(03-26-2017 06:36 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  This country needs a debate on whether the pharmaceutical industry should be shut down or at least have their research expenses as non-deductable on their taxes. All they have done over the last 60-70 years is produce a lot of drugs that end up costing too much. And that doesn't even consider the added costs of Social Security and Medicare that occur because they keep people alive longer.

Should millennials and Gen-Xers be footing the bill for all the statins, anti-depressants and Viagara?

We need to reduce the research costs, which will lower user costs not only for the obvious reason, but also to inspire competition.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

(03-26-2017 06:36 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  This country needs a debate on whether the pharmaceutical industry should be shut down or at least have their research expenses as non-deductable on their taxes. All they have done over the last 60-70 years is produce a lot of drugs that end up costing too much. And that doesn't even consider the added costs of Social Security and Medicare that occur because they keep people alive longer.

Should millennials and Gen-Xers be footing the bill for all the statins, anti-depressants and Viagara?

#subsidizedalchemy

(03-25-2017 07:23 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 07:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  ... because, you know, it can't possibly have medicinal benefit right?

Welllllllllll that awkward moment when one of them gets DEA approval for synthetic marijuana.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...66e1945c29

jesus.

libertarians/Libertarians and pot, again.

do libertarians/Libertarians think about anything else?

here's the funny part. when libertarians/Libertarians get criticized for being obsessed about pot laws, they get all menopausal about it.

funniest part is he doesn't even smoke it. lol

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-25-2017 07:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  ... because, you know, it can't possibly have medicinal benefit right?

Welllllllllll that awkward moment when one of them gets DEA approval for synthetic marijuana.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...66e1945c29

Umm, let me think for a minute about the the issues in front of Congress.

Weed isn't on my list.

(03-26-2017 11:56 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 07:52 PM)EagleX Wrote:  (A) synthetic marijuana has bad actors that are proactively creating the schedule 1 drug, and there is no other plausible explanation for it than to sell on a wholesale level. that means kids.

(B) you won't find any posts from me in the past several months because I find your moderation irrational, and I therefore avoid your forum.

A) THE KIDS! oh noes! They're coming FOR THE KIDS. Got some pearls I can clutch for this hyperbole?


B) The butt hurt is real.

Anyone that really cares about keeping drugs out of the hands of kids should be in favor of controlled legalization.

(03-26-2017 07:54 PM)wahoowa Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 07:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  ... because, you know, it can't possibly have medicinal benefit right?

Welllllllllll that awkward moment when one of them gets DEA approval for synthetic marijuana.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...66e1945c29

Umm, let me think for a minute about the the issues in front of Congress.

Weed isn't on my list.

...and Im not sure that is good. I can see large benefits to that debate. Hell...We could fund our entire HC system with a small federal or individual state taxes on it and help solve some other problems on our Southern border with legalization.

(03-27-2017 05:34 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 07:54 PM)wahoowa Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 07:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  ... because, you know, it can't possibly have medicinal benefit right?

Welllllllllll that awkward moment when one of them gets DEA approval for synthetic marijuana.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...66e1945c29

Umm, let me think for a minute about the the issues in front of Congress.

Weed isn't on my list.

...and Im not sure that is good. I can see large benefits to that debate. Hell...We could fund our entire HC system with a small federal or individual state taxes on it and help solve some other problems on our Southern border with legalization.

once again, don't leave out the hemp aspect.....IMO, that is the larger issue that is not being discussed....

it's beyond silly the legislature doesn't understand this in scope....

#competitionlost

(03-27-2017 05:38 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 05:34 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 07:54 PM)wahoowa Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 07:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  ... because, you know, it can't possibly have medicinal benefit right?

Welllllllllll that awkward moment when one of them gets DEA approval for synthetic marijuana.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...66e1945c29

Umm, let me think for a minute about the the issues in front of Congress.

Weed isn't on my list.

...and Im not sure that is good. I can see large benefits to that debate. Hell...We could fund our entire HC system with a small federal or individual state taxes on it and help solve some other problems on our Southern border with legalization.

once again, don't leave out the hemp aspect.....IMO, that is the larger issue that is not being discussed....

it's beyond silly the legislature doesn't understand this in scope....

#competitionlost

Hemp is actually going to be allowed here in NC on an experimental basis. Our county agriculture agent is pushing it as the future replacement for Tobacco.

(03-27-2017 05:45 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 05:38 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 05:34 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 07:54 PM)wahoowa Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 07:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  ... because, you know, it can't possibly have medicinal benefit right?

Welllllllllll that awkward moment when one of them gets DEA approval for synthetic marijuana.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...66e1945c29

Umm, let me think for a minute about the the issues in front of Congress.

Weed isn't on my list.

...and Im not sure that is good. I can see large benefits to that debate. Hell...We could fund our entire HC system with a small federal or individual state taxes on it and help solve some other problems on our Southern border with legalization.

once again, don't leave out the hemp aspect.....IMO, that is the larger issue that is not being discussed....

it's beyond silly the legislature doesn't understand this in scope....

#competitionlost

Hemp is actually going to be allowed here in NC on an experimental basis. Our county agriculture agent is pushing it as the future replacement for Tobacco.

smart.....very smart....

our dipshites in the 'sip screwed that op with last year's failure to get prop 48 on the ballot...

(03-27-2017 05:30 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 11:56 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 07:52 PM)EagleX Wrote:  (A) synthetic marijuana has bad actors that are proactively creating the schedule 1 drug, and there is no other plausible explanation for it than to sell on a wholesale level. that means kids.

(B) you won't find any posts from me in the past several months because I find your moderation irrational, and I therefore avoid your forum.

A) THE KIDS! oh noes! They're coming FOR THE KIDS. Got some pearls I can clutch for this hyperbole?


B) The butt hurt is real.

Anyone that really cares about keeping drugs out of the hands of kids should be in favor of controlled legalization.

Damn, this is one of the most naive statements I've ever read. I'm for legalization but if you think kids won't get their hands on it you don't have a clue. This belief is exactly like assuming underagers can't get alcohol.

(03-27-2017 07:52 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 05:30 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 11:56 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 07:52 PM)EagleX Wrote:  (A) synthetic marijuana has bad actors that are proactively creating the schedule 1 drug, and there is no other plausible explanation for it than to sell on a wholesale level. that means kids.

(B) you won't find any posts from me in the past several months because I find your moderation irrational, and I therefore avoid your forum.

A) THE KIDS! oh noes! They're coming FOR THE KIDS. Got some pearls I can clutch for this hyperbole?


B) The butt hurt is real.

Anyone that really cares about keeping drugs out of the hands of kids should be in favor of controlled legalization.

Damn, this is one of the most naive statements I've ever read. I'm for legalization but if you think kids won't get their hands on it you don't have a clue. This belief is exactly like assuming underagers can't get alcohol.

yep.....there will ALWAYS be that fraction of any faction....

educating relative to the dangers/responsibility is the key.....

ref: tobacco industry

(03-25-2017 07:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  ... because, you know, it can't possibly have medicinal benefit right?

Welllllllllll that awkward moment when one of them gets DEA approval for synthetic marijuana.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...66e1945c29

Historically the big scope of the lobbying against marijuana has been about strengthening a business' position with competing materials.

(03-27-2017 07:52 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 05:30 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 11:56 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 07:52 PM)EagleX Wrote:  (A) synthetic marijuana has bad actors that are proactively creating the schedule 1 drug, and there is no other plausible explanation for it than to sell on a wholesale level. that means kids.

(B) you won't find any posts from me in the past several months because I find your moderation irrational, and I therefore avoid your forum.

A) THE KIDS! oh noes! They're coming FOR THE KIDS. Got some pearls I can clutch for this hyperbole?


B) The butt hurt is real.

Anyone that really cares about keeping drugs out of the hands of kids should be in favor of controlled legalization.

Damn, this is one of the most naive statements I've ever read. I'm for legalization but if you think kids won't get their hands on it you don't have a clue. This belief is exactly like assuming underagers can't get alcohol.

No one said that it would eliminate it. I would though put a giant dent in street dealers and reduce violence. There is a reason bootleggers are few and far between now. I talking about a reduction in harm...not a perfect solution.

(03-27-2017 10:34 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 07:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  ... because, you know, it can't possibly have medicinal benefit right?

Welllllllllll that awkward moment when one of them gets DEA approval for synthetic marijuana.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...66e1945c29

Historically the big scope of the lobbying against marijuana has been about strengthening a businesses position with competing materials.

XACLY! it would be nice if people had a clue....

for the dense and the umpteenth time.....it was hemp!!!!!

(03-27-2017 10:34 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 07:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  ... because, you know, it can't possibly have medicinal benefit right?

Welllllllllll that awkward moment when one of them gets DEA approval for synthetic marijuana.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...66e1945c29

Historically the big scope of the lobbying against marijuana has been about strengthening a businesses position with competing materials.

Of course it was. Randolph Hearst was directly behind the push to criminalize Cannabis and Hemp because of his timber interests. It was about squashing competiton...nothing else.

(03-27-2017 11:20 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:52 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 05:30 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 11:56 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 07:52 PM)EagleX Wrote:  (A) synthetic marijuana has bad actors that are proactively creating the schedule 1 drug, and there is no other plausible explanation for it than to sell on a wholesale level. that means kids.

(B) you won't find any posts from me in the past several months because I find your moderation irrational, and I therefore avoid your forum.

A) THE KIDS! oh noes! They're coming FOR THE KIDS. Got some pearls I can clutch for this hyperbole?


B) The butt hurt is real.

Anyone that really cares about keeping drugs out of the hands of kids should be in favor of controlled legalization.

Damn, this is one of the most naive statements I've ever read. I'm for legalization but if you think kids won't get their hands on it you don't have a clue. This belief is exactly like assuming underagers can't get alcohol.

No one said that it would eliminate it. I would though put a giant dent in street dealers and reduce violence. There is a reason bootleggers are few and far between now. I talking about a reduction in harm...not a perfect solution.

Never has, nor will ever be a "perfect"

(03-27-2017 11:25 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 10:34 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 07:03 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  ... because, you know, it can't possibly have medicinal benefit right?

Welllllllllll that awkward moment when one of them gets DEA approval for synthetic marijuana.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...66e1945c29

Historically the big scope of the lobbying against marijuana has been about strengthening a businesses position with competing materials.

Of course it was. Randolph Hearst was directly behind the push to criminalize Cannabis and Hemp because of his timber interests. It was about squashing competiton...nothing else.

...there were more....at least you get it in premise

(03-27-2017 11:20 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:52 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 05:30 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 11:56 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 07:52 PM)EagleX Wrote:  (A) synthetic marijuana has bad actors that are proactively creating the schedule 1 drug, and there is no other plausible explanation for it than to sell on a wholesale level. that means kids.

(B) you won't find any posts from me in the past several months because I find your moderation irrational, and I therefore avoid your forum.

A) THE KIDS! oh noes! They're coming FOR THE KIDS. Got some pearls I can clutch for this hyperbole?


B) The butt hurt is real.

Anyone that really cares about keeping drugs out of the hands of kids should be in favor of controlled legalization.

Damn, this is one of the most naive statements I've ever read. I'm for legalization but if you think kids won't get their hands on it you don't have a clue. This belief is exactly like assuming underagers can't get alcohol.

No one said that it would eliminate it. I would though put a giant dent in street dealers and reduce violence. There is a reason bootleggers are few and far between now. I talking about a reduction in harm...not a perfect solution.

I agree. Out of the hands of the black market means that less people get intro'd to a harder drug from your regular dealer. Then you just have to worry about your doctor.

(03-27-2017 11:31 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:20 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:52 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 05:30 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-26-2017 11:56 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  A) THE KIDS! oh noes! They're coming FOR THE KIDS. Got some pearls I can clutch for this hyperbole?


B) The butt hurt is real.

Anyone that really cares about keeping drugs out of the hands of kids should be in favor of controlled legalization.

Damn, this is one of the most naive statements I've ever read. I'm for legalization but if you think kids won't get their hands on it you don't have a clue. This belief is exactly like assuming underagers can't get alcohol.

No one said that it would eliminate it. I would though put a giant dent in street dealers and reduce violence. There is a reason bootleggers are few and far between now. I talking about a reduction in harm...not a perfect solution.

I agree. Out of the hands of the black market means that less people get intro'd to a harder drug from your regular dealer. Then you just have to worry about your doctor.

...or grow your own

(03-27-2017 11:33 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:31 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 11:20 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 07:52 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(03-27-2017 05:30 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Anyone that really cares about keeping drugs out of the hands of kids should be in favor of controlled legalization.

Damn, this is one of the most naive statements I've ever read. I'm for legalization but if you think kids won't get their hands on it you don't have a clue. This belief is exactly like assuming underagers can't get alcohol.

No one said that it would eliminate it. I would though put a giant dent in street dealers and reduce violence. There is a reason bootleggers are few and far between now. I talking about a reduction in harm...not a perfect solution.

I agree. Out of the hands of the black market means that less people get intro'd to a harder drug from your regular dealer. Then you just have to worry about your doctor.

...or grow your own

I would, just to see what I could get.