Current Events > The House just passed a bill to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level

(+) Yeah! (+)

electricbugs2 posted...

They should stick people like you in the New Amsterdam area of Vancouver and force you to breathe the air until you become the next Nikita Tryamkin, except minus being a pro athlete.

This is just silly....

---

LordMarshal posted...

This is just silly....

Back to Russia!

---

stupid waste of time. gonna die in the senate.

---

LordMarshal posted...

Some entire areas just reek with it and it not even legal. I actively call cops on them. Funny enough they usually have much bigger reasons to not want the cops about so it typically works.

Apartments/jobs would still have their own rules so technically this is fine.

lmao @ the SDE

---

monkmith posted...

stupid waste of time. gonna die in the senate.

Agreed but this is a lame duck Congress. Anything serious before January should be highly scrutinized.

---

This is a mistake. Because the next logical step would be to decriminalize meth, heroin, etc

J_Punky87 posted...

This is a mistake. Because the next logical step would be to decriminalize meth, heroin, etc

I see no issue.

---

J_Punky87 posted...

This is a mistake. Because the next logical step would be to decriminalize meth, heroin, etc

And

---

J_Punky87 posted...

This is a mistake. Because the next logical step would be to decriminalize meth, heroin, etc

lmao

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Marijuana is a competitor to many of their products especially sleep aids (which aren't really sleep aids but antipsychotics being prescribed for their side effects) and pain killers.

Bruh Ambian aint no antipsychotic.

---

J_Punky87 posted...

This is a mistake. Because the next logical step would be to decriminalize meth, heroin, etc

*sips mushroom tea at this post*

---

nothanks1 posted...

so long as employees can get fired for being high then I'm happy

Agreed. Just bc its legal, doesnt mean its okay to be under the influence on the job

---

COVxy posted...

I have serious doubts about the actual practical use of marijuana as a pain killer. What's the dose response curve look like for analgesia vs the psychotropic effects?

Even coming at this from a purely skeptical viewpoint, the liability for addiction is a good thing for these companies, and given the lack of it with marijuana, seems less likely overtake.

Kinda seems like a silly take. I'm not saying there's absolutely no clinical uses for marijuana, but I don't think there's much that's been shown to actually be effective enough to be that important. Exceptions being for appetite for those on drugs that suppress appetite, like chemotherapy.

I've always seen the issue of marijuana criminalization having much more to do with culture and systemic racism than corporatism.

Stuff was great for headaches with me. And i know a guy who quit taking his morphine and used weed instead.

I didnt even need to get high to help a headache just a couple of puffs and id feel it fade away pretty shortly so its speed even trumped pills for me

---

J_Punky87 posted...

This is a mistake. Because the next logical step would be to decriminalize meth, heroin, etc

Dogs sleeping with cats, women presidents, lets just legalize everything.

---

Conflict posted...

pseudoscience

Usually when people use that word they don't know what it means lol.

---

ZeroX91 posted...

Bruh Ambian aint no antipsychotic.

Ambien isn't but Seroquel is.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Ambien isn't but Seroquel is.

I can't imagine seroquel is prescribed as a sleep aid very often.

---

COVxy posted...

I can't imagine seroquel is prescribed as a sleep aid very often.

It's fairly common actually. 70% of antipsychotics in America are prescribed for a non-psychotic condition.

---

The self proclaimed party of small government will surely make sure this passes the senate, right?

---

Lost_All_Senses posted...

It's all good. I could definitely top your stories with the negatives anyway. It's the worst addiction I ever had and brought me to some insane lows where I was losing my fuckin mind. But I worked it out and can use it without taking it too far again.

Good. I'm currently in the midst of an addiction too. To drugs

Opiods

---

Republicans are about to fuck this up for everybody

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

It's fairly common actually. 70% of antipsychotics in America are prescribed for a non-psychotic condition.

I don't know how much that statistic reflects use as a sleep aid.

---

COVxy posted...

I don't know how much that statistic reflects use as a sleep aid.

Neither do I but casual searching points to insomnia being the most popular off-label use of Seroquel.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Neither do I but casual searching points to insomnia being the most popular off-label use of Seroquel.

Yeah, but a quick google search also turns up much more about how it's not a good idea than how it's a good evidence based off label use.

I think that particular point you made was supposed to be bombastic, though.

---

COVxy posted...

Yeah, but a quick google search also turns up much more about how it's not a good idea than how it's a good evidence based off label use.

I think that particular point you made was supposed to be bombastic, though.

I am not arguing that it is a good idea to prescribe antipsychotics for insomnia, just that it is done with alarming frequency. Similar to how we got into the mess we are now with opioids being too casually prescribed for things they should not have been.


---

uwnim posted...

The self proclaimed party of small government will surely make sure this passes the senate, right?

Small government for corporations, large government for people.

Get it together bruh

---

uwnim posted...

The self proclaimed party of small government will surely make sure this passes the senate, right?

Or people could just, not do drugs

J_Punky87 posted...

Or people could just, not do drugs

Yes, but it should be their choice.

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Small government for corporations, large government for people.

Get it together bruh

Oh, that does spend more like it.


---

uwnim posted...

Yes, but it should be their choice.

Why?

Tyranthraxus posted...

alarming frequency

But you don't know what that frequency is! You are just assuming it's high because you've heard it's an off label use. I imagine most patients with insomnia do not get prescribed an anti-psychotic.

But beyond that, it's not even clear that it would help patients in that situation.

Going back to the original discussion, there's just not any indication that marijuana is such an effective treatment for disorders that pharmacology companies are profiting from to make the initial argument that big pharma influence in politics is the reason marijuana is still illegal. The argument just isn't there.

---

obsolete posted...

You know what Mitch is gonna do.

Everyone knows what Mitch will do. That's why the stocks went down with the news.

---

COVxy posted...

I have serious doubts about the actual practical use of marijuana as a pain killer. What's the dose response curve look like for analgesia vs the psychotropic effects?

Even coming at this from a purely skeptical viewpoint, the liability for addiction is a good thing for these companies, and given the lack of it with marijuana, seems less likely overtake.

Kinda seems like a silly take. I'm not saying there's absolutely no clinical uses for marijuana, but I don't think there's much that's been shown to actually be effective enough to be that important. Exceptions being for appetite for those on drugs that suppress appetite, like chemotherapy.

I've always seen the issue of marijuana criminalization having much more to do with culture and systemic racism than corporatism.

My chronic arthritis disagrees with you.

---

J_Punky87 posted...

Why?

Because they are the one who's either using drugs or not using them.
Because it being federally illegal isn't doing anything to stop people from doing that.
Because if the government is going to restrict freedom, it needs to have a clear and compelling reason to do so and whatever it does needs to be effective.

---

COVxy posted...

I can't imagine seroquel is prescribed as a sleep aid very often.

https://tidsskriftet.no/en/2019/09/kronikk/quetiapine-not-sleeping-pill

COVxy posted...

Yeah, but a quick google search also turns up much more about how it's not a good idea than how it's a good evidence based off label use.

Those aren't made out of nowhere. Those articles are because of the increase of prescriptions for off label use of the drug.

COVxy posted...

Going back to the original discussion, there's just not any indication that marijuana is such an effective treatment for disorders that pharmacology companies are profiting from to make the initial argument that big pharma influence in politics is the reason marijuana is still illegal.

There aren't a ton of studies, but mostly because in the US cannabis is a schedule 1 drug. I'm not telling you to put all your stock in everyone's anecdotal evidence, but millions of people use it for chronic pain relief, headaches, and as a sleeping aid. Again, while I am mentioning that people take it for these reasons I am fully aware that it is anecdotal, I'm not mentioning it as scientific data. But even then, some studies have been done. It's just not enough clinical data, and I don't think there will be until we change things federally.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190701224523.htm

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK224384/

It needs to get off Schedule 1 and properly tested.

---

uwnim posted...

Because they are the one who's either using drugs or not using them.
Because it being federally illegal isn't doing anything to stop people from doing that.
Because if the government is going to restrict freedom, it needs to have a clear and compelling reason to do so and whatever it does needs to be effective.

Yeah but then we have to decriminalize not using seatbelts, Jay walking, nudity, etc

J_Punky87 posted...

Yeah but then we have to decriminalize not using seatbelts, Jay walking, nudity, etc

Human sacrifice, cats and dogs living together!

---

Fuck the legislative branch. Biden needs to use an executive order day one to decriminalize it. Let us have 4 years for the American people to be used to it then any future Republican would commit political suicide trying to overturn it via executive order.

IXI_Fission_IXI posted...

Fuck the legislative branch. Biden needs to use an executive order day one to decriminalize it. Let us have 4 years for the American people to be used to it then any future Republican would commit political suicide trying to overturn it via executive order.

Like, it doesn't work that way.

---

I work for a company that does drug testing. It'll be interesting to see marijuana removed from that list.

FortuneCookie posted...

I work for a company that does drug testing. It'll be interesting to see marijuana removed from that list.

I don't think it would be, unless you test for crime purposes only. I assumed(perhaps erroneously) that you test for business as well. I don't think businesses will start to allow their employees to smoke, regardless of the legality of it.
---

TheMikh posted...

jesus christ republicans, get it together

hoping it manages to get through the senate

for real

---

Bandit_Keith posted...

I don't think it would be, unless you test for crime purposes only. I assumed(perhaps erroneously) that you test for business as well. I don't think businesses will start to allow their employees to smoke, regardless of the legality of it.

It'll be interesting to see somebody test positive for a legal substance. I understand not being able to smoke on the job, but I wonder if employers can realistically say, "We're not hiring you. You've used a legal substance within the past 60 days."

I could be wrong.

So what are the odds that this actually poots its way through and becomes law

---

Mr_Rian posted...

Like, it doesn't work that way.

It literally does...

J_Punky87 posted...

This is a mistake. Because the next logical step would be to decriminalize meth, heroin, etc

As they should. The government shouldn't regulate what I put into my body.
---

nothanks1 posted...

so long as employees can get fired for being high then I'm happy

How a business wants to operate is their decision.

---

harley2280 posted...

As they should. The government shouldn't regulate what I put into my body.

I think hard narcotics lead to problems that arent of the health persuasion. When your usage starts bleeding over to your demeanor towards others, it needs to be regulated.

---