something and yet didn't define:

• What gradients were in play.
• Where on those gradients you draw the line.
• Where on those gradients you feel marijuana sits.

Again, it's because I don't need to define.. Obviously I'm not talking about Oxygen or Food and no one would think that when they read my post.  I will list them for you if that makes it any better?  Not all inclusive, but it gives an idea of the drugs I would rather not see my fellow man or women indulging in.

Alcohol

Amphetamines - Speed, Billy, Whiz, Phet

Cannabis - Dope, Hash, Weed, Pot, Skunk, Ganga, Zoot, Spliff, Green

Cocaine and Crack - Coke, Charlie, White, Snow, Sniff, White Lady

Ecstasy - E, Beans, Pills, Doves, Apples

G

Heroin - Smack, Junk, H, Brown, Gear, Skag

Ketamine - Green, K, Special K, Super K

Khat

LSD - Acid, Tabs, Trips

Magic Mushrooms - Shrooms, Mushies, Magics

Mephedrone - Meow Meow, M-Cat, Drone, Bubbles, Bounce

Tobacco - Ciggies, Fags, Tabs

Pain Killers that are not over the counter

14 hours ago, iacas said:

You've done it again: you're against drugs. So you don't take tylenol/aleve/aspirin? You don't eat food? Where on the gradients do you draw the line, and where on the gradients do you put "marijuana"?

No, I'm not against tylenol.. please see list above.

14 hours ago, iacas said:

Again, I don't really even have a position on this. I voted yes in the poll but haven't really given it much thought aside from "it seems to be working fine in Colorado." But I hate weak arguments, man, and you can't even define "drugs."

I wasn't making an argument one way or another actually.. I made a statement, and you turned it into an argument of what is the definition of the drugs you are against.. I'm sure I missed a couple of "drugs", but I can always add to it, and don't worry.. Food is not on the list.. :)

[iacas]

3 minutes ago, Abu3baid said:

Because drugs make for an ugly society.

Please explain to me how a guy a few doors down from you eating a pot brownie so he can sleep makes for an ugly society.

3 minutes ago, Abu3baid said:

I believe more people would abuse drugs rather than eating that pot brownie to relax.. Heck, look at the number of deaths drunk driving causes every year.. I can tell me kids not to drink, but I can't prevent some idiot from killing them because he wanted to have a 12 pack before going home from the bar.

Driving while drunk is illegal, too. Making drunk driving illegal clearly hasn't stopped people from driving drunk.

3 minutes ago, Abu3baid said:

Again, it's because I don't need to define.. Obviously I'm not talking about Oxygen or Food and no one would think that when they read my post.  I will list them for you if that makes it any better?  Not all inclusive, but it gives an idea of the drugs I would rather not see my fellow man or women indulging in.

You're still missing the point. There are several gradients on which "drugs" exist, and you're just assuming that everyone agrees with whatever you happen to define as a drug.

3 minutes ago, Abu3baid said:

Ecstasy - E, Beans, Pills, Doves, Apples

You know what one of my research projects was on? Using Ecstasy (MDMA) for the treatment of Alzheimer's.

Steroids are used all the time in the treatment of illnesses, and yet can be abused to bulk up and do other things, too.

Marijuana has obvious medical benefits… and for the guy who can't sleep or has a bit of anxiety, what's so bad about self medicating before going to bed?

It's a whole bunch of gradients, man… on many levels. There's no hard line between "good" and "bad" drugs.

And though you don't agree that cigarettes and alcohol are legal, they are… and so one of the things you might want to try is to demonstrate how marijuana is "worse" than either of them. Pot actually does less to impair your driving than alcohol, so it might be a tough challenge.

3 minutes ago, Abu3baid said:

No, I'm not against tylenol.. please see list above.

Hey, you can't blame me for asking: I'm just trying to figure out where on the gradients you think we should draw the lines. What about stronger painkillers? Stronger anti-inflammatories? Where do you draw the lines?

3 minutes ago, Abu3baid said:

I wasn't making an argument one way or another actually.. I made a statement, and you turned it into an argument of what is the definition of the drugs you are against.. I'm sure I missed a couple of "drugs", but I can always add to it, and don't worry.. Food is not on the list.. :)

I'm done now, Eyad. I was hoping, just once, to draw out more than the party line from you. You never seem to give anything much actual or original thought, or give any credit to the fact that the world is not black and white. There are plenty of grey (and gradients) in all sorts of social issues.

 

[ghalfaire]

I see after reading some of the more recent posts that the point I have tried to make in previous posts wasn't really clear.  Here it is more succinctly stated; making something people want illegal will not stop them from getting it, it only changes the price and who they purchase from.  It really doesn't matter whether we are talking about drugs, guns, or alcohol the principle applies.  If they want it bad enough they will get it and there will be people who will supply it.  Making a law only allows society to punish those that violate the law, it doesn't stop anyone from committing the crime.

[iacas]

41 minutes ago, ghalfaire said:

I see after reading some of the more recent posts that the point I have tried to make in previous posts wasn't really clear.  Here it is more succinctly stated; making something people want illegal will not stop them from getting it, it only changes the price and who they purchase from.  It really doesn't matter whether we are talking about drugs, guns, or alcohol the principle applies.  If they want it bad enough they will get it and there will be people who will supply it.  Making a law only allows society to punish those that violate the law, it doesn't stop anyone from committing the crime.

While I agree with that, surely you would also agree that if something is legal, more people will want to get it than if it was illegal.

I'm sure there are people out there who don't smoke pot in large part because it's illegal, and if it wasn't, they might on occasion.

[turtleback]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

While I agree with that, surely you would also agree that if something is legal, more people will want to get it than if it was illegal.

I'm sure there are people out there who don't smoke pot in large part because it's illegal, and if it wasn't, they might on occasion.

I think that is true.  But there is a flip side.  If pot was legal people could get it without having to come into contact with illegal dealers who will expose them to and try to get them to use the more "dangerous" drugs.  Which is where a lot of the "gateway" effect comes from, IMO.  

Marijuana is the one drug, IMO, that presently inflicts far more harm to society as a whole because of its illegality than it inflicts actual harm on the people who use it.  Alcohol is far more dangerous and debillitating than pot is, IMO.  The odds are far higher, I would guess, on people who have ruined their lives with alcohol than with pot, if we take out the pot lives that were ruined because of getting caught and going to jail.  But looking just at the effect of use on people's lives and persons, I see no basis for pot to be illegal in a society in which alcohol is legal.

[No Mulligans]

If I decide to take an occasional nibble of a pot brownie to help me relax at home, what is it to you?  (Those of you that oppose marijuana legalization like @Abu3baid)

It makes my bristle that someone would have the arrogance to tell me what I should or shouldn't do when it has no affect on them.  That is just wrong in my opinion when it comes to something as mild as marijuana.

As I stated previously I don't use marijuana and I don't drink.  I did in the past.  Marijuana was incredible easy for me to stop.  I just decided one day to stop and never used it again.  My experience is it is not addictive.  Alcohol use, that's another story.  That has a much more negative impact and can affect others to much larger extent.  But, so can owning and driving a car for that matter.

My mom, had mental issues in her old age, she was delusional, paranoid, nervous, and generally uncomfortable mentally.  It was very hard to engage her in conversation.  She lost her appetite and was wasting away, the doctor prescribed Marinol, a synthetic form of cannibis.  Marinol had the intended affect of increasing her appetite, and had an unintended benefit of helping her mentally.  She came out of her shell, was easy to engage in conversation, and overall was happier.  That is my primary experience with the use of medical marijuana.  

And btw, she had no idea that Marinol was synthetic cannibis.  She would have been horrified.  To her, Marinol was just a medication that helped her feel better.

Edited November 17, 2015 by No Mulligans

[Golfingdad]

2 hours ago, turtleback said:

Marijuana is the one drug, IMO, that presently inflicts far more harm to society as a whole because of its illegality than it inflicts actual harm on the people who use it.  Alcohol is far more dangerous and debillitating than pot is, IMO.  The odds are far higher, I would guess, on people who have ruined their lives with alcohol than with pot, if we take out the pot lives that were ruined because of getting caught and going to jail.  But looking just at the effect of use on people's lives and persons, I see no basis for pot to be illegal in a society in which alcohol is legal.

Completely agree.

[ghalfaire]

22 hours ago, iacas said:

While I agree with that, surely you would also agree that if something is legal, more people will want to get it than if it was illegal.

I'm sure there are people out there who don't smoke pot in large part because it's illegal, and if it wasn't, they might on occasion.

Yes I agree with you that if legal likely more will use drugs, especially marijuana.  I do think however that treatment and education might be much less disruptive to society at large and less expensive if the crimes associated with illegal drugs is eliminated.  However I would say that is arguable   I do still contend that what we are doing isn't working and we need some change in policy as the situation continues to get worse and affect every level of society.

[Dave2512]

Silly thing is they did use banks at one time. The switch to being all cash businesses happened a few years ago. The real shame of it was it put some mom and pop dispensaries out of biz. The worst of it besides the banking problem is it created a climate for these mega-store type dispensaries backed by out of CO money and with them came inflated prices.

My friend was a med card holder but he didn't renew because the costs got so high he couldn't afford it on his fixed income. He and his doctor are trying to find a RX alternative with little luck. There are a bunch of kinks that need to be worked out.

[CR McDivot]

8 hours ago, Dave2512 said:

...My friend was a med card holder but he didn't renew because the costs got so high he couldn't afford it on his fixed income. He and his doctor are trying to find a RX alternative with little luck. There are a bunch of kinks that need to be worked out.

I think it would be legal for your friend to grow his own. Seems as a med card holder bud of mine is legally doing this. Since recreational is now in place I believe all are legal to grow a small amount for personal use.

Just be sure not to grow for sale! Gov's got to get his cut, you know.

Edited November 19, 2015 by CR McDivot