"War on Drugs"
- Thread starter Virtuoso
- Start date
Eating weed just causes it to take a bit longer to kick in. The amount you'd need is similar, although you'd probably need a bit more than if you were smoking.
Look up the term 'space cakes'...
Great post Aphie. I can usually count on you for clear, logical posts. Believe it or not, the statistic is not 10% of our prison population, but <b>over 50% of American prisoners are non-violent drug offenders. </b> aka political prisoners.
Let me say this...if you aren't a weed smoker and you eat some brownies or "puna butter" on toast you will be knocked on your ass. Ingesting Cannabis is likened to smoking very good hashish (polm shaken or pressed from cannabis leaves/buds to make oil or bricks). To answer your question you need to eat very little to get high. It wil take longer to kick in but will last for hooourrrrsssssssss....s..........s...................s.
1 stick of butter.
1/4 of bud or alot or leaf.
place both in a double boiler and let it boil but not burn for a good half hour (the only way to transfer THC to the butter or oil product is via cooking. you cannot just ingest weed and get high you need to extract the THC).
Now simply use the butter in any recipe and enjoy.
That's outrageous EL and you know it. You know what that policy should be. About $50 a month. Do the math. You think I should pay $2100 a year so I can get a free physical and I still have to cough up the first $1000 deductible? Come on man, this is fraud. I can get a catastrophic insurance policy for $35 to $50 a month that gives me a $10,000 deductible.
So let's see here, let's take the annual premium and let's say I use up the whole deductible every year OK? That's $3100 a year right? Now take 10,000/3100 and we get about 3 freaking years, that's it. It takes me three years give or take a few months to breakeven on a catastrophic policy vs a regular policy. Now what if I go 20 or 30 years without any health problems? How much does that cost me? Well, let's take 20 years. The difference between 2100-420 (the cost of 12 x 35) =1680 x 20 years=$33,600 in overpayments. This is fraud of the worst kind. Can you explain to me why I would ever pay $173 a month vs catastrophic?
WTF are you talking about.
Why the hell would any healthcare costs even matter in drug decriminilization? If anything, drug related emergency visits and problems would go down due to strongly decreased crime.
It is very simple. Look at the history of alcohol prohibition. Did drinking all of the sudden skyrocket after its repeal? No it stayed the same. People are gonna do whatever drugs they want. Most drugs are so easily accessible and are not regulated by their distributors. It's easier for a 16 year old to get a hard drug like X or coke vs getting cigarettes or alcohol. Drug dealers don't ask for proof of age. Drugs create a black market and a taboo image. Look at Holland, their Marijuana and hard drug usage is less than USA's.
Complete nonsense. Seriously man, stop trying to talk super intelligent because you are talking out of your ass. Do yourself a favor and watch the Penn & Teller episode on the War on Drugs. It is not at all biased, I mean Penn HATES all drugs.
What's the real connection?
What percentage of illegal drug use instances result in emergency room visits? .0005?
And by your standard (another example of your mindless sophistry) consumers of anything legal that can result in emergency room care should be denied care. Car wreck, sorry, take two bandaids, two aspirin. Heart attack, sorry, too much steak and ice cream, no care for you. In other words, if there is any health risk to any activity one undertakes, then you can't be offerred emergency room care. That covers simply existing.
Mecro, I am not even talking about drug decriminalization. I am talking about healthcare costs and the acceptance of drug users into free emergency room care and insurance policies. What this has to do with prohibition in the 1930's is beyond me.
The point I am making is if drugs were legal, not the act of decriminalizing drugs, but if they were legal, there would be a substantial increase in the treatment of abusers in emergency rooms and the there would an increased burden on insurance providers if they were forced to cover those charges. As of right now, they don't.
See, I think we are having different arguments here. I am not talking about the act of decriminalization. Rather I am talking about the consequences of decriminalization especially how it pertains to the insurance industry and emergency room care.
The act of decriminalization is a political debate. I'm not getting into that as I have said previously, I don't care one way or the other. What people do in their own homes is up to them as long as they don't get behind the wheel of a car while under the influence or expose drugs to their children then I am game. But if you think that legalization would not increase the burden on our healthcare system then I guess you would also argue that obesity doesn't increase the burden of our healthcare system either and that is flat out wrong.
I watched that episode and thought it very well done.
HOWEVER, P & T mostly covered marijuana. All they had to say about the hard drugs were that they were cheap and their dangers could be better brought to the public's attention via more education.
I agree with P & T's assessment of marijuana, but heroin, crack, crystal meth, etc. are too dangerous to legalize IMHO. As far as I'm aware, even the Netherlands, Land of Legal Cannabis, has not legalized those substances.
I don't think you understand how out emergency care works in this country since you live in Europe. The emergency room in this country has basically become the resting palce for everyone in this country that does not have health insurance because by law, anyone that comes to an emergency room, cannot be turned away. So what we have is people who instead of paying to see a doctor because they have no money, they simply go to an emergency room, for anything.
Your back hurts, headache, broke a nail, you name it, they go to the emergency room. And no, the point is not about turning people away that engage in anything that is dangerous. When people choose to ruin their health, why should the american taxpayer have to foot the bill? He shouldn't, that's my point, it all comes down to personal responsibility, that's it.
As of right now, drug abusers seek very little treatment in hospitals for obvious reasons, if drugs were legal, all drugs, the social stigma would be removed and the hospitals would be flooded with drug users. Either from over doses or from symptoms of drug use.
Look, I don't want to keep arguing about this because not one person on here has stated that they would take personal responsilibty for their own health which is quite sad. They want all this freedom, but they don't want to pay for it.