| ▲ | recursive 2 days ago |
| This seems totally unrelated to whether cannabis should be recreational. If my insurance company leaked my PHI, that would certainly not be evidence that any of my prescriptions should be OTC. |
|
| ▲ | firefax 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| >This seems totally unrelated to whether cannabis should be recreational. Basically, they only pretend it's "medical" in order to gatekeep and rentseek care. Since they are interested in profit rather than actual services, their systems tend to have many issues. |
|
| ▲ | amy_petrik 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I mean... if you ask me prescriptions for things like cholesterol or blood pressure should be OTC, benefit outweighs the risk. Nobody is getting high off statins. Imagine how much that would save our healthcare system. Insulin is the one dubious thing because it can be very deadly if misused... and it IS in fact OTC because it can be deadly if unavailable, benefit outweighs the risk. |
| |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Insulin is very much not "the one" dubious thing. There are very many things which are prescribed these have abuse potential and which could be deadly if misused. | |
| ▲ | to11mtm a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Nobody is getting high off statins. I mean, fun story time; back in 2014 my dad's house was broken into, and among other things they stole was a bottle of a benzo, and while most of my dad's medications were untouched they stole his blood pressure meds. As I was opining this to a colleague, another employee that was within earshot explained that no, for certain things it can 'enhance' the high... go figure. | | |
| ▲ | firefax 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | I am fairly knowledgeable about drug abuse but was not aware of that, maybe your coworker was slightly telling on themselves? (Sadly mostly through dealing with others navigating it, in case anyone is jonesing for judgement.) |
|
|
|
| ▲ | hacker_yacker 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| IMHO only reason cannabis is illegal is it's a threat to Pharma Industry, Pharma Lobby, aka organized, legal crime. |
| |
| ▲ | Krssst 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Despite some of the discourse there are some long term side-effects (though it seems mostly especially bad for adolescents where stopping consumption does not revert the impact on cognitive function): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabi... Then it's a societal choice between the benefits of easier access to it for medical use (non-OTC drugs are harder to get when you need them) plus lower burden on law enforcement when it does not have to deal with this anymore, and the opportunity cost to society when some people don't use it responsibly and waste their chances. I see positives and negatives for both choices. (I don't believe other drugs being legal is an argument, alcohol and tobacco wouldn't be legal if discovered today but because they have widespread use it's impossible to forbid them) | | |
| ▲ | kjkjadksj 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Cannabis is widely used today. Half of US adults have smoked it at one point of their life. 20% regularly smoke it. We are at the point where more people use it than alcohol in the US. | | |
| ▲ | carlmr 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >We are at the point where more people use it than alcohol in the US. Citation needed on that one. | | | |
| ▲ | Krssst a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | From the standpoint of "hard to ban what's used by a large part of the population" this does justify legalization indeed. I don't have strong opinions on this, I was mostly a bit triggered by the parent's comment weird theory that "cannabis was only forbidden because of criminal big pharma". (I assumed "only reason" implied that they thought it was a safe drug without side-effects or risks; all (medical/non-medical) drugs have side-effects and risks so not being 100% safe isn't a reason for banning by itself, but that's a factor in the risk/benefit balance). | | |
| ▲ | AlecSchueler a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > From the standpoint of "hard to ban what's used by a large part of the population" this does justify legalization indeed. I think they meant more that the negative effects don't seem that big because most people are ok even with such a large proportion of people already being experienced with it. > triggered by the parent's comment weird theory that "cannabis was only forbidden because of criminal big pharma". I don't believe it was either but I'm not sure your counter evidence really works. The science that you alluded to about long term effects all significantly post-dates the ban so couldn't have played a role in it. | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
