Canada to Decriminalize Pot Possession

[SpencerH]

I'm not implying anything. I'm merely giving an alternative viewpoint to strangelove's assertion that all physicians are doctors. If schooling was all there was to it, other professionals, such as lawyers, would be doctors too.

[Ming]

I guess you guys didn't read my earlier post...

SO ONE MORE TIME SO MAYBE YOU WILL GET THE MESSAGE.

STOP THE PERSONAL CRAP NOW. I really don't care who started it anymore... But, IT WILL STOP NOW.

IS THAT CLEAR.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by SpencerH
There most certainly is a way around it. If you havent written a thesis, then had it tested and accepted by a group of scholars in the field and a recognized institution of higher learning, then one is not a 'Doctor'.

The essence of a doctorate is the discovery of something new. It is not the simple act of memorizing and regurgitating what is already known.

That's merely one definition. In most countries medical doctors do not have to do original research, so by your definition none of them should be referred to as "doctor". Unfortunately you don't write the dictionary. In order to become a physician in the US you have to have earned the degree of "Medical Doctor". It is well accepted that bearers of the M.D. degree are entitled to be referred to as doctors.

Other countries have variations on this title, but they all have the same effect. In order to become a physician you have to be a graduate of a medical school, and such graduates are granted the right to bear the title of "doctor".

Yes, I know that medical students in clerkships are often permitted to bear the title prior to graduation, but this is simply a matter of convenience.

[SpencerH]

What personal crap? I'm certainly not impugning Strangeloves abilities as a physician since I dont know them.

Surely we can discuss the definition of doctor?

I can post my credentials on the matter, including where my thesis was nailed, so I would think I should be allowed an opinion on the matter despite a disagreement with the AMA (which many other scientists also have).

[Berzerker]

Strangelove -

Physicians ARE doctors. There's no way around it. If you are a physician then you are by definition a doctor. Not all doctors are physicians obviously.

Agreed, so you may not be a physician when you claim to be a doctor.

I've argued with Berz on many an occasion, and I am certain that I've mentioned my profession to him before. He forgot. Oh well.

Nope, just that you work(ed) with addicts. Since you made it sound like it was your primary field, I took it to mean you did some kind of counselling work at a rehab. Btw, you haven't debated this issue with us much at all, you hop into a thread and post your arguments, then ignore the various rebuttals and disappear until the next drug thread. When you claim pot can cause murder by pointing to a pot smoker who murdered someone because he thought the victim stole his pot, you're ignoring cause and effect. When we've pointed that out in the past, you just disappear. If I murdered someone because I mistakenly believed they stole my money, would you conclude money caused the murder? Of course not. Anger and the desire for vengeance caused the murder.

At the time that the Harrison Act was enacted an estimated 10 million Americans used various forms of opiod regularily. Paregoric and Laudenum were the most common forms. Heroin, a chemical derivative opiod, was much more expensive and uncommonly used. The use of opiods and the death rate from overdosing dropped dramatically.

From my research, ~1.3% of the population was addicted to what are now illegal drugs. And today? ~1.3% of the population is addicted to illegal drugs. We've had decades of the drug war and nothing to show for it except a bigger government controlling our lives. Do you have a link? I suggest you study this graph before extolling the results of prohibition:

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/graphs/10.htm

I'm sure, if you're a doctor, you've treated some of the people injured because of your drug war. Ironic, huh?

This is pretty silly don't you think? Snatching a few butts from Mom or siphoning off Dad's liquor supply can't be very difficult, can it?

What's silly is you didn't even respond to what I said. My kids tell me what I knew to be true, that illegal drugs were easier to get in school than alcohol and booze. I'm not talking about a few butts or a sip of booze. We don't see the Marlboro Man and his friend Bud walking around school campuses selling to kids, but we do see other drugs being sold in large quantities.

Glad to see you coming around old man.

So, you want to ban every product that a child can hurt themselves with? Tell us, Doc, how many people will be in jail when you're done with us?

To the extent of demanding that parents be required to stow weapons responsibly, sure. I'm no big fan of alcohol either. Glad to hear that you're beginning to recognise the consequences of easy access to this stuff.

Since I've already explained how "easy" access caused fewer problems in the past, it sure takes an active imagination to conclude the opposite. Now,you didn't answer my question.

How about building safety odes? Should a guy go to prison for blocking up ther side exits to his bar just because a few people fried at some cafe fire in Rhode Island?

You have your "facts" wrong, the side exits were not blocked off. People used those exits to escape the fire but many of the people didn't know they were there and when the power went out people couldn't get out because of the lack of visibility. As to your first question, if owners of a building cause harm to guests, they are responsible for the harm they caused. Now, would you care to explain why that is analogous to someone smoking pot in the privacy of their home (and don't add a bunch of caveats to change my question)?

Has anyone ever been hurt by NOT smoking dope?

Oh, so now you equate hurting millions of people with people allegedly hurting themselves? Let me see, so if someone stubs their toe, you can punch them in the face too because they hurt themself first?

Oh good. Does this mean that hitherto you will concede arguments of fact to me since you will be restricting your arguments to your moral understanding?

Then that would mean you have to concede your position is immoral. No, Doc, contrary to what you may think, the opinions of doctors on this matter are not more valid than everyone elses. Tell me why I need to be a doctor to have a valid opinion. I'd think economists are better suited than doctors since they understand what black markets are and how they can create crime and violence.

Does morality exist in the absence of fact?

No.

But you just said that your only qualification was your moral understanding. In order to judge the truth of a statement you need facts. Therefore you are unable to judge whether my statements were "falsehoods" or lies.

First, you didn't read what I typed and took your confusion as an accusation of deceit so I corrected you. I didn't say that was my only qualification, you were asking for medical qualifications. Now, since you think your position as a doctor makes you more qualified than non-doctors, what position did the AMA take on the proposed ban on pot back in 1937 and why did the AMA reverse it's position 2 years later? Once you answer that, we can discuss why your opinion is more valid than the AMA's opinion in 1937.

I think the topic was gun control

That helps. I think you're wrong. You can solve this by quoting me, you know.

Again, I'll use the building safety code argument. The effects of marijuana on coordination, cognition, memory, thought processes and judgement are well established.

Before relying on a bad argument too often, you should wait to see rebuttals. The proper analogy to your Rhode Island fire example would be to imprison ALL bar owners because of what happened in that bar. That is what you advocate for ALL pot smokers based on what SOME pot smokers have done to others.

You did say that based on my arguments you felt that I could not be a doctor right?

Where did I say that? Your arguments raise doubts, but I don't know if you're a doctor any more than Boris knows.

Surely you didn't say this based upon your knowledge of position statements of medical societies or of other physician's beliefs, because my statements aren't different from the majority of US physicians.

You know of a poll consulting all the doctors in the country? You're addressing comments I made to Boris, so the context in which those comments were made matter. Boris said I implied you were lying because you don't agree with me. That's an assinine assertion and Boris should know better (not that anything he says surprises me now), that would mean I believe every doctor in the country agrees with me inspite of the fact there are obviously thousands of doctors on both sides of this issue.

The reason that you discounted the possibility that I was a physician was because disagree with you.

That's assinine! According to that "logic", I must believe every doctor in the country who doesn't agree with me is lying about being a doctor, including the surgeon general. As I explained, I had my doubts, and still do frankly, because of your arguments, not your position. You don't understand cause and effect and I find that amazing for someone who went thru med school to become a doctor when medicine relies so heavily on cause and effect.

Why "cage" someone for driving 90 miles/hour through a school zone if he does so without hitting someone?

I wouldn't, I'd revoke his license. You know, the permission he obtained from the public to drive on public roads? Don't confuse your rationale for mine, motorists don't have a right to drive on public roads and if they violate the contract they agreed to then that permission may be withdrawn. Do you understand property rights? You've just equated public property with private property.

Why cage someone for staging an open auction of weapons grade Plutonium on the internet?

If they are using someone else's property without permission, they'd be punished. Do you have the right to transport plutonium across other people's property? If not, why use them to justify hurting pot smokers?

Why cage someone for dropping ball bearings off of a skyscraper if he doesn't hit someone?

If they have permission, I wouldn't. Are you getting this yet?

We need another intoxicant legally available liek we need all of these things.

Yeah, smoking pot is analogous to all those scenarios.

What false accusation? You haven't even specified what the false accusation was!

Geez, I've specified the false accusation repeatedly. You want to cage millions of people for using drugs, not because of what they've done, but because of what others have done.

Oh well. The fact is that the marijana legalization movement in the US is running out of steam.

Wrong (and irrelevant). As more people become victims of your crusade, more people join.

In the last election each and every one of the pro-weed referrendums were resoundingly defeated. Looks like it's the voice of the people around here!

So you like majority rule when you're in the majority, what else is new? This thread is about pot reform in Canada where the people are also speaking, do you support those reforms because the voice of the people is being heard up there? One election cycle doesn't mean the movement is running out of steam, it means a majority of the people who vote rejected a series of measures.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by SpencerH
What personal crap? I'm certainly not impugning Strangeloves abilities as a physician since I dont know them.

Surely we can discuss the definition of doctor?

I can post my credentials on the matter, including where my thesis was nailed, so I would think I should be allowed an opinion on the matter despite a disagreement with the AMA (which many other scientists also have).

I think Ming may be referring to my long slice and dice rebuttal to Berzerker.

So you're saying then that M.D.s should not be referred to as "doctor" becauser they don't write a thesis? Well, for one, I happen to also have a Ph.D. in Anatomy, and I did in fact write a doctoral thesis. For the other, the title "doctor" has been around a lot longer than the requirement of writing a thesis. In fact the title was originally given to divinity graduates at a time when universitys were mere training posts for theologans. The practice of having seperate lines of study for non-theologans (Ph.D.s) and physicians (M.D.s)began at approximatley the same time. You are a little late at proposing a new definition for the title, about 600 years too late! You're entitled to your opinion though. However, either way you cut it I still have earned the title of "doctor".

[Berzerker]

Spencer -

I can post my credentials on the matter, including where my thesis was nailed, so I would think I should be allowed an opinion on the matter despite a disagreement with the AMA (which many other scientists also have).

In 1937, the AMA opposed the ban on pot. Over the next 2 years, 3,000 doctors were convicted of illegally prescribing narcotics. In 1939, the AMA reversed it's position. Over the next ~13 years, only 3 doctors were convicted of illegally prescribing narcotics. The AMA learned what can happen when they don't play along. This all happened under Harry Anslinger of the federal bureau of narcotics. In 1937, he testified before Congress claiming pot turned people into homicidal maniacs. In the early 1950's when the commies became the enemy, he testified that pot was a commie plot to pacify Americans. So, pot smokers went from being homicidal maniacs to pacifists in less than 2 decades.

[Lincoln]

Quotes from Berzeker:

I believe the issue is about adults, but yes. When all drugs were legal, we didn't see children getting involved with drugs anywhere near the extent we see now. Children could even buy morphine in stores. But banning drugs has only created a massive black market which has spilled over to get kids involved and created the taboo phenomenon without reducing drug use. If you really cared about "the children", you'd consider the possibility (in fact, the reality) that prohibition has only escalated drug use and involvement by minors.

I do, [have kids] and they've told me it's easier to get drugs in school than booze or tobacco which was my experience when I was in school.

...then booze, tobacco, guns, cars, war, and so much more should be banned, true? If you want to demagogue this issue by pointing to children, then why limit the demagoguery to just drugs you don't like?

If a doctor has to treat a child for a gunshot wound or because a drunk parent beat them, do you demand all gunowners and alcohol users be punished?

That's right, I believe in personal responsibility. I believe punishing the innocent for the behavior of the guilty is immoral. I'll bet you'd agree if it was you being put in a cage because someone else did something bad to others.

Does that include ALL alcohol and tobacco dealers regardless of whether or not they sell to kids?

----------------------------------------------------

My response:

Forgive me but I have now figured out why you parse people's thoughts. You have taken most of my comments and twisted the pbvious meaning. Can you take a complete paragraph of thought and answer it with your own complete thought? It really would be a more honest debate that way.

The first quote above however did represent my views and your relevant response so I can only say that I lived during the sixties and I saw first hand the "free love and free drugs" culture and what caused the increased use of drugs. Do you really think that the youth rebellion (or whatever you want to call it) in the sixties would not have taken place if drugs were legal? Would the pot smoking and acid dropping hippies never have come into existence if only we had legal access to drugs? I don't agree that legalization causes increased or decreased use of drugs to any great extent. People use drugs because they get high when they use them. People drank alchohol before and after prohibition.

Yes, I agree that drugs are very easy to get in school but what does that have to do with legalization? Would they be easier or more difficult to obtain if they were made legal? Kids like greasy hamburgers and frenchfries. Do they eat them because they are legal, or would they eat more if they were illegal just to show that they were rebellious? They use drugs because it makes them high.

The third quote (above) is simply a dishonest response to my comment which I think you did intentionally to divert attention from the truth that you will not concede. Here is what I said, incase you forgot:

the "idiocy" comment comes from dealing with people who cannot seem to draw a line between liberty for themselves at the expense of their children.

I was obviously TALKING ABOUT THE MISUSE OF PERSONAL LIBERTY AT THE EXPENSE OF CHILDREN. Is that a valid reason for limiting personal liberty? Yes__ No__ I was talking about drug dealers using the innocence of children to get them hooked on drugs so they can make money. Are they "free" to do that or not? Should society jail these people or not? Yes, jail them__ No, let them be free__. Now please tell me, what do cars, wars etc. have to do with my statement taken in context and not parsed so you can divert us from the obvious question?

Then you talk about punishing the guilty and not the innocent. Are drug dealers who prey on people, including kids, innocent or guilty? If they are guilty should they go to jail even though they did not actually force the drugs down anyone's throat? Yes__ No__

And, no that does not "inlcude ALL tobacco users..." etc. Now why don't you answer the essence of my post in one concise paragraph? The idea is quite simple. Should people who use their liberty at the expense of weaker, innocent members of society go to jail or otherwise be punished? Yes__ No__

[Berzerker]

Lincoln -

Forgive me but I have now figured out why you parse people's thoughts. You have taken most of my comments and twisted the pbvious meaning. Can you take a complete paragraph of thought and answer it with your own complete thought? It really would be a more honest debate that way.

MING! Lincoln has accused me of being dishonest, WAAAAAA.

Lincoln, do you have an example? Btw, you say my debate style doesn't properly address your arguments, but you didn't answer my questions using your style of debate.

The first quote above however did represent my views and your relevant response so I can only say that I lived during the sixties and I saw first hand the "free love and free drugs" culture and what caused the increased use of drugs.

So your proof is a quote that does represent your views?

Do you really think that the youth rebellion (or whatever you want to call it) in the sixties would not have taken place if drugs were legal?

But it did take place and drugs were illegal, how does that help your case? To answer your question, drugs were periphal. The "youth movement" was more a result of Jim Crow, civil rights, Vietnam, the draft, and the cyclical cultural rebellions young people have always engaged in.

Would the pot smoking and acid dropping hippies never have come into existence if only we had legal access to drugs?

Since they supposedly were outside of existence when drugs were illegal, why did illegality bring them back?

I don't agree that legalization causes increased or decreased use of drugs to any great extent. People use drugs because they get high when they use them. People drank alchohol before and after prohibition.

More minors use illegal drugs now than back when all drugs were legal. When people began pushing for the criminalisation of drugs, it wasn't because of children. The first target was smoked opium because that was how many Chinese people used opium. Then when cocaine became the target, it was the fear of black men raping white women. And when pot came under attack, it was those Mexicans. Reefer Madness was the first attempt to use children to promote a drug war. However, since you believe prohibition doesn't really work, i.e., significantly reduce consumption, what's the point? Why support a policy that only increases government control over your life and increases crime if there is no gain?

Yes, I agree that drugs are very easy to get in school but what does that have to do with legalization?

It has to do with illegalisation, not legalisation. The drug war has resulted in a massive black market. And that black market created to supply adults has spilled over to supply children. Here is a good example of how destructive the drug war has been. Back in the early to mid-80's, Reagan and Congress began increasing penalties for adults caught trafficking/dealing drugs. Most if not all of the states soon followed. What was the result? Many adults in the drug trade began recruiting children into the drug trade to avoid the harsher penalties. So what happened then? Gang recruitment shot thru the roof and juvenile crime has been dramatically increasing ever since.

Would they be easier or more difficult to obtain if they were made legal?

Depends on how serious people are willing to be with enforcement. If you tell adults they can legally buy and sell drugs, but they will be hit really hard for involving children, then I imagine the black market to supply adults would disappear leaving behind a much smaller black market supplying children. If drugs were legalised across the board for everyone, we might see a temporary increase in use among kids followed by declining drug use to pre-drug war levels. I don't know if it's legal for children to drink booze in France, but they certainly don't have a booze war there to prevent adolescent use. So, does France see an epidemic of child alcoholics? Nope, if anything, we'd be happy to have their rates of alcohol use among minors.

Kids like greasy hamburgers and frenchfries. Do they eat them because they are legal, or would they eat more if they were illegal just to show that they were rebellious?

They eat them because people need food to live.

They use drugs because it makes them high.

Yes, but that doesn't explain why we didn't see a massive drug problem among minors when all drugs were legal. I believe pot is legal in India, but we don't see a bunch of children getting stoned over there. Pot is basicly legal in Holland and has been for about 25 years, but Holland has lower consumption rates by children than the USA.

The third quote (above) is simply a dishonest response to my comment which I think you did intentionally to divert attention from the truth that you will not concede.

At least you tried to offer an example, usually people just accuse me of twisting their words and ignore my request for proof. I'll deal with your example.

Here is what I said, in case you forgot:

the "idiocy" comment comes from dealing with people who cannot seem to draw a line between liberty for themselves at the expense of their children.

I was obviously TALKING ABOUT THE MISUSE OF PERSONAL LIBERTY AT THE EXPENSE OF CHILDREN.

First, many people oppose the drug war and don't even use drugs, so how are they "misusing" their liberty at the expense of their children? Second, this "misuse" is in your mind, not mine. It is not a misuse of liberty for a parent to smoke pot or drink booze.

Is that a valid reason for limiting personal liberty? Yes__ No__

No.

I was talking about drug dealers using the innocence of children to get them hooked on drugs so they can make money.

Really? So upon that basis you accuse me of being dishonest? Where in your statement did you mention drug dealers hooking children? Here is your statement again:

the "idiocy" comment comes from dealing with people who cannot seem to draw a line between liberty for themselves at the expense of their children.

I don't see drug dealers mentioned, just people and THEIR children.

Are they "free" to do that or not?

Drug dealers and children? Children are not "free" to do as they wish since freedom involves "consent" which is reserved for adults. But I wouldn't make it illegal for children to use drugs, that's where the role of the family enters the picture. I don't want to put your kids in cages for using pot even if you tell them not to use it.

Should society jail these people or not? Yes, jail them__ No, let them be free__.

"Society" doesn't jail people, people jail people. But no...it's up to parents to raise their kids, not "society". I'm not a Hillary fan...so "it takes a village" arguments don't sway me.

Now please tell me, what do cars, wars etc. have to do with my statement taken in context and not parsed so you can divert us from the obvious question?

You said adults should be put in cages for using drugs because you don't want children using drugs. Do you want children fighting wars, driving cars, using booze and tobacco, etc? If not, why do you use children to limit the freedom of adults when it comes to drugs you don't like and not all these other things? I wasn't "diverting" away from your question, I was explaining to you why it is illogical to ban certain activities for adults based on what children might do. Your failure to understand my point doesn't mean I'm being dishonest.

Then you talk about punishing the guilty and not the innocent. Are drug dealers who prey on people, including kids, innocent or guilty?

What exactly are they guilty of? You accuse me of diverting away from your question and that is exactly what you are doing. Now you're using drug dealers as an excuse to punish adults who use drugs. I've consistently said you want to cage millions of DRUG USERS based on what other people who use drugs do to others, and you then divert away from that to drug dealers. Furthermore, you argue for punishing adults who use drugs, then you imply these same people are victims being preyed upon. Do you also want to put rape victims in cages?

If they are guilty should they go to jail even though they did not actually force the drugs down anyone's throat? Yes__ No__

No. Now, can you deal with my statement instead of changing it to fit your argument? The innocent people I've consistently referred to are all the drug users who don't hurt others, but you want to focus only on drug dealers who "prey" on others. Sorry Lincoln, but when I bought pot from a friend, they were not "preying" on me, thank you so much for your concern.

And, no that does not "inlcude ALL tobacco users..." etc.

It should if you were being consistent.

Now why don't you answer the essence of my post in one concise paragraph? The idea is quite simple.

Geez, I've been answering your questions. Does the entirety of your post contain some question I've been avoiding?

Should people who use their liberty at the expense of weaker, innocent members of society go to jail or otherwise be punished? Yes__ No__

No. But I suspect you and I don't have the same definition of liberty. Should tobacco farmers and dealers be put in cages for "preying" on addicts? Should alcohol makers and dealers be put in cages for "preying" on alcoholics? Should all the people who use alcohol or tobacco be put in cages? That's what you advocate for the millions of people who use other drugs, and then you claim the people you want thrown in cages are victims being preyed upon.

[Lincoln]

Well thanks Berzeker. You really did answer my questions this time! No hard feelings buddy, but your honest answers (although I comend your honesty) do not persuade me to become a libertarian (even though I am inclined in the direction of personal liberty). I simply do not believe in conducting our lives in disregard to the influence our actions have on the weaker members of society. We disagree but that is the spice of life. Have a nice evening and thanks for being a good sport.

[Lincoln]

And in answer to your question, yes, I do believe that people who intentionally try to poisen people whether in manufacturing or whatever should be punished. Of course all the substances you mentioned are not poisen. The tobacco makers who willfully deceived the public should be prosecuted for example. The key is the INTENTIONAL abuse of the innocent. Unhealthy substances should not be banned but social predators should be punished.

[monkspider]

Heh "berzed", I like it.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Spencer -

In 1937, the AMA opposed the ban on pot. Over the next 2 years, 3,000 doctors were convicted of illegally prescribing narcotics. In 1939, the AMA reversed it's position. Over the next ~13 years, only 3 doctors were convicted of illegally prescribing narcotics. The AMA learned what can happen when they don't play along. This all happened under Harry Anslinger of the federal bureau of narcotics. In 1937, he testified before Congress claiming pot turned people into homicidal maniacs. In the early 1950's when the commies became the enemy, he testified that pot was a commie plot to pacify Americans. So, pot smokers went from being homicidal maniacs to pacifists in less than 2 decades.

So you're implying that the Federal government extorted the AMA into changing its position? Aren't you forgetting that it takes a jury to convict a person? I might also point out that most narcotics prosecutions of physicians take place at the state level. Even if the Feds eased up on enforcemnt against physicians that wouldn't stop the states. Heck, this one state puts away at least 3 physicians for violating the state's prescription drug laws every year. I'd like to see more detailed information on the types of offenses prosecuted during the 1937-1939 time period you're talking about. Come to think of it, the Controlled Substances Act wasn't passed until the late 1960s.

[Berzerker]

Lincoln -

Well thanks Berzeker. You really did answer my questions this time!

I've been answering your questions, but you're welcome.

No hard feelings buddy, but your honest answers (although I comend your honesty) do not persuade me to become a libertarian (even though I am inclined in the direction of personal liberty).

No problem, I know how hard it would be to convince me to switch positions.

I simply do not believe in conducting our lives in disregard to the influence our actions have on the weaker members of society.

Then we'd be straightjacketed by the weaknesses of others if that standard was applied consistently.

We disagree but that is the spice of life. Have a nice evening and thanks for being a good sport.

You too.

And in answer to your question, yes, I do believe that people who intentionally try to poisen people whether in manufacturing or whatever should be punished. Of course all the substances you mentioned are not poisen. The tobacco makers who willfully deceived the public should be prosecuted for example. The key is the INTENTIONAL abuse of the innocent. Unhealthy substances should not be banned but social predators should be punished.

A family member by marriage died of alcoholism at a young age. I don't blame the people who make and sell booze for his actions though.

Strangelove -

So you're implying that the Federal government extorted the AMA into changing its position?

Didn't mean to imply it, I meant to say it quite clearly.

Aren't you forgetting that it takes a jury to convict a person?

You think the extortion didn't occur because no politicians or bureaucrats were tried and convicted in a court for "enforcing the law"? Does that mean you think OJ was innocent? Since you're a doc, and I assume a member of the AMA, why don't you ask some of your colleagues with knowledge of what happened back then with Anslinger.

I might also point out that most narcotics prosecutions of physicians take place at the state level.

And? The federal bureau of narcotics under Harry Anslinger did convict ~3,000 doctors between 1937 and 1939. In 1939, the AMA reversed it's position and over the next ~13 years, only 3 doctors were convicted by Anslinger's gang. If that passes your smell test, then God only knows what won't...

Even if the Feds eased up on enforcemnt against physicians that wouldn't stop the states.

Even if that was true (and I don't buy it), so what? You keep talking about the states and ignoring what the feds did. How many doctors were convicted by the states between 37-39?

Heck, this one state puts away at least 3 physicians for violating the state's prescription drug laws every year.

And we have an ongoing drug war too. Do you have any experience in pain management? I suggest you look at what's been happening to doctors who have the audacity to prescribe the necessary medication for patients in alot of pain. More and more doctors are leaving that specialisation because of the DEA and the states, and there have been people who've committed suicide because government intimidation has cut back on their ability to get the narcotics they need to cope with pain. That's one of the factors driving doctor assisted suicide, more elderly people are seeing they may be hung out to dry. That's why Arizona voters passed a sweeping referendum a few years ago authorising doctors to medicate patients as they see fit.

I'd like to see more detailed information on the types of offenses prosecuted during the 1937-1939 time period you're talking about. Come to think of it, the Controlled Substances Act wasn't passed until the late 1960s.

And? You don't think the feds were involved with narcotics before then? Type Harry Anslinger into Google and see what comes up. With the end of alcohol prohibition, a bunch of bureaucrats were scrambling for more work and pot/narcotics became the new excuse to make a paycheck at the taxpayer's expense.

[LoneWolf]

If Canadians wish to be stoned, that's ok with me. Dude.