No, it's extremely relevant. The Departments of Justice and Public Health both said that, in the next few years, if the doctors' give a thumbs down after their risk/benefit analysis of Colorado and Washington, they will sue the states that legalize it, shutting down recreational marijuana sales. Also, what you did breaks an international treaty signed in 1961, which forbids the legalization of marijuana for recreational sales, and the United Nations, which reserves the right to impose criminal sanctions on the US, and any other country that legalizes marijuana, also said they will be paying attention to the doctors' report. The Colorado governor is also supplying them with the millions of dollars in recreational marijuana sales [url=http://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176%2Fappi.pn.2014.4b21]to do their studies.[/url] They write at the end "Imagine if our country a century ago had the knowledge we have today about the negative health effects of tobacco" because the lobby groups of the alcohol and tobacco industries prevent most medical organizations and governments to put restrictions on the sale of these products. This is why fast food and sugar (where the negative effects were found long after it was legalized) and tobacco and alcohol are legal. Right now, in 2014, there is a robust link between marijuana and the triggering of psychosis, among other psychiatric illnesses. Two wrongs don't make a right, just because there are lobby groups for tobacco and alcohol, shouldn't mean there should be one for marijuana. The federal government is respecting this, if the AMA gives a thumbs down after extensively studying the states that legalize weed, particularly Co and WA, the Departments of Justice and Public Health said they will shut it down. Whether you like it or not, it is a fact that the doctors have a big say (and the federal and international governments agree---the same ones who get to determine whether or not to let recreational marijuana sales proceed or not) in this matter. Eric Holder, the attorney general, personally said they will respect the studies the doctors and scientists do in the states that legalize weed, and if there is an increase in teen usage, as well as psychiatric illness, the federal government will enact federal law, and prevent the sales of recreational marijuana (which they have the right to do).

You bring up a United Nations act like it is gold. Do you realize the United Nations Rights code exhists and that Guantanamo Bay violated those laws.

Countries can dissent, I know. That's why Uruguay legalized it. All I am saying is, they (the people who write international laws) are paying attention to the AMA's report. I was just trying to tell Foman, many high respected government organizations respect the views of doctors.

[quote]Countries can dissent, I know. That's why Uruguay legalized it. All I am saying is, they (the people who write international laws) are paying attention to the AMA's report. I was just trying to tell Foman, many high respected government organizations respect the views of doctors.[/quote] Perhaps but thats because a lot of money is getting thrown around between the two.

No, that's illegal. There are strict controls in the medical profession to prevent this from happening. It is illegal, if you don't believe me, ask Bobcast (resident doctor ninja), he'll tell you the same thing.

[quote]No, that's illegal. There are strict controls in the medical profession to prevent this from happening. It is illegal, if you don't believe me, ask Bobcast (resident doctor ninja), he'll tell you the same thing.[/quote] White collar crime is very relevant in Canad and the US. When it comes to corporations and the government there is a ton of lobbying and money getting thrown around. If it benefits both no one is going to say a word. Or you end up like Edward for releasing private documents.

Look up the CATIE trials. Again, there are strict controls to prevent white collar crime. I will tell you a situation that happened in a Canadian hospital. A psychiatrist was playing the system, and prescribing many many pills to people who didn't need it, and acting as a consultant to many Big Pharma corporations,without stating how much money he received from them. They immediately found out, and he knew he was going to lose his license. So he shot himself. People have lost elite positions, in the medical field, just for not disclosing how much they were being paid by Big Pharma. There are strict controls, trust me.

Again, the argument shouldn't be about health (even though it appears to be), but freedom.

The federal government doesn't care; they think public health is more important, and said, if negative effects come out, they will sue the states. The UN also thinks public health>freedom and they hold the right to sue (and impose criminal sanctions) on countries. I am just telling you what the people at the top (who hold the right to shut down marijuana legalization) opinions are. And they can decide whether or not marijuana is legalized.

Yeah, I know, it's just a shame that people are policed from what they want to do - and are doing anyway. It's not like prohibition actually works.

One of the amendments the Delegation made, with the legal teams is, if marijuana legalization doesn't pass the test, they will only make the sale of weed illegal, not the possession. Yes, I agree, the current system is ineffective; and the doctors (and lawyers) agree, this is why Obama is turning a blind eye right now, he says, what comes out of Colorado and Washington, it will shape a new, and better system. I hope he is right, I agree, the War on Drugs is a failure.

At least in the UK (where I'm from) any tax gained from the sale of drugs can then be put into harm reduction via the NHS. Therefore people will use the drugs (as they would have done regardless) with more support available to combat the negative effects on the health. This method both increases freedom and public health, win win as I see it. Not having a free healthcare system might change that a little, though, like in the US.

Yeah, but didn't the UK give David Nutt, the drug czar who wanted to legalize weed, the boot a few years back? Even though the taxes from alcohol and tobacco are used for education, still millions of dollars are lost in health care costs (30 percent smoke tobacco, way more drink alcohol). I think like 8 percent of the pop. smokes weed,and I think legalizing it like alcohol (little controls on regulation) would increases its use. Some medical organizations (here in Canada), actually [url=http://www.camh.ca/en/hospital/about_camh/influencing_public_policy/Documents/CAMHCannabisPolicyFramework.pdf]one[/url] is doing what you suggested, legalizing under strict control (and with government monopoly so the private sector doesn't interfere and market these drugs) and using all the money for harm reduction, but some disagree. But Canada is like the UK, free healthcare, it's hard for America to do something like this, because of their fractured health care system (healthcare nowhere near like Canada and the UK, even with ObamaCare). But I agree, harm reduction along with legalization is a good alternative, and some governments have given it serious thought. But the Americans can't really do this as well as other countries, because, again, fractured health care system, unless the federal government becomes involved (Obama is just ignoring this right now). I guess we'll wait and see what comes out of Colorado, Washington and Uruguay to see where the future of marijuana policy is.

I'm of course only talking about potential. The UK is pretty backwards in terms of drug laws, but is in the position to make good of it.

Yeah, the NHS system is gold, even Canada's healthcare system (which Americans hail as superior) is nowhere near the level of the NHS. You guys in the UK have a really solid healthcare system.