Regulated/taxed recreational marijuana legal over the age of 25 & any age for validated medical use
1) The legal minimum age for recreational marijuana set at 25 ; there is no minimum age for medical marijuana as prescribed and supervised by a licensed and registered medical doctor after recommendations from 3 separate licensed and registered doctors.
Why ? The human brain has been scientifically proven using brain scans that it has not fully formed until between the age of 20-25. Specifically, the prefrontal cortex is not yet fully developed. It's the part of the brain that helps you to inhibit impulses and to plan and organize your behavior to reach a goal. It also helps you understand the future consequences of present and past actions. Another part of the brain that is still forming is the brain's reward system that becomes highly active right around the time of puberty & then gradually levels out about it reaches around age 25. That makes adolescents/teens more inclined to engage in uncertain situations & actions in order to seek out and try to find whether there might be a possibility of gaining something from those situations/actions, whether pleasurable, monetary, or socially. As that MEDICAL marijuana use is prescribed by a licensed and registered medical doctor under recommendation from 3 other doctors & own medical knowledge after extensive testing and evaluation of the patient in question, the ramifications & possible side effects of marijuana use by a person under the age of 25 has been evaluated by knowledgeable ADULTS & judged that the benefits to the patients health & general wellbeing out ways the cons of its use.
2) Private homegrown marijuana - A: must be registered in the county of residence with the marijuana regulatory county office B: can not grow from seeds (a) must buy transplants from licensed retailer (b) strains must have low THC and high CBD C: limit of 4 plants total at any time per household D: homes with minors and/or those under the age of 25 are excluded from home growing E: growing outside a lockable & secure structure ( ex -homes, greenhouses, sheds, shipping containers) is illegal F: must commit and be open to both bi-monthly and random testing and inspection by licensed and regulated inspectors for violations & health/safety laws G: required to have 24hr video surveillance w/ daily downloads to a marijuana regulatory office - minimum number of cameras upon discretion of registrar and/or inspector
3) Commercial growers - A: must be licensed in the county of business, subject to all state and federal taxes, deductions, and benefits with the county marijuana regulatory office B: Must grow inventory in a lockable and secure structure (ex-warehouse, commercial greenhouse) C: limit of 6 flowering/budding plants & 10 transplants per registered resident within 20 miles D: those between the age 16- 25 are excluded from growing/manufacturing/sales area & all employees are subjected to random drug tests E: growing outside a lockable & secure structure ( ex -warehouse, commercial greenhouse) is illegal F: must commit and be open to both bi-monthly and random testing and inspection by licensed & regulated inspectors for violations and health/safety laws G: required to have 24hr video surveillance w/daily downloads to a marijuana regulatory office - minimum # of cameras upon discretion of registrar and/or inspector G: strains must have high CBD and low THC H: commercial growers are prohibited from private recreational selling & are limited to selling to licensed recreational facilities, supplying an attached licensed recreational facility in a joint business venture, & supplying transplants for private growers
Why ? Cannabidiol"CBD"is a cannabis compound that does not make the majority of first time users & regular users feel "stoned" and lethargic to the point of incapacitating. Investigators at Kings College in London assessed the physiological & behavioral effects of CBD and THC versus placebo in 16 healthy volunteers in a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial. It was reported that the oral administration of 10 mg of THC was associated with various physiological and behavioral effects"such as increased heart rate and sedation"whereas the oral administration of 600 mg of CBD did not. Strains that have high THC and low CBD creates bad behavior, physiological and psychological side effects and can put the user and those around them at risk. Recreation is intended to relieve stress and promote feelings of wellbeing, which low THC and high CBD strains create, therefore strains with higher levels of THC are not needed. A .5oz daily use is large enough for a single person and the average plant under good growing conditions can produce between 1-2oz - a plant limit for home growing minimizes overuse yet allow for a leeway for underproduction & registered growers can legally sell overproduction to licensed recreational use facilities they have a contract with. Limiting commercial plant numbers minimizes over saturating the market, helps inventory control, and minimizes chances of robbery/theft. Limiting numbers in conjunction to the # of registered citizens within a 20 miles radius makes sure there is enough available to local registered customers, promoting local economies and businesses, yet opens the option of extra for visiting tourists (registered users of course) as having competing businesses will fluctuate the market depending on promotions & prices of the recreational facilities. Private growers prohibited from growing from seeds & obtaining transplants from licensed commercial growers promotes local business, makes sure that private growers can not grow high THC strains & helps in accounting for household plant limits. A regulatory system & inspectors creates jobs and taxable income in a stagnant & slowing economy and low employment rates. If all 50 states legalized cannabis today, they'd be collectively raking in more than $3 billion a year in taxes according to NerdWallet, a personal finance site. The site's estimate assumed a flat, 15 percent excise tax on marijuana -- the same as Colorado's excise tax on recreational marijuana sales, adding 2010 state and local sales taxes to that figure. The site didn't subtract medical marijuana tax revenues in the 23 states at the time that allow medicinal use of cannabis also. The post-prohibition forecast also failed to calculate reduced government spending on law enforcements never ending drug war nor the loss of revenue to private security firms running jails & prisons. In 2010, Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimated more than $8 billion in annual savings in law enforcement costs if marijuana were legalized. To estimate each states marijuana sales, NerdWallet used the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's National Surveys on Drug Use and Health to find the number of marijuana consumers aged 25 and older. NerdWallet calculated the approximate number of pot users in each state, & applied the percentage to the U.S. population. It estimated the total U.S. marijuana market at $14 billion.
4) Recreational facilities - A: must be licensed by the registrar of the marijuana regulatory office in the county of the business location B: subject to all state, city, federal taxes, health and safety laws, retail/recreational licenses & permits & their benefits, deductions C: can not operate within 300 ft of a school, elementary, middle, and high school (private/public included and excludes homeschooling locations), licensed childcare facility, or within 150ft of a church with more then 200 regular attending members D: must obtain inventory from a licensed commercial grower or registered private grower within 100miles E: customers under the age of 25 are prohibited on site of the business at any time F: smoking is prohibited in outdoor seating (a) outdoor seating must be enclosed with a fence/wall with minimum 10ft height and preventive security measures G: smoking products and inventory are taxed at a higher rate (3times) then edibles, oils, tinctures, body and bath products H: indoor smoking is only to be in enclosed rooms with scrubbing ventilation, size and number determined by the fire marshal & marijuana regulatory office I: the facilities are required to have scrubbing ventilation in open space areas, size and number determined by marijuana regulatory office J: establishments that sell edibles, oils, tinctures, body & bath products, and not liable for its use once it has left the sales premises and are the responsibility of the purchaser K: facilities are required to have a production area on-site that is video monitored and secured for smoking buds and products, edibles, oils, tinctures, body and bath products L: facilities are to require that all their staff be CPR/ first aid certified & a RN be on staff during business hours M: facilities are required to hooked into the national register system that monitors registered users amount and purchases N: all purchasers are required to use their register cards during purchases O: Facilities are limited to 10mg of THC per serving size of any edibles/product and must properly label ingredients, nutrition, and quantity, strain of marijuana contained P: purchasers are limited to .5oz a month total from all purchases from all licensed recreational facilities in all 50 states (medical quantities excluded from total) Q: medical users are prohibited from recreational purchases
I agree with marijuana decriminalization but I disagree with what you are proposing.
"I am for the legalization of recreational & medical marijuana ONLY under strict & enforced regulations and laws."
Why should marijuana get stricter laws than other drugs. It is scientifically proved that marijuana is not more dangerous than the other common use drugs (when I reefer to "common use drugs" I will refer to alcohol,tobacco and prescribed pills). As a matter of fact, marijuana is safer than them. Ergo, its insane to propose to make more strict laws for it.
I will now rebut your 4 points:
1) I agree that medical marijuana use doesn't need minimum age. But minimum age for recreational use set as 25??!! Kids with 16 can drink alcohol till they get an ethilic coma but marijuana (which can't harm you) will have a 25 years old minimum. I'm not saying that 16 kid should smoke weed but 25 is exaggerated. I feel that 18 or 21 would be a better age (you are mature enough and your brain is pretty developed by that time).
Also, in my opinion is exaggerated to need 3 different medics to prescribe one single drug. Why can general doctors (not psychiatrists) prescribe psychiatric drugs but you need 3 doctor and extensive testing for cannabis?
As you can see this law would be excessive and absurd.
2) Marijuana is a plant, like any other plant. You don't have to be registered to plant chamomile. I know that the difference is that marijuana can be used for drugs making. But so can the other plants. You can smoke chamomile, salvia divinorum, ayahuasca, acacia, anethole, and so on. But you don't need a registry to plant them.
Limit the plant amount and the other regulations fall in the same.
But the last one is nonsense. Video surveillance by a regulatory office? That means someone from the government spying on me!
3) I agree that they should pay taxes and be regulated as any other legal drug producer.
However I disagree with registering consumers. There's no registry of alcohol drinkers or tobacco smokers or caffeine consumers. Why marijuana? If marijuana isn't worst, why should it be that regulated and limited?
4) I don't argue against regulation to this facilities but this are inflated.
150 ft within a church, seems silly, but I won't enter in the religious debate because it isn't the center of this topic.
"smoking is prohibited in outdoor seating (a) outdoor seating must be enclosed with a fence/wall with minimum 10ft height and preventive security measures" that sound like a jail to me. This is humiliating to people who just want to smoke.
Also, why more taxes? This is like some sort of punishment for this facilities, which is nonsense.
To conclude, all of this regulations just make marijuana consumption harder and humiliating, enhancing the illegal market.
Your argument over the legal age is 1) because kids at 16 (which state in the US? I know in Europe there might be but not here) can drink alcohol way not make the legal age 16? USA 21? As with alcohol, teens and young adults have shown statistically through out history that the vast majority ARE NOT mature enough to handle alcohol physically or b responsible enough mentally to know their limits, usually with terrible consequences. Drinking and driving among teens in high school has gone down by 54% since 1991 but high school teens still drive after drinking about 2.4 million times a month. Thats 2.4 million chances to get in an accident and cause injury to themselves, others, both, or even deaths. Of those 85% of teens who report drinking and driving in the past month, they also say they binge drank, defined as having 5 or more alcoholic drinks within a couple of hours. 1 in 5 teen drivers involved in fatal crashes had some alcohol in their system in 2010. Most of these drivers (81%) had BACs* higher than the legal limit for ADULTS. Young drivers, those between 16-20, are 17 times more likely to get in a crash after consuming alcohol, even just a blood alcohol level of 0.08% ! Which can EASILY be reached for a skinny teen with just 2 drinks. As I state before it has been scientifically proven in multiple studies and testing that the human brain does not fully form, especially those involved with decision making, till the ages between 20 -25, with 18 -20 being the vast minority and 23-25 the vast MAJORITY. Only with brain diseases and mental disabilities does the brain NOT fully form after 25 years of age. Thats why I set it at the higher level, just to cover bases. And alcohol has been proven to impair brain and motor functions, lower inhibitions and thought of consequences to action, then add that to a brain that already has lower inhibitions and thoughts of consequences connected to action .... recipe for disaster. Now marijuana in low dose and with low THC and high CBC has been show to exhibit symptoms equal to having 1-2 drinks in a 1-2hr period, with high doses and THC levels equal to 5-6 drinks in that same period. Thats one reason I advocate for restrictive dosage and strains with LOW THC/high CBD. I would equate that alcohol and recreational marijuana use and how it effects the body are similar if not vastly the same on many point in how it affects the human body and mind and our action during and after consumption.
I DONT think general doctors should prescribe psychiatric drugs, only a psychologist - same for prescribing marijuana - Im sorry I didn't make the destination clear in my first round. 2 general medical doctors and one psychologist after reviewing the medical results. I advocate the testing because peoples bodies handle things differently, same with alcohol. One person can do 5 shots and still walk a straight line while anothers knees will buckle and they will be on the floor drooling. There should be testing for your general health as a anemic or obese person will react to marijuana more extremly then a healthy average weight person, possibly causing harm to themselves or others. Also the potential for addictiveness. Though it is a small percentage it does happen. Neuroscientists have demonstrated that marijuana affects the brain's Reward Center in exactly the same way as all other known drugs of addiction and animal studies have demonstrated consistent patterns of behavior when THC, the main active ingredient in marijuana, is given twice a day for one week and then suddenly withdrawn. Clinical reports of humans reveal a similar pattern of withdrawal symptoms during the first weeks of abstinence. Now I will content that these test were most likely using the popular high THC level marijuana, which I would argue elevates marijuanas potential of being addictive to those people with the genetic disposition for overall addiction. Thats another reason I advocate restricting strains to those with low THC and high CBD and registering growers/consumers in order to "weed" out those that grow, sell, consume the higher THC strains that more likely can cause addiction, and "bad trips". These genes helps create a predilection for addiction, but environment augments that tendency even more, such as stress from work, relationships, financial problems, health problems and self image. All things that you would want to escape from and just chill out, with marijuana an easy escape while not actively dealing with the problems which inevitably reoccur and then you need another fix and the cycle keeps going and going. That is why the last doctor is a psychologist. Even people who have a genetic lean towards addiction don't become addicts and those that don't have the genes can become addicts. How a person handle stress, life choices, and social interactions plays a factor too and testing by a psychologist evaluating their health, physically and mentally along with their genetics can best make the determination on whether a person has a greater chance of adverse side effects.
I get the plant thing but it more about leveling the growing field so to speak for everyone. If there was no limit the market would soon be saturated and although prices for the consumer would go down, the growers would be putting in a lot of effort and getting pennies back instead of dollars or run out of business. It would be like the oil boom now with the excess oil and low prices but jobs getting laid off cause the companies can't make enough to pay them.
As for the surveillance I get the big brother fear but under these laws it would be about protecting the grower from theft and illegal growing charges since they are restricted to growing only certain strains, at least for me. If an inspector pops in and finds an illegal strain, the grower can pull up they surveillance and show that a family member or trespasser put the plant in the mix to hide it and THAT person would then get arrested and charged, not the grower. I have a got nothing to hide, hide nothing attitude so surveillance doesn't disturb me except in areas where private part are exposed and the camera could pick it up like in bathrooms stalls, bedrooms, and certain doctors office areas. I understand that it does disturb others though.
The school area exclusions is because I think its prudent. Same with the high walls. Since I don't advocate children, teens, and young adults before the age of 25 consuming marijuana unless prescribed by doctors for medical purposes, I think we should limit the amount of exposure these people have to it. Same with advertising marijuana and its derived products. It should be discreetly and not within common sight, knowledge of those under 25. They do it for smoking, alcohol, and porn though those laws and restrictions have become lax under the weight of industry lobbyist and hefty donations to politicians. The church is because I figure they don't want it anywhere near them anyway lol
I would hope these measure wouldnt drive the illegal market unlike what it has done in recent states but I think that is because although SOME regulations have been loosened, its not completely "safe" to smoke/grow in license facilities cause it is still FEDERALLY illegal. I propose federally making it legal across the board under these rules, which I don't think is too harsh. The ability to get .5 ounces a month and grow 4 plants on your own, all WELL within reasonable consumption levels, AND access to another .5 ounces from recreational facilities will satisfy majority of casual and regular consumers, therefor they would have no need to buy from the illegal market unless they were addicted and needed a higher fix and more doses, by which they need drug consoling and detox instead of jail, at least the first time offense. And more punitive sentencing for illegal growers, dealers, and repeat consumer offender will eventually weed out the black market.
For this round I will expose other arguments for my opinion, but first some rebuttals...
I still believe that 25 is a rather extreme age. In my opinion 21 is fine. Why? Firstly, because at that age humans are mature enough. At 21 you can consume all of the common use drugs, you can get married, you can vote, you can go to a war, you can drive a car, you can use a gun, and so other activities and decision that only mature people can do. Notice that I am not referring only to the US but worldwide. If specialist all around the globe have set 21 as an age where men and women are mature enough (and sometimes even 18 instead of 21), how can we argue that 21 isn't mature enough? Secondly, scientific studies have exposed that the brain continues growing not till 25, but till your 40s, and some are convinced that actually the brain never stops the getting mature process. That being said is nonsense to wait for a fully developed brain, because then no one could smoke marijuana, you will just have skeletons smoking weed. Lastly, I don't think that anyone can decide for you but yourself, but this is something I will talk deeper later.
2) Prescribed marijuana
I argue that 3 doctors is too much. To me, the 2 general doctors step is useless. A psychiatrist is fully prepared to make the decision of prescribing or not. I feel that having to go to 2 general doctors first is a waste of time and money, both for the patients and for the doctors.
I understand that marijuana growing facilities must have strong security, but I disagree with having the cameras send to the government in real time, neither not in real time. They must have security cameras but they have the right to have privacy. If I told you that the security cameras in your house are streaming to the government 24 hs, just for security, would you be happy? Wouldn't you feel a violation of your privacy?
4) Area exclusion
I get the school exclusion and church exclusion ( in a catholic state like US is logical, but as I'm not from there I didn't thought of that).
Anyway, I believe that the high walls and all that stuff is way to much. It would be humiliating for consumers. It's like, if you do something I don't like you should do It in a jail like place. Doing so will go against the right of honor (because it would humiliate you) and free choice(because it will condition you not to do that).
The free choice issue
As far as I'm concerned, this regulations attempt against the freedom of people to do whatever they want. I believe that the limit of one's rights and freedoms is the others' rights and freedoms. Marijuana can't hurt anyone but the one who consumes It, and if He/She does it because He/She wants to, then I don't see why should we stop him/her.
I understand that the State role is to protect the citizens, and in order to do so you have to create some regulations. Anyway, government can't violate the rights of people. Government must regulate the growers and seller for the sake of having the best marijuana in the market, and It must warn citizens of the risks of drugs. But if some still wants to do drugs, no one must attempt against him/her will.
That's why I0m against the limit of growing, the registration process, the THC and CBD proportion regulation and the prison like consuming facilities. This takes away free choice from the people directly and indirectly. Directly because you wouldn't let people to choose how much they want to consume or grow and how they want to do so. Indirectly because you make the consuming process an embarrassing one, where people are pointed out and identified, where they are separated and obligated to consume in jailish places, where you patrol and control them like they where criminals. This conditions people and doesn't allow them to use their rights.
http://chnm.gmu.edu... (accessed January 24, 2016). in the 1800's the average legal age of adulthood was 10-16 in the US and most european countries and territories. In Hamar and Karo societies in Africa, a youth does not enter manhood until he performs the ceremony known as the "Jumping of the Bull" after which he can participate in hunts, defending his clan territory (going to war) and be allowed to marry. For most girls it is after their first period. Among the Twa, when a girl's first menses appear, the girl participates in a rite of passage known as Elima. Secluded in a house for at least a month with other girls who have also just started menstruating, the Twa girl is instructed by an adult woman about being a Twa woman. She is taught, among other things, the history of her people and how to be a good mother and a good wife. When the instruction is over, the girls come out dancing, and the whole community takes part in the Elima festivities. Having been properly instructed and trained, the girls are now eligible for marriage. The age of adulthood is connect to a cultures traditions and societies values of the time, which changes as the society changes and grows or declines, and political drives.
I contend that "adulthood" is reached when an individual has shown consistent progress and responsibility in these areas - Financially independent from parents/guardian, is self-suffiencent in skills needed in everyday living and society, has thoughtful consideration to others and how their personal actions can effect others. There are the small percentage of those under 18 -25 that do possess these skills and abilities. But I would contend that they are the exception and not the rule as even most college students, age 18-25, can not properly wash dishes, cook, clean, or handle their bills, and most are still financially dependent on their parents for said college, food, car and cell phone payments, and clothes. Sometimes that is due to the parents wanting the CHILD to focus on schooling but its mostly cause the CHILD does not posses the skills necessary to be independent and therefor are not ADULTS.
I could concede that there could be an exception to the 25min age limit extended to those 18 or older using the same procedure and law as an emancipated minor ? That would be a nice middle ground.
2) I say 2 medical doctors because as I stated how a body handles things is different for each individual. Even when a psychologist is prescribing a drug they look as physical tests performed on the body and medical history in order to evaluate doses, possible side effects, and possible drug interactions. The two doctors is because you should always get a second opinion because there are times when a test/exam is subjective and diagnosis can be skewed by the doctors on experience, bias, and the level of their medical knowledge and experience. One doctor can see cancer and tells you to remove your womb while another says you only need specific chemo. A licensed prescribing marijuana psychologist would look at these 2 evaluations and would tell you the risks and benefits leaving the choice to you whether to proceed. An individuals who CHOOSES to go over .5ounces, CHOOSES to do so over the advice of a medical doctor and thereby is liable for ALL consequences due to or under such dose. I chose .5 a month and the limiting of 4 HOUSEHOLD plants cause going online it seemed the most average and comfortable number to provide an average user with a daily relaxant which to me, recreational marijuana should be. If they CHOOSE to obtain more, they are free to do so and by using the card register/purchase system, when they do it will have a timetable of when sellers, doctors, and businesses are no longer liable for the smokers/consumers actions. They can still purchase, smoke, eat more at recreational businesses, which by setting the 4 plant limit boost local businesses as a provider for those that can't even grow a cactus, don't want to invest the time or money into growing their own, or wish to consume more then they themselves grew.
I would concede to having a referral from 1 general doctor as long as they have been seeing them for the past year and they have an up to date physical, blood test to give to the prescribing psychologist for 1st time users and for repeat users who have moved or found a new health provider, been seeing their new general doctor for at least 3 months and must give their entire medical history to the prescribing psychologist. If they are recommended NOT to smoke marijuan to due a drug interaction, genetic disposition, or other medical/psycological reason, and STILL CHOOSE too, they take FULL LEGAL LIABILITY UPON THEMSELVES and medical insurance is not obligated to cover cost for medical procedures, treatments, or actions related to the marijuana use.
3) I offer the real time streaming to government because they are the ones regulating it and they are the one's who will deal with crimes pertaining to the marijuana. The surveillance is limited to JUST growing areas for households and surveillance in commercial growers and recreational business is the same as if they were contracted to a private security firm which most businesses do anyway.
I would acquiesce to a private security company or a local co-op of growers in a video surveillance system that they monitor AS LONG as the tapes are kept onsite minimum for 1 month and a copy is made and SENT at the end of the month to the local county marijuana office. If a grower/businesses DECIDES NOT to content to video surveillance I contend that they open themselves up to personal liability to any crime or violation on their property or in connection to their plants, drugs, products.
4) The area exclusion and high walls/ private rooms are more about the smoking aspect of marijuana, same as if tobacco smoke and also that even second hand marijuana smoke can physically and mentally affect other around them. The high walls on outdoor seating is a preventative measure from passerby's without a register card or underage from just reaching in and taking while no one is looking or while others are distracted. With glass walls it would be the same as if they were inside except there would just be no roof, and I don't think diners in window seats of restaurants feel humiliated.
As for free choice, there are plenty of varieties with low THC that a customer can choose from. As THC has been proven as the addicting factor, particularly against those with the genetic predisposition for it, why risk exposure ? A higher THC is only needed if you want to get stoned or seriously buzzed, both which can inhibit your cognitive and physical abilities, putting yourself and those around you in greater danger so why risk others cause of your personal want ? Recreational marijuanas aim should be as a relaxant, not as a way to hide from your troubles as those wanting to be stoned or buzzed usually wish as those problems will not go away using that method and the cycle will just continue.
I would concede to allowing higher THC strains ONLY if the consumer take FULL LEGAL PERSONAL LIABILITY UPON THEMSELVES, criminally and civil, and medical insurance is not obligated to cover cost for medical procedures, treatments, or actions related to the higher THC marijuana use. If your going to go against medical advice, your choosing to take the full consequences upon yourself and other taxpayers should have to foot a medical bill you brought upon yourself with your choice. And in a free market there is room for health insurance specific the marijuana use with a higher premium for those going against medical advice and limits.
I understand that not all people between 18 and 25 have the skills you mention as adulthood. But I have 2 arguments to disagree with your minimum age for smoking.
First, as not all 21 years old guys have the skills of an adult, neither all 45 years old guys have them. Age isn't the only thing that defines maturity. Anyway, at 21 you have made it through high school, maybe a bit of college or a bit of work, I guess at that age most people have enough skills of thinking.
Secondly, the problem here is that this is your definition. "I contend that "adulthood" " Lots of people we see as adult won't fit in your definition. People dependent to their parents (like the suns of rich men who live with their heritage, or people who had some problems and need some help,etc.), people that don't have the skills needed in everyday living (like disabled people, bad educated people, or just bad people), people that don't have thoughtful consideration to others and how their personal actions can effect others (killers, reapers, criminals in general, psychopaths, etc.) are adults in our eyes.
Read my argument twice please. I said "A psychiatrist is fully prepared to make the decision of prescribing or not.". I never talked about psychologists. A psychiatrist studies the same as a general doctor and then specializes in the mind. A psychiatrist can take the decision because he/she knows the same as a general doctor and a psychologists.
I have to put the stress on this words of yours:
If they are recommended NOT to smoke marijuan to due a drug interaction, genetic disposition, or other medical/psycological reason, and STILL CHOOSE too, they take FULL LEGAL LIABILITY UPON THEMSELVES and medical insurance is not obligated to cover cost for medical procedures, treatments, or actions related to the marijuana use.
This is basically what I have been saying throughout the debate. This must apply for all. If you know the risks but you still choose to do it, then no one could stop you of doing It. This is why I oppose to the strict & enforced regulations and laws. This is why I disagree with limits of growing for personal use, registrations, more taxes, and so on, and so on. I think marijuana must be like any other choice people make: they do what their will says and then they take full responsibility.
"If a grower/businesses DECIDES NOT to content to video surveillance I contend that they open themselves up to personal liability to any crime or violation on their property or in connection to their plants, drugs, products."
If growers decided to do it, they will have to take responsibilities anyway. So there's no difference.
I get that It's for the sake of protecting the bypassers, but It's exaggerated. There are plenty of others things that can hurt other people without them even noticing (obviously not wanting it). For instance:
We can't imagine people driving inside of rooms, or facilities filled with people locked up for having the flu, or cops doing patrols inside walls, or people using fireworks indoors (don't do this please!! hahaha).
2) I apologize I always get psychologist and psychiatrist messed up. The distinction between the two careers is that psychiatrists can prescribe medications, while in most states psychologists cannot. However, there has been a recent push to grant prescribing powers to psychologists. Some states such as New Mexico and Louisiana now grant prescribing privileges to medical psychologists holding a post-doctoral master's degree or equivalent in clinical psychopharmacology. As that emotions and a persons mental state are/can be effected by marijuana and psychologist deals with THAT aspect of the mind instead of a mental illness, and since I don't think either of us would classify smoking or being under the influence of marijuana as a "mental illness" unless it becomes and addiction, I think in the end a psychologist would be the better prescriber, though lawfully NOW its a psychiatrist.
As for the rest I understand that when a person makes a choice they choose to be liable in the general sense of the word. But in LEGAL terms it has to be laid out bare as bones, cause even then people try to sue and bring criminal charges towards other people, businesses, ect even in situations where they have made a CHOICE of an action, even against advice/warning of professionals, ect and then when there are consequences try to shift the blame from themselves, like a drunk driver suing the bar that served them the drink they had before they crashed their car and killed/injured other people or themselves. A server/bar can cut off a patron but nothing prevents them from just going to another bar and continue to drink till they are blitzed. They make the CHOICE to continue drinking yet a lot try to find fault in others instead of taking the responsibility upon themselves. Thats human nature for the majority of society.
4) Your examples themselves have limitations or a least laws and codes of conduct that are SUPPOSE to limit and guide (Im not naming names but cops now a days ....) People can't drive till they pass a test and are of a mandated age and if they violate laws related to driving their are consequences. We have quarantine protocols for people with infectious disease and we require students to be vaccinated against such disease, and employers can send you home to keep you from infecting other workers. Fireworks also have an age minimum on at least buying them and most cities have laws against them entirely, though everyone should turn a blind eye to New Years and 4th of July (Happy birthday USA !). You can CHOOSE to drink and drive, you can CHOOSE to get a infectious disease and smear your snot on door handles and sneeze of your co-workers ( you sickness terrorist !) you can CHOOSE to aim your firework at a person or house after lighting it BUT there are gonna be consequences and it is those consequences that are meant to give you pause at least before you act rashly, though now a days people just don't seem to care ( cough cough whisper cops ...) if there are consequences attached to bad CHOICES....
I think we both wish for legalized marijuana just differ on the extent of regulation. I guess being a parent I want stricter controls cause kids will always take it further then it needs to go/safety cause thats what they do - testing limits - like you can TELL a kid not to touch a hot stove or fire cause they will get burned but most don't fully realize it as a consequence of action, that it REAL, until they actually DO touch fire/the stove or at least get close enough to inflict some pain and the flight or fight automatic response in their brain kicks in and the learn its a BAD CHOICE. I like setting limits and trying to head off the misery beforehand as much as possible, at least till its no longer my LEGAL responsibility. Morally I'll still care, I'll kiss their boo boo AFTERWARDS but if they STILL want to touch the heat AFTER I TOLD THEM NOT TO I'll let them and let THEM deal with the consequences.
Sorry if I didn't use the precise words but by guys a was generalizing women and men (I'm not a native speaker so I can have this errors). Anyway you could just point out that and couldn't rebut my argument. So point for me in the age section ;)
A person who prescribes medicinal marijuana has to know about the psychological and physiological consequences of consuming weed. The only specialist which meets this is, as I said above, a psychiatrist, not a psychologist neither a general doctor.
Your other argument is worried about too rare situations, thus invalid. The amount of people suing in this kind of situations (like the one of your example: drunk driving) is minimum. Is minimum because It would be absurd to do so and because the chances of some judge giving the reason to them is almost impossible. That's why what you said is exaggerated.
I'm not against having some regulations, but what I showed last round was that the high walls thing was exaggerated. And I never stated that if laws related to marijuana are violated there would be no consequences, there would be the same consequences as with any crime.
I understand your worries about kids taking thing further and testing limits. However, I believe that all you cause with high limits is an appealing sense of prohibition. It's like that DO NOT ENTER sign that begs you to enter. This doesn't mean to enter in an anarchy without any law, but to be more balanced and rational with limits.
2) A PSYCHIATRIST is qualified right now because of legal definitions - psychiatrist deal with MENTAL ILLNESSES and prescribe drugs aka pills to TREAT the MENTAL ILLNESS. Laws and regulations at present treats marijuana use as a mental illness cause of the political stigma attached to it and to placate critic of marijuana use. I don't think marijuana use is a MENTAL ILLNESS unless it becomes an addiction that you can not control so its won't wrecks your life so I feel that psychologist, who deals with emotions and mental well being, which most users use marijuana to relax and therefor have better mental well being, would and are better qualified to prescribe.
3) Incidences once rare can become standard once people learn an easy way to duck responsibility and make easy money. Its a sad but real truth otherwise their wouldn't be hundred of thousands of lawyers chasing ambulances, staking out hospitals, and listening to police scanner looking for clients. They wouldn't be doing it if they weren't making money from the effort which they only get paid if they win so there are people winning such cases, cause of legal loopholes and sweet talking the juries, even if it seems absurd to the rest of us.
4) I agree that kids have an innate need to do opposite what is bad for them, adults do too :) How many time do you look down when people tell you not too ? I would hope to include educational programs and advertisements so kids realize consequences of violating the age limit and regulations. And cigaretts are kept behinds a counter " like a wall" to keep underage kids away and we have smoking sections, booths, to keep those who don't want to be around the smoke, cigaretts seperate. Hmmm ?
It's pretty disappointing to find out this in the last round but Pro broke the rules. Pro made plagiarism.
Here you can read the sources Pro didn't quote, thus falling in plagiarism:
This are just from round 1.
You can check if you don't believe me using this page: http://smallseotools.com...
It was an interesting debate, but I'm afraid to say that plagiarism means instantaneously loosing the debate.
Judges, take this into account and vote for Con.
PD.: I don't think you this this in bad faith but next time quote your sources please!
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|