|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Reefer madness. Legalisation of marijuana, are there no negatives?
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
This is coming to Canada. I am no expert, far from it. No interest and no experience. But it concerns me that proponents see no down side whatever. It is a magic medicine. It is harmless and fun. Which seems an overstatement. I have read about the gin problem when it was cheaper than beer some centuries ago, and wonder about the new alcohol-like problems which seem inevitable.
There is talk about effects on brain development until early 20s, helping with anxiety and depression until it increases with ongoing use both some months later, fertility issues, helping with nerve pain.
Anyone have insight? Or is this merely a giant experiment?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I have questions I don't know the answer to.
Does marijuana interact dangerously with other drugs (e.g. prescription stuff, etc.)?
How does it affect driving? Can the cops test for it on the side of the road?
Are there problems with secondhand smoke (say, for babies, or for near neighbors)?
Forgive my ignorance, but I've never tried it, being asthmatic and aware of my family tendency to addiction.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
I am no expert and am an observer, not a participant in its use. But here goes.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Anyone have insight? Or is this merely a giant experiment?
Of course it is. Because of its illegal status, there are fewer comprehensive studies.
Paranoia and anxiety are real, though supposedly more for certain strains and not for everyone.
Casual use will have a different outcome, just like alcohol.
Among frequent users, I have noticed degenerative affects in memory. Not saying this is definitive.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I have questions I don't know the answer to.
Does marijuana interact dangerously with other drugs (e.g. prescription stuff, etc.)?
Yes, with a number of them. Mostly dizziness, drowsiness, confusion, impaired judgement
quote:
How does it affect driving? Can the cops test for it on the side of the road?
Yes it impairs driving. I do not know if it can be tested in the filed. I have heard that it is difficult to test accurately for impairment as there is not enough data.
quote:
Are there problems with secondhand smoke (say, for babies, or for near neighbors)?
Of course. Contact high is a real thing. Concentration is the key, so enclosed areas will be worse. Not so sure that the neighbours habit will get you high, though.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pangolin Guerre
Shipmate
# 18686
|
Posted
As a once-upon-a-time very casual user....
For one thing, it is a lot stronger now than when I quit using it forever about 20 years ago, and I quit because I found that it was too strong then.
Depending on the variety, it has different effects, but as a rule, in my anecdotal experience, it does affect reaction time, so driving under the influence is definitely not a good idea. As for road side testing, there is a saliva test, but I've read (I am NOT an expert, and do not play one on television) that the current test is not very good.
I'm NOT a pharmacologist, but drug interaction strikes me as definite possibility. While my chemistry is rusty, I don't see why drug interaction wouldn't be a (strong?) possibility. Why alcohol or grapefruit juice, and not THC? As to getting high from second hand smoke, I don't know, but I suppose that it's possible. After I had quit smoking weed, I was still drinking, so I hardly qualified as a control subject.
The question of the effects on brain development is troubling, certainly. The Canadian Medical Association recommended a base age of 25, which, while perhaps physiologically valid, is, in a practical social perspective, unrealistic. The government is setting the base at 18, though the provinces can put it higher when they bring in their own regulations. Those under 18 are still going to get their hands on weed regardless, just as they get their hands on alcohol.
I think that there are two species of proponent: irresponsible ones, who think it magical, and those who recognise its potential dangers. I recognise that alcohol can be dangerous, but you'll have to pry my g&t out of my cold, dead hand. It's not an either/or proposition. I have friends who use it for various ends: relieve depression; relieve chronic pain; stimulate creativity. They seem to think that it's effective, so can be said to use it responsibly, I suppose. And they've been using it for those ends for an extended time.
As to the Hogarthian Gin Lane and Beer Street picture that No Prophet paints, I'm sceptical. It's certainly a very bad comparison. Gin's production and sale during the craze were unregulated, whereas with marijuana the governments are going to be intimately involved in both areas, and in taxation (hence increasing the price), as well as setting a base price, as they do with spirits. I strongly suspect, and certainly hope, that the THC concentration will be reduced. As to a black market in higher THC weed, I think that that would over time disappear. When provincial governments started restricting, and then 'merely' regulating alcohol production and distribution, there was a lively trade in moonshine. I remember moonshine from my youth, but even then only as a rarity. I'd be hard pressed even to guess where one could get moonshine, now. I doubt that much, if any, is produced in Canada anymore.
This isn't a completely blind jump into the unknown. Portugal decriminalised all drugs in 2001, so has done us the favour of initiating the experiment 16 years ago. They have vastly reduced deaths from overdose (not that you can easily overdose from marijuana by itself) and reduced the rate of HIV infection. This is in part because when you can get the good stuff without fear of being made a criminal, you don't have to run the risk of buying something adulterated by some dirt bag. Consider our current problem with illegal drugs laced with fentanyl, which would not be a problem were they decriminalised and regulated. As much as decriminalisation, and things like safe injection sites, might offend the sensibilities of conservatives, when it comes to reducing harm, we can't let moral perfection be the enemy of social good.
I hope that that scattershot has helped on balance.
Posts: 758 | From: 30 arpents de neige | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
The Dunedin longitudinal study found a strong link between marijuana use and schizophrenia: it appeared to have a bad effect on those who used it in youth and who had a genetic predisposition to the triggering of schizophrenia by its use. I don't know the basis for this finding.
I am aware, however, that it's far from the only study. Being someone who has a close family member who became schizophrenic through marijuana use (he tried other things too, but the doctor said it was the weed) I remember being told about such studies 20 years ago. They have been routinely ignored by popular society, and I remember how offended people got when I said such studies existed. I would have got a less hostile reaction if I'd handed them a Chick tract.
I don't want the filthy stuff anywhere near me or my children for this reason, and I'm absolutely dismayed by this renewed push to normalise what is clearly a dangerous drug. Isn't alcohol bad enough? Why do we need another one?
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
My son was a bright intelligent teenager with a promising future. However, he experimented with marijuana egged on by teenage friends and was soon addicted to it. This led to harder drugs, psychotic episodes and criminal behaviour. He is clean these days but his life is ruined. He found that everyone called them party drugs which to my son made them sound harmless and just a bit of fun. He knows now how crazy this was. Marijuana is not harmless. Any drugs used should only be ones prescribed by a qualified medical practitioner and their usage properly controlled and supervised.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aravis
Shipmate
# 13824
|
Posted
My main concern is that, while you can avoid alcohol yourself while socialising with a group of friends who are drinking, you can't avoid passive smoking.
And yes, it does affect driving. A few years ago I unknowingly had about 40 minutes of passive exposure to cannabis smoke while on a home visit (he stopped smoking when I arrived but it was a small, poorly ventilated room). When I got back to the car I felt sick and dizzy (thought I had flu) and sat with the windows open for a while before driving back, very cautiously. Fortunately it was a quiet country road and after another ten minutes my head cleared. I had no idea what had happened. It was on the next visit that I found the room of cannabis plants!
I recognise the smell now; use in Cardiff is rising rapidly.
Posts: 689 | From: S Wales | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
One argument in favour from my perspective is that if criminalisation of marijuana results in a prison sentence, that prison sentence has little or no positive impact on the user, still less on the trafficker (the latter are relatively well-off in prison, continue their business using illegal phones, and are glad to have some time away from their pesky girlfriends).
In my country at least, it would reduce the prison population massively and quite possibly without any adverse affects.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
There are plenty of negatives, not least that most of the research into the actions of cannabinoids has been undertaken from a starting point of finding something positive to report from their use. It is a scandal that while governments around the world have spent billions of dollars over decades in fighting cannabis distribution and use, they have spent little or nothing on researching its impacts on users, particularly in regard to pregnant women and young users where brain development is incomplete.
Such studies as have been carried out, however, show there is plenty of cause for concern about the effect of tetrahydrocannabinol - THC - (the main psychoactive constituent) on foetal development and in adolescents. Given that THC has a tendency to combine with fats or lipids, it has been estimated that as much of one-third of THCs in maternal blood will cross the placenta to a foetus; THCs have has also been found in breast milk.
Given that the potency of cannabis has risen greatly over the past 40 or so years, with consequent rise of THCs, this is something we should worry about.
Such studies as have been undertaken have shown that foetuses exposed to THCs can exhibit many of the same symptoms as children with foetal alcohol syndrome which, as we're all aware, can have life-long consequences of hyperactivity, greater startle response, lower IQ scores, etc, etc, etc.
Similarly, the adolescent brain exposed to THCs can be caused permanent damage: research is already showing a link between cannabis use and development of psychosis and/or schizophrenia.
Rather than trotting out the usual oh, its no worse than alcohol or smoking, in fact it is less harmful than tobacco peddled by the legalisation lobby, we should be citing the harm caused by tobacco as a reason for extreme caution towards a substance that has the potential to cause life-long mental and cognitive impairment.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Alcohol, if introduced today, would be a banned substance. It is a dangerous drug, but it is one we have been habituated to think benign if used "responsibly".
Marijuana is not without it risks, no drug is.
Accepting alcohol but demonising marijuana is hypocritical.
I am not a user of marijuana and don't intend to become one, but it is less dangerous than drinking.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Alcohol, if introduced today, would be a banned substance.
The problem with banning alcohol is that anyone can make it out of fruits, vegetables, and grains, which are necessary for life.
These foods, growing in the wild, sometimes become alcoholic with no human intervention.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hilda of Whitby
Shipmate
# 7341
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
How does it affect driving?
My brother was in a band in the 70s. Pot was part of the lifestyle. He was on his way to a gig with another guy in the band in the car. He was high, veered over into the other lane, and a car going at a very excessive rate of speed hit his car. My brother died; the driver of the other car and my brother's passenger survived. The other guys in the band were in a car right behind, and I still remember them telling me that the second thing they did after checking on my brother and the other guy was to ditch the pot so the cops wouldn't find it. So yeah, it definitely affects driving.
This was 40 years ago and in some ways I'm still not over it.
I agree with other people--pot is much stronger than it was back in the day. I got high a handful of times back in the 70s. I enjoyed it but did not like the smoking aspect so I never became a habitual user.
There are at least some types (maybe all types?) of medical marijuana that have the spacey "high" elements removed, so you get the good benefits (pain cessation, relaxation). There are also types of medical maryjane that aren't smoked.
I live in a state where medical marijuana can be legally dispensed. If I had chronic pain, I'd definitely investigate medical marijuana before opioids, that's for damn sure. But I have no interest in pot recreationally.
--------------------
"Born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world is mad."
Posts: 412 | From: Nickel City | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
re: schizophrenia and pot.
I am a little suspicious about how those findings seemed to materialize after a few decades of other "pot is bad" allegations being serially debunked, as if marijuana opponents just kept saying anything they could think of, until something finally stuck.
That said, from what I have heard about the studies and also from anecdotal observation(several years working in a non-professional mental health job), it wouldn't surprise me if there does turn out to be a weed-schizophrenia linkage.
However, I'm still not convinced that such a link justifies continued prohibition, especially when the "protection" on offer involves jail and life-wrecking criminal records for the very people the law purports to be concerned about. Imagine if you could be jailed for possession of peanuts, on the rationale that some people have fatal allergies to peanuts. I think that would be seen as a pretty extreme case of overkill. (And an allergic reaction to peanuts is arguably more dangerous to the individual than schizophrenia, since it can kill you in seconds flat.)
I would hope that there's a way to legalize pot, while making sure that most people making a decision about whether or not to use are aware of THE MOST CREDIBLE scientific findings as to its possible drawbacks. (Anyone who grew up in the era of Nancy Reagan would know why I'm specifying "credible" here.)
Of course, minors might not be expected to make the most rationale decisions, even if given all the available evidence. Trudeau's legalization scheme includes penalties of up to 14 years incarceration for anyone giving weed to kids. That might work, though it would probably also stop a lot of people from having weed at all, since it would be too easy for their kids to swipe a few buds from their stash, and tell everyone that they got it from their parents.
[ 20. April 2017, 12:39: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Alcohol, if introduced today, would be a banned substance. It is a dangerous drug, but it is one we have been habituated to think benign if used "responsibly".
Marijuana is not without it risks, no drug is.
Accepting alcohol but demonising marijuana is hypocritical.
I am not a user of marijuana and don't intend to become one, but it is less dangerous than drinking.
I agree with this.
Alcohol can create merriment in some circumstances, anger and aggression in other situations. The physical effect of excessive alcohol consumption is however the same for every person, namely it knackers the liver.
Any substance dependency is not desirable. The free and uninhibited use of cannabis in a society is not fully known, but certain countries where it has been tried haven't exactly collapsed into a sedated race of zombies.
This latest thing called 'Spice' does though appear to be a different kettle fish.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Is legalisation one thing and proper control another? Legalisation might mean controlled, as in prescription and get from pharmacist. If it is medicine. Except it is both medicine and for fun. Which is bizarre.
Fentanyl in my personal experience is an excellent surgical drug. I have had it twice for operations. Put me out, brought me back and no side effects. Anaesthesia, not recreational. And controlled in this case in hospital.
I know one person who uses a prescription marijuana spray called Sativex for nerve pain. Relieves pain, doesn't intoxicate. Which seems more sensible than burning leaves to me. Like taking the heart drug Digitalis instead of using foxglove leaves.
Third hand tobacco smoke (on clothing or in a location smokers hangout) gives me allergic reactions. Should I expect the same with this?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
Re: driving, as said above, stoned driving is hazardous. As for detection, at least around here, driving while your ability is impaired by any drug or alcohol is illegal, as is driving if your blood alcohol is more than a certain number. They have tried to establish a similar "per se" number for marijuana, but there isn't a reliable test that can tell if you are actually impaired or just smoked 48 hours ago, or a whole lot in the last month. But patrollers can still be trained to recognize the physical and mental symptoms of someone who is too stoned to drive.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
One argument in favour from my perspective is that if criminalisation of marijuana results in a prison sentence, that prison sentence has little or no positive impact on the user, still less on the trafficker (the latter are relatively well-off in prison, continue their business using illegal phones, and are glad to have some time away from their pesky girlfriends).
In my country at least, it would reduce the prison population massively and quite possibly without any adverse affects.
This.
I share the concerns mentioned here-- two in particular:
• the triggering risk of schizophrenia among those with a genetic predisposition. The studies I've read suggest that weed does not cause schizophrenia per se, but interact with schizophrenic episodes in such a way that it makes recovery much more difficult/resistant to anti-psychotic drugs-- turning a temporary disability into a lifelong struggle. Working with the homeless, a significant percentage of whom are struggling with both addiction and mental illness, I suspect I'm seeing this factor.
• the effect of dampening ambition/drive among young people at precisely the time when they need to be learning time-management skills & investing in the future. The college students I'm working with are really living on such a thin thread of massive debt-- they have hocked their own future and their families' financial well being (2nd & 3rd mortgages on homes, etc) in such a way that a single semester blown off could be financially devastating. Student debt of course is a bigger issue, but the risk posed by weed concerns me.
otoh, here in the US treating drug abuse, and particularly weed, as a criminal issue has been a huge disaster-- leading to mass incarceration, mandatory sentencing that ends up triggering early release of far more dangerous criminals, a huge and ethically compromised private prison industry. Robbing so many lives of their future.
The biggest shift that needs to take place imho is to shift from treating it as a crime and instead treating it as a public health issue-- shifting resources from prisons and judicial enforcement to prevention and treatment.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garden Hermit
Shipmate
# 109
|
Posted
Apparently where Countries have legalised some Drugs it has meant a lot more work for Police. For example the age limit has been set at 18 and the Police have to ensure that no-one under that age is being supplied by someone older. It has also meant 'tourism' from other Countries and States by outside Criminal Gangs buying their supplies legally for moving on somewhere else.
Posts: 1413 | From: Reading UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am not a user of marijuana and don't intend to become one, but it is less dangerous than drinking.
Not sure that's true. Like several other posters here, I have my share of schizophrenia / marijuana anecdotes, and also like many people here I know a large number of people who are / have been casual users without any obvious bad effects.
I am persuaded that in the typical case, marijuana is not worse than alcohol, and may be marginally better, but I suspect that the less likely outcomes are worse.
But a bigger concern I have is over the question of controlling dosage and exposure. As others have said, there's no such thing as passive drinking (unless you count the weird bars that are offering rooms with alcohol misted into the air). Also consider the use of brownies and chocolate to administer pot - it's easy to mess up the dose, or not be aware that this particular brownie has an extra ingredient. It's much harder to do this with alcohol (one of my objections to alcopops, vodka & red bull and so on is that those things do make it too easy to drink more than you were expecting.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The inhalation of smoke of any kind must be an issue? Soot in the lungs?
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
The problem with banning alcohol
That horse burned down the barn after it left, so I don't expect this to happen. Speaking of moonshine, pot will continue the same way. There will always be growers who do not want to pay taxes, utility bills, respect water usage, meet environmental regulations, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I am not a user of marijuana and don't intend to become one, but it is less dangerous than drinking.
Not sure that's true.
I did not say there are no dangers. Alcohol often triggers aggression with all the consequences of that.
One can easily fatally overdose on alcohol, it doesn't appear to be true with marijuana.
Alcohol, from what is known now, appears to have many more interactions with other drugs, though both have them.
The indications with psychiatric issues and marijuana are, at the moment, more to worsening and earlier onset, rather than causation.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
Responding to no prophet: I think the simplest argument against smoking marijuana (or tobacco or cornsilk or banana peels) is that the lungs of human beings (or of any living creatures) are not intended to breathe smoke (of any kind).
Of course, people do ingest marijuana in other forms (hash brownies?) which do not risk lung damage for themselves or others and are not likely to start unwanted fires.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Lil Buddha wrote:
quote:
I did not say there are no dangers. Alcohol often triggers aggression with all the consequences of that.
One can easily fatally overdose on alcohol, it doesn't appear to be true with marijuana.
Alcohol, from what is known now, appears to have many more interactions with other drugs, though both have them.
The indications with psychiatric issues and marijuana are, at the moment, more to worsening and earlier onset, rather than causation.
I think alcohol is definitely more likely to trigger violence and aggression. And probably does more direct damage to one's physical health(hangovers, just to cite the most minor ailment, without even getting into organ damage etc).
But it's arguably the absence of dramatic physical harm and discomfort that makes the effects of marijuana abuse a little more insidious. During my drinking days I never had the potential to become an alcoholic, because the hangovers were just too brutal, and even without them, I found the "staggering" feeling caused by even a light beer-buzz a bit of an impediment to enjoying daily life. (I don't understand how some people can put away a half dozen beers, and then sit down to read the newspaper.)
But, my impression of weed(based entirely on conversations with total strangers, of course!) is that it really doesn't do much physical wear and tear, and that it's not uncommon for a lot of users to stay up late toking, and then light up again right after they get out of bed the next morning. Because they don't feel sick from the night before.
Sure, there are hardcore alkies who can do the hair-of-the-dog first thing out of bed, but I'd wager the deterrent effect of a hangover is stronger than the deterrent effect of a next-day afterglow from weed.
[ 20. April 2017, 16:31: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Of course, people do ingest marijuana in other forms (hash brownies?) which do not risk lung damage for themselves or others and are not likely to start unwanted fires.
...unless you try to bake the brownies whilst stoned ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I'm anti-drugs. I think they're a thoroughly bad thing.
All the same, even with the health risks, I question how prudent or legitimate it really is for the state to presume to take upon itself protecting people from themselves. I would always work from a presumption that people should be free to do what's bad for them unless there really is a very overwhelming case for forbidding them. The fact that we're debating the questions strongly implies that the arguments on this one are about even, and there's no self-evident case for banning it.
Besides, mountaineering is dangerous - bad for people - but nobody seems to have suggested banning that. There are shops that specialise in selling expensive equipment for doing it, either more safely or in yet more challenging places.
Also, criminalising the use of hashish obviously hasn't worked. When I was a child it was virtually unknown, an exotic foreign habit. Now, lots of people still take the stuff. So I'd go for legalising it, making it subject to the same sort of trading standards controls as apply to everything else, and raising revenue by taxing it at about the same rate as tobacco.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
DonLogan2
Shipmate
# 15608
|
Posted
If it is still available, try and get hold of "Americas stoned kids" it was on BBC 2 a few years ago, they looked at how Colorado`s kids had managed to get hold of medical/legal marijuana and how they got hooked on it.
There was also another prog on the legalisation in the USA (might have been Colorado) and how the big firms were moving in and the scary thing was the high dosage of THC that they were ready to give the awaiting public. IIRC a chocolate the size of the end of my thumb had around the same dosage as a regular using adult would have in a day, the mind boggles what would be the outcome should a toddler gets it`s hands on one of these, let alone a box.
--------------------
“I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth... "
Posts: 359 | From: the very depths | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Don Logan wrote:
quote:
here was also another prog on the legalisation in the USA (might have been Colorado) and how the big firms were moving in and the scary thing was the high dosage of THC that they were ready to give the awaiting public.
Well, if these are "big firms", operating openly and legitimately, presumably they won't sell anything the government doesn't allow them to sell. So, if they're wanting to put huge wallops of THC into the product, the solution is to get the government to regulate the market so they can't do that.
Frankly, that argument is a little like saying that Page Three girls are a bad thing, because some of those fleet-street creeps would show topless thirteen year olds if they could. Maybe they would, but the point is, they can't.
And since the BBC has apparently waded into the Pond, I have to say, it's rather amusing to hear about them tut-tutting Americans for unrestrained hedonism.
I always thought the current stereotype was that the Yanks are uptight putitans, compared to the sophisticated, seen-it-all Europeans. Now, it sounds as if the Beeb is getting ready to fire off denunciations of crime comics and jazz music.
[ 20. April 2017, 18:04: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
One more thing...
quote:
the mind boggles what would be the outcome should a toddler gets it`s hands on one of these, let alone a box.
If we're talking about toddlers, then the issue is child-proof storage. The same as it is for liquor, prescription medication, tobacco, or any number of products which, consumed in the wrong way or in too high a dosage, can do serious harm to the body.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
In Washington State it has now been legal for about two years. Overall I see no significant change in culture. It is helping the state and counties, even cities, fill their tax needs. Just yesterday the local Republican paper had a food section dedicated completely to edible marijuana.
Remember, medical marijuana has CBD in it and low THC. Can't really get high with CBD, but it does help control pain and is even good for glaucoma.
The state is also looking at legalizing industrial hemp, which is excellent for making paper and some fabrics.
Stanford University is now working on a road test for marijuana that tests for THC in saliva. Has yet to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration, as I understand it.
By the way, Happy 420!
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Hmm. It seems that America's Stoned Kids was made(or at least broadcast) in August 2013. However, the legislation to legalize recreational marijuana in Colorado wasn't passed until January of 2014.
[ 20. April 2017, 19:01: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm anti-drugs. I think they're a thoroughly bad thing.
All the same, even with the health risks, I question how prudent or legitimate it really is for the state to presume to take upon itself protecting people from themselves.
And me. And my children. Both by way of passive smoking and by suppressing or at least limiting a culture that I might not be able to prevent them from indulging in.
Not to mention the tax dollars spent via the healthcare systems in mitigating the permanent effects of the drug. And the justice system too. Legalisation won't prevent other crimes being committed due to the effects of the drug.
quote:
I would always work from a presumption that people should be free to do what's bad for them unless there really is a very overwhelming case for forbidding them. The fact that we're debating the questions strongly implies that the arguments on this one are about even, and there's no self-evident case for banning it.
Society bans all manner of activities and substances that are dangerous to people. What's so different about this one?
quote:
Besides, mountaineering is dangerous - bad for people - but nobody seems to have suggested banning that. There are shops that specialise in selling expensive equipment for doing it, either more safely or in yet more challenging places.
There is no such thing as passive mountaineering. Besides, other than its risks, it is a hobby that promotes general good health. It makes people happy and, on balance, reduces their burden on the healthcare system. That's good for society.
quote:
Also, criminalising the use of hashish obviously hasn't worked. When I was a child it was virtually unknown, an exotic foreign habit. Now, lots of people still take the stuff.
Hardly anyone I know uses it. Perhaps if there were no restrictions, they would.
The heavy restrictions on tobacco sales, advertising, etc have significantly reduced its use. Banning stuff can work.
quote:
So I'd go for legalising it, making it subject to the same sort of trading standards controls as apply to everything else, and raising revenue by taxing it at about the same rate as tobacco.
I would allow it on prescription in a non-smokable format.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Cod wrote:
quote:
Legalisation won't prevent other crimes being committed due to the effects of the drug.
Apart from intoxicated driving(which I agree is an issue), I'd be curious to know what crimes might result from legalized marijuana. I don't think it's really associated with an increased tendency toward violence or anything like that.
quote:
Both by way of passive smoking
I think if passive highs were a really common phenomenon, you'd have a lot more people going to parties weedless, and just breathing in the air to get stoned, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone doing that. I honestly doubt that second-hand buzzes are all that common.
Of course, there might be other negative effects from breathing in second-hand smoke, but those can be dealt with by limiting the places where people can smoke. Coming from a city that has fairly puritanical public-smoking laws, I feel fairly confident in saying that that is indeed possible.
quote:
The heavy restrictions on tobacco sales, advertising, etc have significantly reduced its use. Banning stuff can work.
And you'll notice that the restrictions mentioned in your first sentence work WITHOUT banning the substance in question.
[ 20. April 2017, 19:16: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
The reason I'm concerned about secondhand smoke is because we already have a metric crapton of kids (babies, even) living in tiny apartments with parents who smoke like the proverbial, and I'm wondering how much worse it's going to get.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm anti-drugs. I think they're a thoroughly bad thing.
This includes alcohol as well, I presume? Otherwise their might be a hypocrisy issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I think if passive highs were a really common phenomenon, you'd have a lot more people going to parties weedless, and just breathing in the air to get stoned, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone doing that.
Perhaps because it is not as reliable a way to get high and one can typically find someone willing to share.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm also concerned because I don't think there's any way to put the geni back in the bottle when it comes to the very high THC content that's been bred into the stuff over the past couple decades. Again, way more concerned about the children and passive smokers than those who choose to use.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I think if passive highs were a really common phenomenon, you'd have a lot more people going to parties weedless, and just breathing in the air to get stoned, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone doing that. I honestly doubt that second-hand buzzes are all that common.
Ross Rebagliati. Who temporarily lost an Olympic gold medal for "passive pot".
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
John D. Ward
Shipmate
# 1378
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
If we're talking about toddlers, then the issue is child-proof storage.
Some years ago when "child=proof" containers for pills, the sort where you have to twist and push the cap at the same time, were first introduced in Britain, there were a number of press reports of elderly people suffering from arthritis who had to get their nimble-fingered grandchild, aged about four, to open their pills for them! It's not quite that simple.
Posts: 208 | From: Swansea, Wales, U.K. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Not to mention the tax dollars spent via the healthcare systems in mitigating the permanent effects of the drug. And the justice system too. Legalisation won't prevent other crimes being committed due to the effects of the drug.
Given that the "War on Drugs" is one of the biggest drivers of American mass incarceration (and yes, most American drug convictions are marijuana-related), I'm not sure maintaining the current regime of criminalization is a money-saver, if that's your chief concern.
quote:
Originally posted by John D. Ward:
Some years ago when "child=proof" containers for pills, the sort where you have to twist and push the cap at the same time, were first introduced in Britain, there were a number of press reports of elderly people suffering from arthritis who had to get their nimble-fingered grandchild, aged about four, to open their pills for them! It's not quite that simple.
So the correct response to this safety issue is to ban arthritis medication? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Decriminalization ≠ no regulations.
I'm still at: if it is medical, dispense by pharmacists; if it is recreational, that's another matter. Taxation on the substance cannot be only for gov't revenue, it must pay for treatment for those who overuse the marijuana product, and those whose use causes harm.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
John D. Ward
Shipmate
# 1378
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[QUOTE]So the correct response to this safety issue is to ban arthritis medication?
I was making the point that a child-proof container may not be as straightforward as it sounds.
Posts: 208 | From: Swansea, Wales, U.K. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Decriminalization ≠ no regulations.
Yes, but your OP was about decriminalization.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Decriminalization ≠ no regulations.
Yes, but your OP was about decriminalization.
I also said I'm not expert. I have understood something. Which is why it is worth discussing it.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by John D. Ward:
Some years ago when "child=proof" containers for pills, the sort where you have to twist and push the cap at the same time, were first introduced in Britain, there were a number of press reports of elderly people suffering from arthritis who had to get their nimble-fingered grandchild, aged about four, to open their pills for them! It's not quite that simple.
So the correct response to this safety issue is to ban arthritis medication?
{tangent alert}
In the days before childproof medicine bottles, ninety percent of children treated in US emergency rooms for drug poisoning had eaten large quantities of flavored children's aspirin. Most of them had been told it was candy.
Instead of making childproof bottles they should have made it illegal to sell flavored aspirin. They could have put measured doses of powder in small envelopes; the parent could mix the powder with jam or something else that the child liked.
{/tangent alert}
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John D. Ward:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[QUOTE]So the correct response to this safety issue is to ban arthritis medication?
I was making the point that a child-proof container may not be as straightforward as it sounds.
I was thinking more of finding a safe storage place in the home, not just having safe containers.
Granted, I guess there could be immobile people who can't get to the medicine cabinet, and need their four-year old grandkids to go unlock it, retrieve the bottle and unscrew the cap. But if the kid is talented enough to do all that, he should be able to understand the concept of "Don't take this medicine yourself."
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John D. Ward:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
If we're talking about toddlers, then the issue is child-proof storage.
Some years ago when "child=proof" containers for pills, the sort where you have to twist and push the cap at the same time, were first introduced in Britain, there were a number of press reports of elderly people suffering from arthritis who had to get their nimble-fingered grandchild, aged about four, to open their pills for them! It's not quite that simple.
Especially given that we're talking about childproof containers for Grandma's batch of special brownies...
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
There may be negatives to the legalization of marijuana. They haven't surfaced in my home state of Washington.
The criminalization of Drugs including Marihuana has has a nuge negative effect on socitey. For one thing arrests and convictions have a ; [URL=racial bias]https://www.aclu.org/feature/war-marijuana-black-and-white[/URL]
The war on drugs has has badly affected law and law enforcement; police seize assets Like the prohibition on alcohol, it leads to contempt for law. The vast amount of money flowing through illegal drugs corrupts police and enables criminals.
The argument that alcohol is naturally made from fruit and vegatables ignores how readily hemp grows in the US. A friend of mine in college had a roommate who came back from school vacation with a large trunk of weed. An unused field had gone to pot, and the locals borrowed a combine and baler and harvested.
In addition, the prison complex financed by this prohibition does not help the user or the community.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by John D. Ward:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
If we're talking about toddlers, then the issue is child-proof storage.
Some years ago when "child=proof" containers for pills, the sort where you have to twist and push the cap at the same time, were first introduced in Britain, there were a number of press reports of elderly people suffering from arthritis who had to get their nimble-fingered grandchild, aged about four, to open their pills for them! It's not quite that simple.
Especially given that we're talking about childproof containers for Grandma's batch of special brownies...
Because children will not get into Gran's illegal brownies?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I voted to legalize medical pot, because it seemed to have legit medical uses. From various interviews I heard, it seemed clear to me that many activists just wanted to use that as a step to full legalization, and didn't particularly care about the people with medical need. (If they did care, they wouldn't have made it so clear that they just wanted everyone to be able to smoke out, 'cause that could cause voters to see the vote as a trick.)
People got their med pot, reportedly including quite a few people who didn't have the originally intended health conditions, but got prescriptions anyway from doctors who stretched, bent, and reinterpreted the rules. Some of those users reportedly did that to get recreational pot.
There's invisible pot smoke on the street. Used to be mostly around pot clubs/clinics. But I keep running into it; and I resent it, because it makes me a little sick, I don't like the smell, I don't want friends and doctors to think I've been using it (due to the lingering smell), and I sometimes get the tiniest hint of a second-hand high. Alcohol's the only drug I've tried--and that, occasionally. Stopped, because of various meds I went on. My idea of a good drug is very dark chocolate--and that's even *good* for me.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
I voted to legalize recreational pot, because I simply didn't think users' lives should be wrecked by criminal charges and prison. I had a last-minute crisis, worrying about an exponential increase in the pot smoke on the street. I suppose I could wear a filter mask, but I'm really uncomfortable in them.
I did vote to legalize, but I still worry about a possible increase in smoke.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The5thMary
Shipmate
# 12953
|
Posted
I am a casual user of edible marijuana. I have found that it helps with my Scoliosis and stomach issues. I have asthma and the aforementioned stomach issues and so smoking marijuana is not an option for me. My partner and my psychotherapist were worried that I would abuse edibles, as my parents were both alcoholics and I am addicted to sugar. However, m.j. edibles are not inexpensive and also the duration and "aftermath" of eating marijuana edibles isn't conducive for my painting career. It takes about two-three hours after I eat some pot candies before I feel the high and then it is very intense. I have tried to draw stuff while I'm high but I can't get my hand to grip the pen. I'm really trying to create artwork and sell it, so I have to limit my intake to when my pain really ramps up. As far as addiction goes, yeah, if I didn't have such a burning desire to be a painter I could see myself using edibles more often. However, my wife has told me in no uncertain terms that if I were to start eating m.j. edibles more than once a month (I barely "partake" even that much), she would pack up her stuff and move back to the East Coast. I don't want my art to suffer or my heart to break, so overindulgence is not likely to be a problem. Also, I have Type 2 diabetes and am now on insulin. When I eat m.j. edibles, I have to really watch it because I DO get the munchies.
--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.
Posts: 3451 | From: Tacoma, WA USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
