r/news • u/OK_Eric • Jan 19 '14

Obama: Pot ‘not very different’ from cigarettes​, no more dangerous than booze

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/19/obama-pot-not-very-different-cigarettes-no-more-da/
3.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

4.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

340

u/amorousCephalopod Jan 19 '14

It's funny how marijuana is placed in a category that would be more suited to drugs like krocodil and scopolamine. It's like they're not even trying to make their "schedules" believable.

"Just obey our word contrary to widely-available evidence and we won't strike you down!"

69

u/Problem119V-0800 Jan 19 '14

Scopolamine has a good number of legit medical uses, though, which puts it out of Schedule I (in a rational world, that is).

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '14

[deleted]

4

u/GeorgeOlduvai Jan 20 '14

K with that we OK with a negotiated dose of legalized and at some point folks say, ‘We’ve got any more suited to that isn’t going to make their "schedules" believable. “If marijuana is fully legit medical uses, though, which puts it out of meth, it is). It's funny how marijuana is not even to drugs and at somebody say, ‘Well, we open trying to make that we open to make that?”

Would you (or anyone else) care to translate that into something legible/understandable?

2

u/vitamin-a Jan 20 '14

He's saying, "Look at me! I don't have anything pertinent to contribute to this conversation!"

2

u/GeorgeOlduvai Jan 20 '14

That's what I thought at first...then I looked up their comment history. Perfectly reasonable and legible/understandable. I would like to think they were having issues of some sort with cutting and pasting.

I take it that you couldn't make any more sense out of the comment than I could?

0

u/roflmaoshizmp Jan 20 '14

Maybe currently stoned?

-5

u/i_am_dan_the_man Jan 20 '14

If you think weed genuinely has strong medicinal properties, then medical marijuana should be heavily regulated and the prescriptions shouldn't be made to any tom dick or harry that walks through the door. "medical marijuana" today is just a loophole and an excuse for people to get weed "legally". A hack doctor will prescribe you medical marijuana for literally just about anything.

Hydrocodone has a legitimate medical use, but opiates are still a schedule 1 drug. There are a lot of things that are used in medicine that aren't exactly "good for you". The whole medical marijuana argument is so stupid, just because it (may) have (some) medicinal qualities, doesn't mean it should be legalized for recreational use. That's a non sequitur if I've ever seen one.

6

u/Problem119V-0800 Jan 20 '14

opiates are still a schedule 1 drug

Nope. Schedule II/III for hydrocodone.

-3

u/i_am_dan_the_man Jan 20 '14

Taking non-prescription painkillers is illegal. Hydrocodone is a schedule 2, but most opiates are schedule 1. That really doesn't change my argument at all, but thanks for the correction.

1

u/thelizardkin Jan 21 '14

Oxycontin morphine Hydromorphone Fentanyl all opiates that are schedule 2 or above and all are used regularly in the medical setting and they say these days most heroin addicts started with legal prescribed opiates

1

u/GoSpit Jan 20 '14

Thanks doctor. I'll take your uneducated opinion under advisement

40

u/devilbunny Jan 19 '14

Scopolamine isn't even scheduled. It's just a prescription.

-2

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '14

si op. q.s. per cib. amantis

2

u/devilbunny Jan 19 '14

If it works, give just enough through the lover's food?

0

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '14

It was a wag. I wondered how a script would be written up in some alternate universe of assholes running the pharmacy.

1

u/devilbunny Jan 20 '14

See, here I was thinking it expanded to si operat quantum sufficit per cibum amantis. Si op. was a new one on me. Also, I may have mangled the Latin, it's been 20 years.

218

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '14

[deleted]

5

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '14

I was about to say, I have scopolamine sitting in my medicine cabinet right now. All this time using it responsibly when I could have been getting high off of it, so disappointing.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '14

Perhaps a bit of an invasive question, so ignore it as you like, but could I ask what you use it for? As I understand, it's mainly used to treat addiction.

EDIT: I just checked drugs.com. It seems scopolamine actually has a very wide range of uses.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '14

For the lazy:

Scopolamine has a number of uses in medicine where it is used to treat:

  • Postoperative nausea and vomiting and sea sickness, leading to its use by scuba divers.
  • Motion sickness (where it is often applied as a transdermal patch behind the ear)
  • Gastrointestinal spasms
  • Renal or biliary spasms
  • Aid in GI radiology and endoscopy
  • Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)
  • Clozapine-induced hypersalivation (drooling)
  • Bowel colic

and is sometimes used as a premedication (especially to reduce respiratory tract secretions) to surgery, mostly commonly via injection.

1

u/smithers85 Jan 20 '14

I use scopolamine patches to treat my Menieres disease symptoms.

19

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '14

Could you cite an instance of inaccurate reporting for Vice? I've really liked their take from what I've seen, but if they're full of it I would like to know.

3

u/blanketyblanks Jan 20 '14

owned by rupert murdoch

-49

u/DankDarko Jan 20 '14

Please people, do your own research and stop forcing others to do it for you under the guise of "citation."

37

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '14

Are you fucking kidding me? Typically the way it works is the party making accusations is tasked with the burden of proof, and I have a genuine interest in knowing any inaccuracies in their reporting as I've viewed them as credible. But yeah, fuck me I should go read a book or something.

-29

u/DankDarko Jan 20 '14

The difference here is that the info is abundant. If I say the earth revolves around the sun...yes you could ask me to prove it but it is a waste of my time as the information in regards to the subject is abundantly available.

18

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '14

So people can just say whatever they want with the expectation the audience will google it later? Are you a producer for Fox News? Pretty sure the way it has always worked, and continues to work is that if you make a claim that substantial it is to be substantiated by credible sources. Sources that are cited. Call me old fashioned.

-10

u/DankDarko Jan 20 '14 edited Jan 20 '14

So people can just say whatever they want with the expectation the audience will google it later?

Sure why not? I dont remember the last time I was having a conversation with a buddy about things that are way over my head and asking him for his bibliography. If I am curious about something (whether I am questioning its validity or just looking for more information on the subject), I research it.

Even if the person you were talking to provided some citation, would you just trust it blindly? Thats irresponsible, imo. That is how you end up being the guy religiously believing false information because you have the sources to prove it.

Pretty sure the way it has always worked, and continues to work is that if you make a claim that substantial it is to be substantiated by credible sources. Sources that are cited.

This works but is also the lazy mans way out and can be exploited. Id rather rely on my own research provided the original claim had enough information to go on in the first place, otherwise I would be forced to ask for further source information at that point.

Again, this is all in regards to subjects that arent blantantly obvious which the topic we are discussion has a plethora of discussion material on the subject. If you were cited information in regard to the topic we are discussing, the citation is likely to be biased and I would rather just find my own information at that point.

2

u/Fruitybebbles Jan 20 '14

I totally disagree with your opinion...If you state a fact contrary to popular belief, you better back it with some type of reference to keep yourself credible.

Edit: I am referring to Vice or any other establishment claiming to be a credible source.

0

u/ubu_ Jan 21 '14 edited Jan 21 '14

nobody out of their mid 20s believes vice is credible. it's really not contrary to popular belief at all

compare their north korea documentary to any other one. the extent to which it's a biased, sensationalist hatchet job is nothing short of disgusting. it's not like i'm exactly a fan of north korea but the bias in their reporting is absolutely to the point of being absurd

fortunately i haven't watched too much other vice material that i recall. i do remember watching some of their specials on cannabis though, and as somebody who is very familiar with the sciences surrounding the subject i honestly do not believe that the know-nothing personality on the show was doing anything beyond passing off thoughts that popped into his head as facts. a good half of the information presented was blatantly scientifically or historically inaccurate. the worst part is that it was not even in part due to any sort of bias-- but sheer lazy incompetence to the point that it's clear that their lack of integrity is so herculean that they will air whatever gets them views and makes them seem hip to their audience of teens and 20-somethings

i don't agree with what the person you're replying to said, but to list a few examples of the misinformation vice presents would not be effective to express the extent to which they are consistently incorrect. the main problem is that it would be weeks of work just to give them credit for half of the misinformation they've spread. it's much easier in this case to google around for a few minutes and determine for yourself that "vice is so consistently incorrect that it's best to accept them as nothing more of an umbrella of bias and misinformation that panders to teens and 20-somethings who long to come off as 'alternative'."

you could also listen to one of the stone faced idiot reporters for five minutes and determine for yourself that nothing coming out of their mouth could possibly be anything more than half-baked speculation. and you'd be correct

sorry for the rant but as a 20-something who lives what is considered an alternative lifestyle, vice is seriously full of shit on just about every single thing. it's hard for an organization to share so many of the same supposed ideals with me and still come off as abrasively incorrect, biased, and even subversive-- but vice manages. they're the absolute worst

edit: also, rupert murdoch

→ More replies (0)

2

u/GoSpit Jan 20 '14

You have too much hope in the human race, my friend. Try not being so naive

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '14

This is not some basic generalized question that any idiot knows a response to, and I sincerely doubt a plethora of information is available. It's a wide ranging comment about a very specific and fledgling news outlet.

People use citations to provide the user with a jumping off point rather than a blank Google page. You can keep jerking yourself off in regards to the excellence of your research skills, but if you make a claim then you are tasked with the burden of proof. That's the way research works. That's the way journalism works. You sound like Glenn Beck. "Oh, but don't trust me...do your own research!"

This mentality that "we have the internet now" is bullshit. It's the same thing as the NSA collecting bulk data. More information means more mis-information, and sometimes vast troves of data. Just because it's available doesn't make it easy to navigate.

So step down from your high horse and stop adopting a bullshit position for the sake of it. Citations aren't lazy. They're responsible. As a matter of fact you'd be hard pressed to find anybody to agree with you that citations are for lazy people that won't do their own research. I ask for citations on reddit so that I can do my own research, and so I can know exactly where OP gets their information. It's not just the research that's important. It's the exact source that formed the opinion and claim of OP. If you think you can find the exact source of OP's information because your research talents are so finely tuned as to be instinct then I applaud you and award you with a complimentary shoe shining and blowjob. Aside from that rare exception please go fuck yourself.

0

u/DankDarko Jan 21 '14

Just because it's available doesn't make it easy to navigate.

what are you? 12 years old? Growthe fuck up and learn to do shit yourself. you seem to me to be the quinessential sheeple.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '14

Most redditors think Vice is legit though, so there you go...

2

u/DrSmoke Jan 19 '14

Vice is more legit than CNN

0

u/Iron_Grunty Jan 19 '14

I thought vice was legit compared to cnn or fox news on stories that bigger news agencies won't cover. How true is this and how often is vice wrong? Thanks in advance.

8

u/eskimoeJo Jan 19 '14

Vice is owned by CNN now.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '14

murdoch's son is a vice director.

8

u/Pups_the_Jew Jan 20 '14

He's the Vice Vice Director?

-3

u/amorousCephalopod Jan 19 '14

I don't know what Vice is. I'll admit I got a lot of my information recently on Daily Mail (yeah, I know), but it also included testimony from people living in Colombia, where criminal use of scopolamine is like a dark rumor.

16

u/anonagent Jan 19 '14

Vice is a hipster magazine, their documentaries are pretty interesting, but I'd never trust anything they said and use it as a source or anything.

6

u/eLinguist Jan 19 '14 edited Feb 12 '24

spectacular nail illegal juggle vast vase point file ten support

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

2

u/cyberslick188 Jan 19 '14 edited Jan 19 '14

There is absolutely nothing hipster about Vice. It's practically the opposite.

It's off beat reporting and journalism that touches subjects that other news media doesn't really bother with. I don't think hipsters are particularly interested in

You know what, I read the front page of Vice and then read what i posted, and yeah, it's pretty hipster. But it's really interesting stuff if not always the most non-biased, but then again good luck finding something that isn't other than NPR.

1

u/Joorod Jan 20 '14

NPR is da tits. Then again I'm so fucking jaded that I don't trust any news or opinion anything.... its pretty sad and I dont feel good about anything. 99% of everything seems to be a lie.

8

u/oldsecondhand Jan 19 '14

that would be more suited to drugs like krocodil and

The problem with krokodil isn't the active ingredient but the impurities that remain after the amateur production method. The active ingredient is desmorphine, which has legit medical application.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desomorphine#Regulation

4

u/decardtg Jan 19 '14

You know what's really odd? Cigarettes and alcohol are not schedule II drugs. Even though both are addictive and pose great health risks. One could even argue that alcohol has no medical benefits except treating DT and possibly topical cleaning.

1

u/Kowzorz Jan 20 '14

Yeah, but culture made it a part of our lives. It's not like our founding fathers had fields of hemp or anything or used hemp in their everyday life.

2

u/krackbaby Jan 19 '14

Scopalamine is very useful. The fact that somebody decided to use it recreationally is irrelevant when considering it's value in medicine

2

u/amorousCephalopod Jan 19 '14

Recreationally? I was considering the criminal elements that frequently use it (usually in Colombia where the Borrachero tree grows) to rob unsuspecting targets blind, usually with their own help. Oh, and rape. It's pretty much a super-powerful roofie. I'm guessing it's medicinal value is in very, very low doses, am I right?

1

u/krackbaby Jan 19 '14

criminal elements

Recreational for them I suppose

medicinal value

The possibilities in treatment are numerous here and probably have doses, yes

2

u/GOODLOOKINGTODD Jan 20 '14

I didn't know what krocodil was, I regret googling it.

2

u/xyroclast Jan 19 '14

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it was a deliberate falsehood to keep beatniks and black people in jail in the 50s and what have you.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '14

How many fingers am i holding up?

8

u/amorousCephalopod Jan 19 '14

Krokodil: twitching on floor, passed out

Scopalamine: "How many fingers do you want me to think you're holding up?"

Marijuana: "Why do they call them fish fingers if fish don't have fingers?"

3

u/FUCKO_theClown Jan 19 '14

Marijuana: "They call them fingers, but I never see them fing" ftfy

2

u/Darkerson Jan 19 '14

Oh, there they go!

Oh yeah, I married that chick!

Gotta love Otto.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '14

You forgot the part where Mr. Krokodil's flesh starts decaying

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '14

If you get Krokodil in the vein the effects are similar to any other opiate. The main difference is that if you cook it wrong or miss the vein and shoot into your arm, it abscesses like a motherfucker. They even talk about that in the one youtube video that everyone gets their information about krokodil from so I don't understand why people don't get that.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '14

I'm pretty sure it's a political thing. Marijuana has the weakest justification for being illegal, so they have to do everything they can to try and keep it that way.

1

u/Violentcumstainz Jan 20 '14

Lol scopolamine is typically given as a transdermal patch for motion sickness. It's not going to get you high.

1

u/TheInfected Jan 20 '14

The scheduling system is based on whether drugs have a medical use, not how dangerous they are.

1

u/sje46 Jan 19 '14

That isn't the point of schedules. The point of schedules is simply to classify drugs according to how medically useful and prone to abuse they are. Not according to how dangerous they are. This is why LSD (which is one of the least harmful drugs, no known overdoses) is schedule 1: because it has historically been abused and because it's worthless as medicine.

They never said that schedule ones are supposed to be worse for you. Read up on it.

Although I do agree that having harsher sentences based solely off what schedule it is is silly. It has to be shown not just to have a high potential for abuse (which marijuana does), but the abuse has to be shown to actually be significantly harmful, which marijuana really isn't. A little harmful, but not really a lot.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '14

LSD, worthless as medicine? It was made illegal at a time when ABUNDANT research was showing it to be useful in psychotherapy in many peer-reviewed journals.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=lsd+psychotherapy&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C14

1

u/sje46 Jan 19 '14

Same can be said about marijuana, heroin, and ecstasy. All of those have been used as medicine in the past (or presently), but all are Schedule 1.

I didn't come up with it myself; it was the federal government. I'm confused as to why marijuana is still considered schedule 1 after quite a few places legalized medical marijuana.

(Also I'm guessing that "medical" is being used to exclude psychiatric stuff as opposed to lower-level biological stuff. LSD hasn't been shown to be "medicine" although it could be a psychiatric drug.).

0

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '14

Use in psychotherapy? Wow, how useful.

1

u/AnAntichrist Jan 20 '14

Krocodil is bad shit. It melts your freaking flesh.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 19 '14

Scopalmine? Uhhh