|
NathanScottPhillips posted:More Coloradoans consider themselves conservative than liberal. This would only work as a line of argument if conservatives made up a >50% margin of the Colorado electorate AND the cited study was published post-election and not in January of this year AND you could prove that the vast majority of "conservatives" supported 64 instead of liberals and moderates. Regardless, we have no idea what the electorate in Colorado self-identified as in this election. e: Actually, if this is to be believed, liberals made up 27% of Colorado voters, moderates made up 39% and conservatives made up 34%. Either way, your assertion is a bad one. Aves Maria! fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Nov 12, 2012 |
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
Ok, will you let me modify my statement? Conservatives were an important ally in this vote and we would not have been successful without their support.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:This is what people on this forum don't understand. At least in Colorado the only reason this passed is because conservatives voted for it overwhelmingly. The only people I met who were against it also self-identified as liberal. There's a simple reason for that: usually it's conservatives that want to pass or keep legislation that interferes with peoples' personal lives NathanScottPhillips posted:Ok, will you let me modify my statement? Conservatives were an important ally in this vote and we would not have been successful without their support. Libertarians were the difference, I suspect, but I don't really have any proof for that
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 07:48
|
|
|
In Washington there was a good but not perfect correlation between counties that voted for Obama, for gay marriage, and for legalization. There is a clear urban-rural difference politically here, so I think this demonstrates that liberals were more likely to vote for legalization than conservatives did. However, several Romney counties did approve the initiative, and in both passing/Romney counties and failing/Obama counties, the difference on the initiative vote was usually smaller than on the presidential candidates, indicating that neither liberal support nor conservative opposition were unanimous. As for party endorsements, the state Democratic party endorsed the initiative, while the Republicans did not explicitly endorse a yes or no vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 08:56
|
|
|
I think the attorney general - Eric Holder is scheduled to meet with both Washington and Colorado State Attorneys this week. We will see how this plays out. One good piece of news is the State and Local police of Colorado have elected to not get involved with enforcing Federal Laws - unlike Michigan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
The Ender posted:...It's worth noting that claiming morphine as having accepted medical use while also claiming that heroin has no medical use is actually insane, because they are basically the same drug (opium-derived pain killers). Heroin in most applications is actually less addictive & less destructive than morphine is, but since politicians of the era were loving morphine junkies, heroin was labeled Schedule I while morphine was labeled Schedule II. It's also because the therapeutic index (the difference between effective dose and lethal dose) of heroin is waaay smaller than morphine, 10 vs 100. It's much more likely that a recreational user of heroin will overdose and die on heroin, mainly because of the uncertainty of the purity of street drugs, but also because of a handful of other factors like metabolism, tolerance, etc. Medically, there is little reason to use heroin over morphine since heroin is metabolized into morphine in the body anyway, and the risk of overdose is not worth the 10x risk of death. As far as I understand, heroin is only medically used in end-of-life cases such as terminal cancer patients for that reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 17:19
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:It's also because the therapeutic index (the difference between effective dose and lethal dose) of heroin is waaay smaller than morphine, 10 vs 100. It's much more likely that a recreational user of heroin will overdose and die on heroin, mainly because of the uncertainty of the purity of street drugs, but also because of a handful of other factors like metabolism, tolerance, etc. Even so, in our insane system we still have drugs where a child could probably walk into a pharmacy and buy a potentially lethal dose, like acetaminophen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Even so, in our insane system we still have drugs where a child could probably walk into a pharmacy and buy a potentially lethal dose, like acetaminophen. That isn't really comparable, since the reason a child usually ends up overdosing on something is that they think "well if one is good, two is better". It's not even drugs, a kid can overdose on vitamin supplements if they take/eat too many of them. And what would a child--I'm thinking eight to ten as a "child"-- be doing in a pharmacy, without a parent supervising them, buying acetaminophen? On topic, can someone explain the big draw of smoking pot, legal or not? I may be weird, but I've just never seen the appeal of smoking (either marijuana or tobacco) at all. You can add drinking to that as well. I probably have a different perspective though; for a little background on my view, I'm enrolled in a physical conditioning class that emphasizes running and cardio exercise, and smoking anything, be it marijuana or tobacco, kills your distance running ability, so I look at it from a purely health perspective. I'm still really happy Colorado and Washington passed the bills; throwing people in jail for smoking pot while allowing cigarettes to be sold legally was the one of the most idiotic and hypocritical things ever in my view. And we're already seeing the changes: Lyapunov Unstable posted:Not sure if this has been posted, but  cash too!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
fade5 posted:That isn't really comparable, since the reason a child usually ends up overdosing on something is that they think "well if one is good, two is better". It's not even drugs, a kid can overdose on vitamin supplements if they take/eat too many of them. You don't have to smoke cannabis at all, and instead vaporize it. I'm going to guess wildly that it does still affect your lungs in some way, *cough* but I figure if you're a runner of any kind, smoking is just going to cramp your style.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 21:04
|
|
|
fade5 posted:
It makes you feel giddy as gently caress (or at least most intoxicants do to me), and it's usually done in a social context so there's some subtle social pressure to do so. In a way it's a combination of "why do people take sleeping pills" (for the effects) and "why do people watch football together" (for the social aspect).
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
fade5 posted:On topic, can someone explain the big draw of smoking pot, legal or not? I may be weird, but I've just never seen the appeal of smoking (either marijuana or tobacco) at all. You can add drinking to that as well. I probably have a different perspective though; for a little background on my view, I'm enrolled in a physical conditioning class that emphasizes running and cardio exercise, and smoking anything, be it marijuana or tobacco, kills your distance running ability, so I look at it from a purely health perspective. Colorado is the healthiest state in the country by a long way. Perhaps it's because people in Colorado are just more active in general. Personally I do not notice a big drop in my physical performance regardless of how little or much I smoke, when I go running or playing sports or hiking at 12k ft I don't feel out of breath like I've seen tobacco smokers. I read a study recently that says pot smokers can actually breath deeper and easier than non-smokers. The reason is because pot smokers regularly breath with their full lung capacity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
fade5 posted:On topic, can someone explain the big draw of smoking pot, legal or not? I may be weird, but I've just never seen the appeal of smoking (either marijuana or tobacco) at all. You can add drinking to that as well. I probably have a different perspective though; for a little background on my view, I'm enrolled in a physical conditioning class that emphasizes running and cardio exercise, and smoking anything, be it marijuana or tobacco, kills your distance running ability, so I look at it from a purely health perspective. To put it simply, it makes you feel good. The cannabinoids in marijuana start a chain reaction in the body that releases dopamine, one of the drug responsible for feeling "happy". My lung function actually improves after smoking marijuana. It sounds counter-intuitive, but the positive effects of smoking are enough to overcome both the harmful effects of smoking, and the condition I smoke for (asthma). I can absolutely breathe easier and run farther after using marijuana, which I wish I had known about 10 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
fade5 posted:On topic, can someone explain the big draw of smoking pot, legal or not? I may be weird, but I've just never seen the appeal of smoking (either marijuana or tobacco) at all. You can add drinking to that as well.  Anyways, the big draw of intoxicants is imagine something fun, and then imagine that something being more fun. Why wouldn't you chose the more fun option? There is nothing wrong with sober, but you have to admit that the (millions?) of recreational drug users (be it alcohol, marijuana, or other) must be onto something.fade5 posted:I probably have a different perspective though; for a little background on my view, I'm enrolled in a physical conditioning class that emphasizes running and cardio exercise, and smoking anything, be it marijuana or tobacco, kills your distance running ability, so I look at it from a purely health perspective. RichieWolk posted:My lung function actually improves after smoking marijuana. It sounds counter-intuitive, but the positive effects of smoking are enough to overcome both the harmful effects of smoking, and the condition I smoke for (asthma). I can absolutely breathe easier and run farther after using marijuana, which I wish I had known about 10 years ago. Marijuana Use Linked to Bronchodilation and Respiratory Symptoms posted:Eleven of 12 challenge studies, which examined the association between short-term marijuana use and airway response, showed an association between short-term marijuana administration and bronchodilation (eg, increases of 0.15 - 0.25 L in forced expiratory volume in 1 second). There was no consistent association demonstrated between long-term marijuana smoking and measures of airflow obstruction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Colorado is the healthiest state in the country by a long way. Perhaps it's because people in Colorado are just more active in general. Personally I do not notice a big drop in my physical performance regardless of how little or much I smoke, when I go running or playing sports or hiking at 12k ft I don't feel out of breath like I've seen tobacco smokers. RichieWolk posted:My lung function actually improves after smoking marijuana. It sounds counter-intuitive, but the positive effects of smoking are enough to overcome both the harmful effects of smoking, and the condition I smoke for (asthma). I can absolutely breathe easier and run farther after using marijuana, which I wish I had known about 10 years ago. Delta-Wye posted:Marijuana is a bronchodilator and evidence suggests that dosing methods such as vaporization can leverage that benefit without the longterm damage that inhaling smoke (probably) represents. Huh, I didn't know that. RichieWolk is right, it seems counter-intuitive, but if it's true then add it to the list of stuff pot is good for, and make it one more reason to fully legalize pot. For the "feels good" part, I just picked video games as my fun thing to do. I'd say it's less expensive, but I'm not sure that's true.  Well anyway, thanks for the education everyone. I'm happy to change my views if someone shows me I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 21:28
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Huh, I didn't know that. RichieWolk is right, it seems counter-intuitive, but if it's true then add it to the list of stuff pot is good for, and make it one more reason to fully legalize pot. Have you ever played video games? Have you ever played video games... on weed?  I guess the argument is some people enjoy the effects, other people do not (some people have really bad anxiety issues while high) but regardless, it's not worth the negative side effects of prohibition to try and stamp out a mostly harmless behavior.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 21:38
|
|
|
fade5 posted:For the "feels good" part, I just picked video games as my fun thing to do. I'd say it's less expensive, but I'm not sure that's true. Try smoking pot and playing video games at the same time. Thank me later.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 21:39
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:Try smoking pot and playing video games at the same time. Thank me later. Oh god there's bongwater all over my keyboard and I think the cops in GTA know I'm high 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
fade5 posted:For the "feels good" part, I just picked video games as my fun thing to do. I'd say it's less expensive, but I'm not sure that's true. In lovely anti-drug propaganda weed is a downer, which isn't true at all. It doesn't really fit any of the upper/downer/etc categories. One strain might make you calm and sleepy, another might just make you giggly, another might make you hyper-focused on a first-person shooter. Seriously, there have been times that my girlfriend will hear me light up and say "<Kenshin>, are you smoking weed to get better at video games?" "...yes." I will answer. Weed does a whole lot of things, and it depends on the strain. It, however, will not make anybody violent. You cannot physically overdose (seriously, you can overdose on water, you literally cannot die from ingesting too much cannabis) It will chill you out and help you be happy. (Yes, some people it does make paranoid and uncomfortable, but usually there are underlying reasons for that the weed amplifies, and it has to do with how THC interacts with your neurons)
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 22:00
|
|
|
Kenshin posted:You cannot physically overdose (seriously, you can overdose on water, you literally cannot die from ingesting too much cannabis) Mostly correct. It is possible to kill yourself with cannabis, but you have to really be trying. I think about 6 ounces of high-grade hash oil dissolved in 1 liter vegetable oil and chugged all at once would be enough to kill you. This would be horribly disgusting, and extremely expensive, so it's more of a theoretical mental exercise, but THC does have an LD50.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:Mostly correct. It is possible to kill yourself with cannabis, but you have to really be trying. I think about 6 ounces of high-grade hash oil dissolved in 1 liter vegetable oil and chugged all at once would be enough to kill you. I think you'd throw that up all over the floor and end up wasting a few thousand bucks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:Mostly correct. It is possible to kill yourself with cannabis, but you have to really be trying. I think about 6 ounces of high-grade hash oil dissolved in 1 liter vegetable oil and chugged all at once would be enough to kill you. technically sure, but I doubt there are many people out there who are physically capable of drinking a full liter of veggie oil without violent vomiting, much less one with the taste of that much hash oil in it. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
Gonna start writing a Lifetime Original movie where the son of a Soccer Mom dies after drinking a giant thing of oil that he gets an older cousin to buy for him. Little Timmy just wanted the ultimate Pot-Up. It could happen in your state! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:Mostly correct. It is possible to kill yourself with cannabis, but you have to really be trying. I think about 6 ounces of high-grade hash oil dissolved in 1 liter vegetable oil and chugged all at once would be enough to kill you. Water has an LD50 too. For all practical purposes the LD50 of weed is so high :heh: that it's not a concern. edit: More scientifically the ratio between ED and LD is what should be looked at when evaluating the risk of overdosing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 22:31
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:Mostly correct. It is possible to kill yourself with cannabis, but you have to really be trying. I think about 6 ounces of high-grade hash oil dissolved in 1 liter vegetable oil and chugged all at once would be enough to kill you. Well what about https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0YtPi2QZSY
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
What do you folks think of this article "The Drug Policy Roulette"? I'm all for weed legalization but it brought up what seem like good points:National Affairs posted:The potential windfall from using the car trunk to smuggle gray-market gasoline is thus only about $15. By contrast, the windfall from evading a $3-per-pack excise tax on the same weight of cigarettes would be more than $17,000. The corresponding windfall for evading Ammiano's $50-per-ounce marijuana tax would be $200,000. The figures for cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine would be truly astronomical — as would the incentives to reap such profits by smuggling gray-market drugs. Basic argument is that full legalization would cause prices to drop ridiculously, and trying to use taxation to increase the price would be nearly impossible without trading thousands of pot arrests with thousands of tax evasion arrests (although super-cheap pot is only a problem if you think increased use would be a bad thing.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
People also evade cigarette taxes, so what?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
platzapS posted:Basic argument is that full legalization would cause prices to drop ridiculously, and trying to use taxation to increase the price would be nearly impossible without trading thousands of pot arrests with thousands of tax evasion arrests (although super-cheap pot is only a problem if you think increased use would be a bad thing.) I said exactly this earlier in the thread but one is Dukes of Hazzard and one is Al Capone. There would still be significant smuggling to avoid taxes but there'll still be less profit motive and less territorial violence motive to these crimes. Even with a decent tax margin it'll be hard for black market dealers to compete with white market dealers for a significant profit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:Mostly correct. It is possible to kill yourself with cannabis, but you have to really be trying. I think about 6 ounces of high-grade hash oil dissolved in 1 liter vegetable oil and chugged all at once would be enough to kill you. Hmm, this sounds a bit suspect to me. The theoretical LD50 for THC in smoked form (assuming typical THC percentages and 50% destruction although that doesn't matter) is like 1500 pounds of marijuana in fifteen minutes. It depends on what source you believe, but for an order of magnitude estimate that's good enough. There's no way you could condense that much into high-grade hash oil and manage to consume it in a short amount of time -- and even if you somehow did, this is still only a theoretical LD50 for large mammals, since it was quantified using rats who died following massive CNS depression, but dogs etc. have never been shown to suffer organ toxicity/failure from even this incredible amount (adjusted for mg/kg obviously). Edit: of course we should not forget the other psychoactives in marijuana, mainly CBD (cannabidiol; the one that makes you slow and sleepy and body-high as opposed to THC's energizing effect). But I don't know that specific CBD LD50 trials even exist. The long and short of it is that marijuana's psychoactives are very likely the most well-tolerated such substances known to exist on the planet. mdemone fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Nov 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 20:16
|
|
|
It's a non-issue. I used to be a heavy cigarette smoker. Never once did I buy smokes under the table, and neither will 99% of people buying pot. Would you bother buying backwoods hooch on the cheap when you could just run over to the nearest gas station and buy a reasonably priced six pack? Every single counterpoint I hear to legal weed can be filed away under "The perfect is the enemy of the good". Remember when legal pot was supposed to make America crumble into a nation of worthless drug addicts? Now it turns out that it might just complicate DUI regulations and cause a couple cases of tax evasion. I don't know guys, can we take those risks in light of the massive human toll wrought by the War on Drugs? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:People also evade cigarette taxes, so what? I do that by buying empty tubes and raw tobacco in bags. Taxes in Washington State on cigarettes account for about half the retail price, and I avoid that almost entirely. I'm really no different than a multi-billionaire who keeps his money in an off-shore account. I just have better ways of getting rid of the evidence of my hatred for all other humans. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
platzapS posted:What do you folks think of this article "The Drug Policy Roulette"? I'm all for weed legalization but it brought up what seem like good points: Terrible article with terrible opinions. TFA posted:They serially underplay, for instance, the possibility of substantially increased use of and dependence on drugs. Though no one really knows precisely how much drug use would go up if it were legalized, advocates tend to disingenuously offer exact estimates favorable to their cause — suggesting that they can know with confidence that increased use would be limited and controllable. This false certitude neglects the fact that no nation in the modern era has legalized the production of any of the major illegal drugs for unsupervised use. Forbes:Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal posted:Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal’s decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
platzapS posted:What do you folks think of this article "The Drug Policy Roulette"? I'm all for weed legalization but it brought up what seem like good points: I don't trust the way this guy interchanges the terms 'drugs' and 'marijuana' so readily whenever it suits his scare tactics, and the whole $200,000 windfall part seems to be based on 'imaginary numbers some guy made up'. If weed prices are allowed to fall to a reasonable market level then suddenly there's no problem. I also love this part: quote:...had marijuana been legalized a decade ago, all of the same ills that now prompt interest in legalization would still be with us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 20:47
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:[Portugal] TACD posted:
I think the author was saying that without legal heroin, coke, and meth, it wouldn't solve problems with disease transmission or criminal gangs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
platzapS posted:I think the author was saying that without legal heroin, coke, and meth, it wouldn't solve problems with disease transmission or criminal gangs. How well do you think McDonalds would fare if they could nolonger sell hamburgers? Weed is the bread and butter for most drug gangs. The demand for that other stuff (which should also be legal) is just not as big. Tailor made cigarettes in Australia cost roughly $17 dollars for a packet of 25 and there is virtually no black or grey market. Most people are fiercely brand loyal and would prefer to buy their smokes over the counter than from some fuckers trunk. Cigarette companies have spent decades trying to convince people to switch brands. If it were as simple as reducing their prices I'm fairly sure they would have figured it out by now. Similarly you're not going to be able to convince a Malboro man to smoke Canadian blend just because they're a few dollars cheaper. KingEup fucked around with this message at 22:45 on Nov 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
platzapS posted:Hmmm. Unless weed was wildly expensive before decriminalization, it doesn't seem to have caused prices to plummet. I'll read up more. On one hand, I'm not sure I trust priceofweed.com. They say an ounce of good weed is going for almost $400 in CT. Now, considering most people will buy by the gram, 1/8 or 1/4, this probably winds up being true. However, for people actually buying ounces, unless it's amazing weed, it'd be considerably lower than that or you're being ripped off. On the other hand, the site seems to be backing up decriminalization or for that matter just a more accepting social attitude in general is lowering prices when you look at the west, Colorado and all of Canada compared to the rest of the US.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
platzapS posted:Hmmm. Unless weed was wildly expensive before decriminalization, it doesn't seem to have caused prices to plummet. I'll read up more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
ThirdReichNRoll posted:I'm pretty sure distribution, trafficking and possession of large quantities are still illegal in Portugal. Even if it's rarely enforced, it's still enough to keep the legitimate businessmen away and thus prices high. That's likely because Portugal isn't a particularly great place to grow marijuana on a larger scale. Colorado is very different from Portugal for this reason. California is a model for how the in-state growing of marijuana, coupled with a semi-legitimate industry in MMJ, can drastically slash costs for consumers. If you guys are going to descend into price chat, which you shouldn't for a bunch of reasons, at least use a somewhat reputable price source. http://legalmarijuanadispensary.com/ at least reflects real dispensaries, market pricing an actual product and not people self-reporting on their 5 grams of dank nugz.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
platzapS posted:What do you folks think of this article "The Drug Policy Roulette"? I'm all for weed legalization but it brought up what seem like good points: That doesn't make any sense. We shouldn't give a poo poo about the actual price, any tax revenue that is made is still greater than or equal to the tax revenue that we get from pot sales now (which is $0), and millions or billions of dollars are saved from no longer prosecuting and jailing people who are breaking an unnecessary law. Everything about this is a huge win even if you're like me and don't smoke pot This ignores a huge host of other societal benefits that are gained from legalization, such as reducing violent crime QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Nov 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
The author of that article, Caulkins, is also on the board of Drug Free America (a cannabis doomsday cult made up of insane prohibitionists still living in drug war wonderland).
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
I've seen a few people on facebook and stuff recently start claiming that marijuana legalization is a bad thing because it makes it harder to legalize other drugs now. Somehow. Anyone else encountering this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 01:19
|
|