of course i do. i've seen firsthand that drugs are incredibly therapeutic if used responsibly. banning them outright is absurd, and leaving only a select few as legal (ie. alcohol, tobacco) is downright hypocritical.

so where do we draw the line??????????

no legitimately, if you had to write the law, where would you draw the line?

Anything organic is legal, synthetical is not?

Quote from Captain Cook

so where do we draw the line??????????

no legitimately, if you had to write the law, where would you draw the line?

Anything organic is legal, synthetical is not?

that would be a start; making a plant illegal is absurd. their safe use and clinical applications should be researched and implemented as I already described on page 2. likewise for extracts from plants.

synthetics are typically more dangerous simply because they often are new and have not been used widely enough to know what kind of effects they might have. these too should be researched, and made available only if they can be seen to either give an extraordinary/therapeutic experience that outweigh side effects if used responsibly, or to be safe enough to be used freely. details should be decided on a case-by-case basis by relevant professionals.

i guess what i'm saying is, the line should be drawn by open minded doctors and researchers - not by politicians who react with a knee jerk ban for anything that might cause people to start questioning things.

I'm not 100% in love with the way you're talking to Scarecrow, Cook.

what are you even talking about jutsu

It's easier to blanket-ban synthetics though. Generally synthetic bad (not pharmaceutical) drugs don't really have any "positive" side effects, and it's also easy, concealable income for baddies

I wonder what worries would go through a doctors' mind if a patient were to take advantage of a prescription med that would get the doctor in trouble and what would be the outcome for the patients under that doctor?

the doctor only gets in trouble if he provides medication to somebody who is clearly going to abuse said drugs.

But if the patient does it by his own accord who gives a fuck. You can't blame Glock because people kill themselves with their guns.

Quote from Captain Cook

what are you even talking about jutsu

It's easier to blanket-ban synthetics though. Generally synthetic bad (not pharmaceutical) drugs don't really have any "positive" side effects, and it's also easy, concealable income for baddies

blanket bans don't work, man. LSD and MDMA are both synthesized, and they're right up there among the highest potential psychoactive candidates for medicinal use.

Quote from Sea Beast

If someone worked a full time job and wanted to get stoned after work, or do any drug inside their home alone, why is their laws against that? Nobody is harmed, and if someone really wanted to just sit home all day using, why are we restricting them from that?

In my case we live in an apartment. Both me and my mom suffer from varying levels of motion sickness and immunity disorders, hers is more serious than mine.
When our downstairs neighbor decides to hotbox his apartment with weed, we get sick for a while. We've confronted him about it, but all he said to us is that "It smells so good because it's the good stuff", and if we called the police I know he'd loose his daughter because he's on his last straw with the government.

Now- I'd have to say it'd be alright if there were rules and restrictions on where you can get stoned. Like if the landlord says it's okay it'd be listed in the lease and it'd be a OK(I wouldn't live there but it'd be OK in my book). If you own the house or the lot, I'm sure that would also be fine. Similar to how there's Hookah bars and Clubs that allow smoking, it wouldn't be bad if there were Pot bars either.
But Public parks and other Public areas would likely stay off limits.

If I'm going to draw the line I'll draw it on drug use that can cause significant harm to other people.
Getting high in private would be legal, getting high and driving would get you in prison

Selling drugs in lethal quantities would be illegal and all drug selling would require the same levels of side effect listing on the packaging and clinical testing to have been carried out on it that drugs from a pharmaceutical shop would have.

Quote from RawGreen

In my case we live in an apartment. Both me and my mom suffer from varying levels of motion sickness and immunity disorders, hers is more serious than mine.
When our downstairs neighbor decides to hotbox his apartment with weed, we get sick for a while. We've confronted him about it, but all he said to us is that "It smells so good because it's the good stuff", and if we called the police I know he'd loose his daughter because he's on his last straw with the government.

Now- I'd have to say it'd be alright if there were rules and restrictions on where you can get stoned. Like if the landlord says it's okay it'd be listed in the lease and it'd be a OK(I wouldn't live there but it'd be OK in my book). If you own the house or the lot, I'm sure that would also be fine. Similar to how there's Hookah bars and Clubs that allow smoking, it wouldn't be bad if there were Pot bars either.
But Public parks and other Public areas would likely stay off limits.

similar restrictions to smoking tobacco basically, yeah. that's reasonable.

Quote from Skeletonxf

If I'm going to draw the line I'll draw it on drug use that can cause significant harm to other people.
Getting high in private would be legal, getting high and driving would get you in prison

Selling drugs in lethal quantities would be illegal and all drug selling would require the same levels of side effect listing on the packaging and clinical testing to have been carried out on it that drugs from a pharmaceutical shop would have.

similar restrictions to those on alcohol basically, yeah. that's reasonable.

Quote from Scarecrow

that would be a start; making a plant illegal is absurd. their safe use and clinical applications should be researched and implemented as I already described on page 2. likewise for extracts from plants.

synthetics are typically more dangerous simply because they often are new and have not been used widely enough to know what kind of effects they might have. these too should be researched, and made available only if they can be seen to either give an extraordinary/therapeutic experience that outweigh side effects if used responsibly, or to be safe enough to be used freely. details should be decided on a case-by-case basis by relevant professionals.

i guess what i'm saying is, the line should be drawn by open minded doctors and researchers - not by politicians who react with a knee jerk ban for anything that might cause people to start questioning things.

One thing I'd like to add is that synthetic man made drugs that can be received via prescription are one of the worse drugs out there. Millions of people are suffering from brutal addiction to drugs like opiates and benzodiazepams, compared to almost nobody suffering from drugs like Ecstasy, LSD, Marijuana, Shrooms. The worst drugs ever created were man made. Look at Meth or heroin or morphine. It's outrageous that somebody can tell a psychiatrist that they're depressed and get ahold of Zoloft and Xanax, but if they consume certain naturally occurring plants, they go to jail.

Xanax is one of the hardest drugs in the world.

I second.

Quote from Jutsu

Xanax is one of the hardest drugs in the world.

I second.

Definitely worse and more addictive than weed. Not to mention, Xanax can easily be substituted for weed, but no one wants that because then someone can grow their own medicine and not have to pay for a prescription.