|
eSports Chaebol posted:Some of those are drugs and some of those are substances that contain drugs. In a certain context it's just being pedantic, but there is a real point for example to saying something like "beer is not a drug." As dangerous as beer is, as a means to deliver alcohol it is a LOT safer than vaporizing or injecting alcohol, which carries a much higher risk of death. It's also relevant in the case of marijuana that it isn't just arbitrary plant + THC; see for example how Marinol does not have the same efficacy as marijuana. Excuse me for using common names for drugs, I guess? It's odd that you focused on that and not the outright stupid assertion that marijuana is unlike any other drug because it's like, natural, man. I was just naming a few things off the top of my head that are also natural and don't require significantly more labor to ingest than harvesting and curing weed would. Some are definitely more palatable with human synthesis (your favorite beer versus rotten, fermented fruit) or performing more involved methods to get only the compound you want (extracting crystalline DMT instead of traditional native American methods), but I'm fairly certain that you won't find 22% THC marijuana and a ROOR to smoke it with in nature either.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:56 |
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Besides, wouldn't the presence of legal pot ultimately yield genuine real-world evidence of the folly of prohibition? Alcohol prohibition already did this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Because I was only talking about sales to begin with. You can legally possess cyanide, prussic acid (in fact any acid, even highly concentrated ones), Arsenic. etc. You can get loving Botulinum toxin and no one would bat a single eye.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Because I was only talking about sales to begin with. And yet I can go to Home Depot and pick up all the materials to make a bomb or chlorine gas and nothing will happen! But I can't stock up on sudafed without landing on some drug enforcement list and giving them my ID.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
SilentD posted:And yet I can go to Home Depot and pick up all the materials to make a bomb or chlorine gas and nothing will happen! But I can't stock up on sudafed without landing on some drug enforcement list and giving them my ID. Depends on which specific materials to make a bomb you get. Rigged Death Trap posted:You can legally possess cyanide, prussic acid (in fact any acid, even highly concentrated ones), Arsenic. etc. And what does this have to do with other ones being illegal? You can also buy all the uranium you want, but if you start processing it down you start to get into trouble.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:Pot isn't a drug. It is a plant, that is smoked in its natural form. That alone makes it completely different from any "drug" on the planet.  For cannabis, I prefer the name 'phytopharmaceutical'. quote:The plant kingdom has also enabled the production of so called phytopharmaceutical or ‘botanical drugs’. These are defined as well characterised, multi-component standardised drugs extracted from plant sources. The medicine VeregenTM, derived from green tea Camellia sinensis, and approved for the topical treatment of warts (Medigene Inc.) is such an example. In 2004 the United States Food and Drug Administration issued the Botanical Drug Guidance which made it possible to bring to market a complex mixture for which evidence of adequate safety and efficacy had been established (FDA, 2004). https://www.gwpharm.com/uploads/phd_david_potter_jp.pdf
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
I come bearing what appears to be good news: http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/14/state-legislators-in-rhode-island-and-ma I can't help but feel good to see the beginning of the end for prohibition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 05:13
|
|
|
What's the chance of passing, though? Hundreds of awesome and terrible bills are introduced every year and most die in committee at best. I'm from MA originally and while the state overall is liberal and as blue as they come, the government is kind of notoriously corrupt and I could easily see special interests shitcanning the bill even in the face of broad support.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
I guess I'm just being super optimistic because I'm already seeing a step in the right direction where I live, and I'm glad to hurriedly include other states into the mix.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
Not trying to be a downer, just curious if anyone who lives there currently has a feel for its chances. I hope it passes, too 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 05:28
|
|
|
It passed on Colorado and Washington - I don't see how Rhode Island or Maine are somehow immune from legalization.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 05:37
|
|
|
It seems to me to be primarily a question of legitimacy, which mostly means money, but also requires some degree of competence on the part of the drafters/advocates of similar ballot initiatives in other states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Well, some of the main arguments for legalizing pot apply equally to more dangerous drugs (such as that there's nothing to gain from treating drug addiction as an offense to be punished rather than an illness to be treated). a lovely poster posted:The way I see it we either trust adults to manage their substance intake or we don't. Treating everything case by case is pretty drat pointless considering the most dangerous recreational drug of any meaningful popularity is already legal, alcohol.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
Two state senators in Indiana are going to introduce marijuana decriminalization bills next year (one of them is from the same area I am originally - you have no idea how weird it is to see marijuana decriminalization and my home town mentioned in the same article) - one for amounts under 3 oz. and one for amounts under 1/3 oz.  Well, it is Indiana after all
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 06:02
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:It passed on Colorado and Washington - I don't see how Rhode Island or Maine are somehow immune from legalization. It passed in WA and CO as a ballot initiative rather than as a normal bill voted on by the legislature, I feel that's a pretty significant difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
Docjowles posted:It passed in WA and CO as a ballot initiative rather than as a normal bill voted on by the legislature, I feel that's a pretty significant difference. Yeah, bills introduced to the legislature will sit in limbo for loving ever as they sit on their hands and ignore it in favor of less-controversial topics. In Hawaii, our legislators have kept the decrim bills on ice for like the past three or four years. Fur20 fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Nov 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 07:09
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:It passed on Colorado and Washington - I don't see how Rhode Island or Maine are somehow immune from legalization. Rhode Island certainly could use the money for its crumbling school system. The politicians here were willing to help Curt loving Schilling light money on fire trying to make a MMO, and now we're turning to expanding gambling. I'd think legalization is viable here, as it's certainly a better source of revenue and growth than a lot of the poo poo we've tried already.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 07:28
|
|
Jazerus posted:Two state senators in Indiana are going to introduce marijuana decriminalization bills next year (one of them is from the same area I am originally - you have no idea how weird it is to see marijuana decriminalization and my home town mentioned in the same article) - one for amounts under 3 oz. and one for amounts under 1/3 oz. Actually that's a pretty smart idea because common quantities that would be carried won't be exactly at the limit, thus saving on a ton of cases where the person is .0001 over or something stupid like that. The real issue is that a third is nothing if you are talking poor people weed. 312 fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Nov 15, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 09:03
|
|
|
Docjowles posted:Not trying to be a downer, just curious if anyone who lives there currently has a feel for its chances. I hope it passes, too 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 09:06
|
|
|
Docjowles posted:Not trying to be a downer, just curious if anyone who lives there currently has a feel for its chances. I hope it passes, too In 2009-2010 I worked on marijuana in policy in Rhode Island - basically coordinating between politicians and lobbyists (hired by marijuana policy non-profits) and volunteers, mostly students. Also participants in a "for further study" panel. That year, in addition to medical marijuana battles, we had a bill that would decriminalize marijuana, and one that would tax and regulate it. I testified in support of both to a House committee. We were really hopeful for decrim- in the House, more than 50% of the state's representatives were cosponsors. Unfortunately, the opponents managed to prevent it from ever coming to a vote. I don't live in Rhode Island anymore but I'm pleased to say that decrim was finally passed earlier this year. Activists, politicians, and lobbyists have been working on this for a long time there. Will they get tax and regulate this year? It's possible; when I started working on it I was surprised how many legislators were already onboard. I wouldn't be surprised if they push it for further study first and wait and see how it goes in Colorado and Washington. For decrim, Massachusetts passing it was probably the biggest boost for its legitimacy as policy in RI. E: TACD is right, it's a question of what, not if.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 09:10
|
|
|
312 posted:Actually that's a pretty smart idea because common quantities that would be carried won't be exactly at the limit, thus saving on a ton of cases where the person is .0001 over or something stupid like that. lovely weed doesn't exist in a legal market. Sure it might cost 15 bucks a gram, but there is a reason its called "one hit poo poo". *edit* That might be confusing. What I'm saying is that smoking a lot of bad weed(lovely weed) is the same as smoking a little bit of good weed(one hit poo poo). Unless you're growing for the fiber to make textiles, the growers for the legal consumption market aren't going for quantity over quality. FetusSlapper fucked around with this message at 10:27 on Nov 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 10:24
|
|
|
FetusSlapper posted:lovely weed doesn't exist in a legal market. Sure it might cost 15 bucks a gram, but there is a reason its called "one hit poo poo".
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 10:29
|
|
|
I think a major factor in the support of decriminalization and taxation really has more to do with the current state of economy , CO specifically has had budgetary problems etc.. Basically pretty much every state seems to need a influx of cash to deal with their budgets. So they start looking at other sources of income and this is one of them. I think if we were not in a "recession" or economic downturn you wouldn't see the support this has from legislatures really.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 12:21
|
|
|
Hollis posted:I think a major factor in the support of decriminalization and taxation really has more to do with the current state of economy , CO specifically has had budgetary problems etc.. Basically pretty much every state seems to need a influx of cash to deal with their budgets. So they start looking at other sources of income and this is one of them. All the PRO commercials I saw in WA were pretty grounded in reality, the economic plea was defiantly there, but it was grounded with sources in authority, IE, the cops and judicial endorsements who gave their support to the measure. It wasn't the typical libertarian flavored hype that you usually see from proponents like NORML, it seemed like a more informed campaign.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 12:34
|
|
|
What did they mean by "similar bills" in MA?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 14:23
|
|
|
KingEup posted:It's a rather insulting attitude if you ask me. It implies that poor people are unable to modify their drinking habits if the price goes up; as though being poor makes you a slave to your basest desires and somehow unable to control yourself. It isn't insulting. Price has been shown to be a very effective moderator of consumption of dugs in general. If what you said was true it would have had no effect whatsoever. Also you appear to be arguing that addiction literally doesn't exist. People who are out of control alcoholics are going to drink whatever the price, same as any other drug. I think this is an important point to clarify, as it is the other end of the 'bootstraps' spectrum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 14:45
|
|
|
Flaky posted:Also you appear to be arguing that addiction literally doesn't exist. People who are out of control alcoholics are going to drink whatever the price, same as any other drug. I think this is an important point to clarify, as it is the other end of the 'bootstraps' spectrum. I often hear the argument that taxation will not deter addicts from using because users are 'addicted'. This is false. There is no evidence that addicted individuals are 'out of control' and unable to modify their behaviour in response to strong incentives (like increases in the price of liquor, tobacco or any other drug). It's just that for some addicted individuals, price is not a powerful disincentive. Even so, price usually exerts some influence - smokers often 'cut down' to compensate for tax hikes. Heroin addicts may use their heroin sparingly to stave off withdrawals until they can get enough money for their next proper fix. Addicts choose to abstain when they are sufficiently motivated to do so. The problem is that not everyone is motivated by the same things. KingEup fucked around with this message at 15:34 on Nov 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 15:14
|
|
|
KingEup posted:I often hear the argument that taxation will not deter people from using because users are 'addicted'. This is false. Which is why I was advocating increasing the price of alcohol. This would be achieved by increasing the tax on it. It's also why I would advocate medical heroin, it doesn't matter how cheap it gets, you need the addict in contact with support services and alternatives such as methadone treatment, as well as reducing/eliminating black market demand. I was referring to the population as a whole and not addicts in specific.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 15:30
|
|
|
Flaky posted:Which is why I was advocating increasing the price of alcohol. This would be achieved by increasing the tax on it. It's also why I would advocate medical heroin, it doesn't matter how cheap it gets, you need the addict in contact with support services and alternatives such as methadone treatment, as well as reducing/eliminating black market demand. I was referring to the population as a whole and not addicts in specific. I think the notion of increasing harm (in the form of monetary losses) for alcoholics is problematic. Do we really want people losing more of their resources to what's essentially a disease? It feels like kicking them when they're down. I do agree that medical supervision combined with low cost or free supply can work, at least in some situations. Maybe the ideas could be married by letting people avoid the taxes by registering for medical supervision as problem users? This might allow high prices to remain in place as a barrier for moving from occasional to frequent use while providing an incentive for addicts to move into care and simultaneously decreasing the financial harm of the addiction. MixMasterMalaria fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Nov 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
KingEup posted:I often hear the argument that taxation will not deter addicts from using because users are 'addicted'. This is false. This is completely loving false by all standards within the current understanding of modern Psychology, just FYI. edit for clarification: It is not false that some/most people can or will cut down, or that price can be a disincentive to use, but rather your assertion that addiction doesn't lead to 'out of control' individuals. According to just about every expert in the field addiction can, in fact, lead to people who are 'out of control' and are thus unable to modify their behavior in response to incentives. Yngwie Mangosteen fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Nov 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 16:19
|
|
|
Torka posted:Marketers working for Big Weed would be insane not to take advantage of the popular idea of good weed vs. bad weed by selling different tiers of product (even if the difference in reality was only placebo). Such claims could be easily checked by consumers (in more than one way), and this could open up false-advertising issues if it were in fact a placebo difference. I'd bet instead, if anything, that they'll simply brand different strains as this or that, regardless of THC/CBD content (although those numbers would give them a way to "rank" their brands, despite each strain being equally "good", but having different effects, from a consumer's perspective).
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Such claims could be easily checked by consumers (in more than one way), and this could open up false-advertising issues if it were in fact a placebo difference. I'd bet instead, if anything, that they'll simply brand different strains as this or that, regardless of THC/CBD content (although those numbers would give them a way to "rank" their brands, despite each strain being equally "good", but having different effects, from a consumer's perspective). They'd just say "8 out of 10 customers preferred Good Weed to Bad Weed*", like how pharmaceuticals work now. *After we told them Good Weed is better than Bad Weed
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
Could the Fed like, "poll the nation" during the next Presidential election about marijuana de-scheduling or de-criminalization and make a decision from there? Is it even possible to put something like that on every state ballot?
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:Could the Fed like, "poll the nation" during the next Presidential election about marijuana de-scheduling or de-criminalization and make a decision from there? Is it even possible to put something like that on every state ballot? No. State ballot measures aren't even allowed in every state, I think. There's at least one or two states where the only thing that can be done is to ask the citizens to ratify a law that was already passed by the state legislature; can't remember which though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 18:30
|
|
|
312 posted:Actually that's a pretty smart idea because common quantities that would be carried won't be exactly at the limit, thus saving on a ton of cases where the person is .0001 over or something stupid like that. It's still hugely helpful because it removes "I smelled the odor of marijuana" as instant probable cause. It's not great, and it's certainly no license-regulate-and-tax scheme, but it'd be a huge victory just because it makes it a bit more difficult for police to gently caress with poor folks. FetusSlapper posted:All the PRO commercials I saw in WA were pretty grounded in reality, the economic plea was defiantly there, but it was grounded with sources in authority, IE, the cops and judicial endorsements who gave their support to the measure. It wasn't the typical libertarian flavored hype that you usually see from proponents like NORML, it seemed like a more informed campaign. It was really striking how the pro-502 side flipped typical arguments on their head, and framed legalization as the responsible choice of suburban moms, FBI agents, and similar people. The economic arguments were almost all limited to "locking up non-violent offenders is wasting money" rather than "we should collect these taxes."
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:No. State ballot measures aren't even allowed in every state, I think. There's at least one or two states where the only thing that can be done is to ask the citizens to ratify a law that was already passed by the state legislature; can't remember which though. We have that here in Delaware. The whims of the plebs are not to interfere with the wishes of our corporate overlords.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 21:13
|
|
|
I was amazed that I did not see a single anti-64 commercial. There was even a commercial with a retired cop saying that weed is harmless and cops have better things to do. Now if I can just start getting good bud instead of this crappy stuff. Although it's not really bad, just a whole lot less of it for my money than getting from someone who has a card
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:I was amazed that I did not see a single anti-64 commercial. There was even a commercial with a retired cop saying that weed is harmless and cops have better things to do. Now if I can just start getting good bud instead of this crappy stuff. Although it's not really bad, just a whole lot less of it for my money than getting from someone who has a card Yeah, one of my friends said they heard one anti-64 radio ad and another saw an anti-64 billboard but that's all I've heard about, and I myself never saw any opposition whatsoever. The measure went almost unopposed here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:Yeah, one of my friends said they heard one anti-64 radio ad and another saw an anti-64 billboard but that's all I've heard about, and I myself never saw any opposition whatsoever. The measure went almost unopposed here. Ditto. Although I did think the "GOTTA STOP DEM MEXICANS FROM TAKIN OUR MONEY AND JERBS! VOTE YES!" scare tactic ad was pretty 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 07:56 |
|
|
veedubfreak posted:I was amazed that I did not see a single anti-64 commercial. There was even a commercial with a retired cop saying that weed is harmless and cops have better things to do. Now if I can just start getting good bud instead of this crappy stuff. Although it's not really bad, just a whole lot less of it for my money than getting from someone who has a card I heard one anti-64 ad on the radio. They trotted out the old "If pot is legalized, it will be easier for kids to get it." line of bullshit. It started playing a few days before the election. Sounded like an act of desperation to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 00:56
|
|
