This is one of the things that gets me about medical marijuana proponents: They think that everyone, EVERYONE, likes to smoke pot and get high. What they don't understand is that there is a large portion of the population who, if given the choice between smoking pot and dying of cancer, would actually choose to die than introduce that stuff into their lungs.

Er, example?

I would think anti-medical-pot politicians would have happily bribed as many such cancer patients as they could to go in front of the camera.

Somehow, I doubt it's a noticeable percentage of cancer patients who feel that way. (Once you actually GET cancer, of course! People will say anything when they're NOT faced with that choice.)

As long as people aren't driving around or operating heavy machinery while they're stoned out of their gourds, I don't really care what they do. And when you compare it to alchohol use... yes, there are some addicts, but most people aren't. And most people don't drive or go to work or supervise children at the pool while they're schnockered. The people who do would do it anyway.

"here is a large portion of the population who, if given the choice between smoking pot and dying of cancer, would actually choose to die"

Load, comma, flaming: see Reefer Madness, et al.

I did put that rather bluntly. A better way of saying it would be that if I were a cancer patient, and medical marijuana was offered as a treatment plan, I would either see what else is available or go without treatment. (Of course, I do have to admit that's what I would say now, as I don't have cancer. But if I did, I would be very, very resistent to using marijuana. I would have to consider it an absolutely last resort.)

This is one of the things that gets me about medical marijuana proponents: They think that everyone, EVERYONE, likes to smoke pot and get high. What they don't understand is that there is a large portion of the population who, if given the choice between smoking pot and dying of cancer, would actually choose to die than introduce that stuff into their lungs.

Ever drink? Eat chocolate? Have sex for any reason other than procreation? Masturbate? Ordered meat cooked just the way you like it?

Thats all some form of getting high.

I would be very, very resistent to using marijuana. I would have to consider it an absolutely last resort

Why? What f it were one of the strains that cant get you high but still help you eat and withstand the side effects of chemo?

Because I know this absolutely brilliant person who was on a course to become truly extraordinary. He started doing marijuana and completely lost all interest in doing anything else but get high. He now works at Disney World taking pictures of kids with the characters, and he's about to even lose that job. I refuse to let anything chemical have that kind of effect on my life and I don't want to give it a chance.

Unless you have a genetic predisposition to addiction, or serious mental issues that you would be trying to self medicate you wouldnt have a problem.

And even if you were you wouldnt have a problem with the strains with little to no THC which i what induces the euphoria.

But I get it. I'm an addict, but I'm also a control freak who recognized my addictive behavior, so I have the same reason for not drinking alcohol or ding any drugs

But I still think they should be legal for those who want them

"But I still think they should be legal for those who want them" - lujlp

I agree with this sentiment. Everyone else can do them if they want (even the person mentioned above), but it's not for me.

My original statement was that a large number of people who get high seems to think that EVERYONE likes to get high.

Fayd,

The same is true of drunks. Many of them get really pushy if you aren't drinking with them.

I personally doubt that anyone who is not doing MJ is going to start just because they make it legal. It is just too easy to get illegally for that to have been a barrier.

A tightwad family friend with lung cancer had a choice between anti-nausea pills that cost over $300.00 per tablet, or trying marijuana offered by his granddaughter.

He tried the marijuana, although he was 83 and believed the Reefer Madness era propaganda he grew up on. The MJ worked great, cured the nausea and made him wish to eat. It helped with his fractured sleep and his wife said it made him less depressed.

His granddaughter reported that he had smoked less than a half ounce of medical grade pot in his last 6 months at a total cost of 180 bucks. The savings alone made the old penny-pincher happy.

The economy is in the toilet, the police are being militarized, our civil rights evaporating... Don't worry, be happy-- smoke a joint!

Charging $300 a pill for Ativan or something similar should be a crime...my father had horrible nausea after his last chemo treatment, and when I asked for a couple more pills to see if we could get him over it, the nurse practitioner who answers the phone at the cancer center said 'Those pills are expensive! We can't give them out like candy!'

Wish I'd thought of pot....

I live in Colorado, and trust me, this is not a land full of stoner hippie potheads (excluding Boulder; they've always been stoner hippie potheads).

Legalizing it is actually a good thing: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/16/marijuana-crime-denver_n_5500611.html

I'm curious to know what antinausea medication costs $300 a pill. Even Zofran, which is known to be the pricey one, is a couple bucks a pill (I know because I've taken it with and without insurance coverage), although I've heard anecdotal stories of it being very expensive and only for chemotherapy patients when it first came out years ago. Maybe it was way back then that these patients were needing these pills? I know my uncle told me Marinol (the marijuana pill) prescribed to his wife for nausea was $50 a pill though.

My stepdad passed away of pancreatic cancer last July and as sick and horrible as he felt, he turned down medical marijuana when he was given the option. I'm not sure of his reasons, but he felt strongly about not using it.

I don't think it's medical marijuana supporters who think *everyone* would like to try it. Any substance in the world, besides water, has people who would rather die than take it. If pork fat had medicinal qualities (aside from the psychologically therapeutic powers of bacon), some observant Jews and Muslims would refuse to consume it anyway. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions. Common sense.

Opponents of medical and recreational marijuana seem to be the ones who think everyone wants to get high, that if pot is legal, you won't be able to find a sober driver to save your life.

"Guess what: availability does not equal addiction."

Is this the new slogan? Whatever happened to, "If pot was legal, people would use it responsibly."?

And "if it was free,fewer people would use it". I've actually had someone tell me that, seriously.

Of course, there are some substances for which the above quote is FALSE.

What ever happened to you devising an impairment test for OTC drugs?