|
elgatofilo posted:You're right that clinical decision making is different from other scientific considerations, if anything, it should be far more conservative and guarded; normally, medications have been pulled from the market if there exists even a hint that it could cause harm (Rimonabant comes to mind) the FDA and the medical establishment can't afford to have trust in it eroded by careless prescribing. Methamphetamine prescriptions didn't begin in earnest until the 90's, what if we discover in the future that the link between methamphetamine and Parkinson's is concrete? what would you say to the sufferers? "Oops! We just didn't want to make any sweeping conclusions, sorry!" Some might feel comfortable with this outcome; I consider this to be human experimentation and is an ethically unacceptable position for me to take. Abbott began marketing methamphetamine in the late 1940s. If anything, prescription of methamphetamine almost completely died out in the 1990s.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 14:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
But now we're in the realm of discussing perfectly legal, commonly prescribed amphetamines, not just methamphetamine - and we're talking about studies that, as pointed out above, are important but for the most part tenuously connected to actual human experience. And none of this disproves my central point that psychical and physiological withdrawal is fundamentally different, which isn't really up for debate - saying that psychical and physiological withdrawal are the same thing because they both involve changes in the brain is ridiculous. Everything you've ever experienced causes changes in your brain, using that as the criteria for what constitutes anything physiological would make it a very broad category indeed. But again, all of this is very much beside the point. Again, you'll not find me saying anywhere that these drugs aren't bad for their users - my point this whole time has been that prohibition prevents no harms to drug users or society, and adds very significant harms to both. This is true whether we're discussing marijuana or krokodil.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
Chitin posted:Everything you've ever experienced causes changes in your brain, using that as the criteria for what constitutes anything physiological would make it a very broad category indeed. But again, all of this is very much beside the point. It certainly would make it a very broad category, but why would it be an inaccurate characterization? Isn't this false distinction why psychological issues aren't regarded as "real" by far too many people?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It certainly would make it a very broad category, but why would it be an inaccurate characterization? Isn't this false distinction why psychological issues aren't regarded as "real" by far too many people? Psychical addiction is absolutely real, and nobody is saying that it isn't. However, the distinction between what you can go off of without experiencing ill (physical) health effects and what can cause acute physical symptoms is important, especially when it comes to treatment. If going off your drug makes you sick, there's an extra step in the process where it's nearly impossible (and in some cases fatal) to simply quit cold turkey - there needs to be a tapering or detox process, ideally professionally guided. This is why I used the gambling comparison (though as others pointed out there are certain ways amphetamine class drugs can damage your brain that make the comparison not as apt as I wish it were) - gambling is an addiction that many people consider to be very real, difficult to break, people suffer relapses, people get professional help, you can ruin your life etc etc but you don't end up vomiting for a week, screaming from pain if you stop doing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
TACD posted:Thanks, that was interesting. I will try to check out those studies once my exams are over. I'm not sure if this is a derail, but it's an interesting topic in cell biology. The reason for axon degeneration is not due to the damage to the terminals themselves but due to a form of programmed cell death. If you read a lot of old literature you may not see this, but in neurons the soma and the axon act independently from one another in a lot of ways and one of these ways is that the axon can undergo degeneration independently of the soma. Healthy cells are programmed to self-destruct rather than heal if they receive certain types of damage, and the amount/type of damage that amphetamines cause to the axon is enough to trigger the axon's self-destruct mechanism. There's different theories as to whether the damage is triggered by disruption of the cell membrane or oxidative stress (or both), but it's agreed that it's autophagy. There's a lot more to this, but I want to be brief and the truth is you could teach a whole graduate-level course on this subject alone. This paper goes over some of the theories in relation to both Meth and MDMA: Causes and Consequences of Methamphetamine and MDMA Toxicity http://www.aapsj.org/articles/aapsj0802/aapsj080238/aapsj080238.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
Chitin posted:Everything you've ever experienced causes changes in your brain, using that as the criteria for what constitutes anything physiological would make it a very broad category indeed. Exactly right. Pathologising any and all observable changes that occur in the brain following drug use is just absurd. Alcohol withdrawal is clinically significant for reasons that amphetamine or cannabis withdrawal are not. Sometimes I think people forget that our bodies need chemicals to survive. Of course they are going to alter our neurophsyiology. KingEup fucked around with this message at 09:45 on Jan 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 09:40
|
|
|
Honestly though, who the gently caress cares about whether amphetamine downregulates serotonin or not, or whether it destroys certain parts of axons or not, etc in a discussion regarding drug policy? As a society, we're clearly OK with substances that have demonstrated deleterious health effects, the question is why do we not hold alcohol to the standard we hold any other drug to? Why does a new drug get the scrutiny of everyone in the medical profession but, say, vapor-administered alcohol doesn't? Why do many industrial products and processes with well-documented toxic effects get off with zero regulatory scrutiny whereas drugs with known benefits and unclear risks get the microscope?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
Perhaps if amphetamines had been invented and part of world culture back thousands of years ago they would get the special place alcohol holds. You're not giving a very good justification for why we should add another dangerous drug to the place alcohol holds though. That's the great thing about weed, it gets you high and it basically doesn't have any side effects from prolonged use.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Perhaps if amphetamines had been invented and part of world culture back thousands of years ago they would get the special place alcohol holds. You're not giving a very good justification for why we should add another dangerous drug to the place alcohol holds though. I don't think people are arguing that meth should be enshrines as a coveted social tradition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Honestly though, who the gently caress cares about whether amphetamine downregulates serotonin or not, or whether it destroys certain parts of axons or not, etc in a discussion regarding drug policy? As a society, we're clearly OK with substances that have demonstrated deleterious health effects, the question is why do we not hold alcohol to the standard we hold any other drug to? Why does a new drug get the scrutiny of everyone in the medical profession but, say, vapor-administered alcohol doesn't? Why do many industrial products and processes with well-documented toxic effects get off with zero regulatory scrutiny whereas drugs with known benefits and unclear risks get the microscope?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 19:28
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:I don't think people are arguing that meth should be enshrines as a coveted social tradition. No, they're asking why Alcohol gets to get a pass when [other thing] doesn't. The answer is that it's a coveted social tradition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
TACD posted:Because there's a social stigma associated with 'getting high' (or any preferred 'altered state of consciousness' term) in any non-alcohol based way. Enjoyment and fun is not seen as a legitimate reason to use a substance. That's pretty much it. It's not even that, since drugs are prescribed for purely quality of life issues - see painkillers or erection pills. What seems to be the societal hang-up is that taking drugs to be more "normal" is a-ok, even recommended by doctors, but taking drugs (even the same exact drugs) to be less "normal" is not. Drunkenness (to a certain extent in the appropriate social settings) is not seen as outside of normality, so alcohol is tolerated. Marijuana is approaching the same status as far as society is concerned, and the legality is (slowly) following along.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Perhaps if amphetamines had been invented and part of world culture back thousands of years ago they would get the special place alcohol holds. You're not giving a very good justification for why we should add another dangerous drug to the place alcohol holds though. Methamphetamine nor heroin nor anything else will ever reach the place marijuana holds, let alone alcohol, so it's silly discussion to have. The discussion that we should be having is "does prohibition do more harm than good," and the answer is "yes, on a massive and horrifying scale." I haven't even touched on how, despite the fact that whites and blacks use drugs at around the same rate, enforcement falls much more heavily on the black community creating what is effectively a new slave class of black felons and destroying the family structure of whole neighborhoods. Or how the drug war causes massive conflict and death abroad. Or how it destroys the livelihoods of farmers in the third world. Or how allowing the drug trade to go underground has placed it in the hands of some of the most violent criminals the world has ever known.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 19:58
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Perhaps if amphetamines had been invented and part of world culture back thousands of years ago they would get the special place alcohol holds. You're not giving a very good justification for why we should add another dangerous drug to the place alcohol holds though. Oh OK, I wasn't aware being invented thousands of years ago made anything OK by itself. Care to explain why it was socially acceptable to easily obtain and use, for example, cocaine or natural opiates in the 1900s? Because I don't think that was thousands of years ago. I'm sure most current-day Americans are OK with khat, too, seeing as how there are no real side effects and it has also been around for thousands of years. Right? TACD posted:Because there's a social stigma associated with 'getting high' (or any preferred 'altered state of consciousness' term) in any non-alcohol based way. Enjoyment and fun is not seen as a legitimate reason to use a substance. That's pretty much it. Why is alcohol exempted, though? Why do so many people who see the folly of alcohol prohibition fail to see the same mistakes being made now? Anyone who says "because that's the only intoxicant that's ever, I mean literally ever, been socially acceptable" is ignorant of history. Radbot fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Jan 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
Because governments were not yet in the business of telling [white, male] people what they could or could not do with their lives. Also there were very few regulations regarding food and drugs at the time. I'm fine with khat, it appears to have the same effect as a few cups of coffee. It hasn't been demonized by the media yet. In regards to alcohol, well... it's so ingrained in the American consciousness. Plus brewing beer and making liquor has been a big part of American business since our founding. It gets grandfathered in, and now people can't imagine watching the game or going hunting without throwing back a few cold ones. It is specifically marketed not as an intoxicant but as a good ol' thirst quencher that makes you more of a man. The fact that the majority of humans are consumers of it, and pass it on to their kids (whose parents didn't let them have a bit of beer or wine while growing up?) means that it is seen as ok. This is why so many people talk a big talk about not drunk driving and then go have a few pints with dinner before driving home. Consciously, we know it's "bad" but on an unconscious level it's just a natural part of life and totally not a narcotic type substance with horrific long term effects. wilfredmerriweathr fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Jan 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:Because governments were not yet in the business of telling [white, male] people what they could or could not do with their lives. Also there were very few regulations regarding food and drugs at the time. You must not live in area with lots of east African immigrants. Khat is thoroughly demonized in central Ohio, for example. And your argument begs the question: what made governments start telling white, male people what they could or could not do with their lives, circa the Controlled Substances Act? edit: Hemp and cannabis have been part of American culture for just as long as alcohol has. Cannabis tinctures were regularly prescribed and stocked at pharmacies into the 1920s, until we decided we wanted to associate immigrants with the Devil's Weed. The more I think about it, the only real reason there is any cannabis stigma at all is because of propaganda linking cannabis with undesirables, not any bullshit about "well it just isn't part of 'MURRICAN CULTURE". Do I need to remind you that alcohol didn't used to be all that acceptable post-Third Great Awakening? Radbot fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Jan 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
It was a multifaceted effort to demonize cannabis at a time when a new scapegoat was needed. I would imagine maybe cannabis was demonized along with the harder drugs because once the alcohol industry had seen how easy it was to work people into a fervor and get a substance banned (alcohol) they realized they could drive customers to their product by getting the other intoxicants banned. And regarding khat, in Minnesota we have a massive population of somali immigrants (largest in the world, if I'm not mistaken) and while every once in a while there's a news article about khat, I haven't seen any recently and there is never any sort of uproar about it. Of course, Minnesota does not exactly have the same demographics as Ohio.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
Since this seems to be the catch-all drug war thread now, may I recommend that everyone go see The House I Live In, if you haven't already. It's the best drug war doc I've ever seen and I encourage everyone to check it out. It might not say anything that people posting in this thread don't already know but it puts it together in a comprehensive package and actually makes some analysis as to why the war has continued despite its demonstrable failure. Plus it has extensive interviews with David Simon, creator of The Wire, which is cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Oh OK, I wasn't aware being invented thousands of years ago made anything OK by itself. Care to explain why it was socially acceptable to easily obtain and use, for example, cocaine or natural opiates in the 1900s? Because I don't think that was thousands of years ago. Alcohol gets special treatment because it's been widely used for thousands of years, including significant portions of history where people would primarily drink weak beer or wine since that was safer especially for travel then drinking local water sources. It's heavily involved in many religions with billions of adherents and all that. In contrast refined drugs like the brand name drug Heroin and Cocaine were only "ok" for very short amounts of time. Heroin was invented in 1874. Isolated cocaine instead of chewing the relatively low concentration in coca leaves was invented in 1856. Alcoholic beverages are known to have been made on purpose since somewhere around 7500 BC. That's why alcohol always ends up exempted, it has massive social "strength" behind it that means it doesn't get subject to the same stuff. It has a massive historical background which means that there's a shitload more opposition to restricting it. Alcohol prohibition was repealed within 13 years, how long has prohibition gone on for all the other drugs, remind me? Do you really not see how that might mean that people are way more accommodating to alcohol?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Alcohol gets special treatment because it's been widely used for thousands of years, including significant portions of history where people would primarily drink weak beer or wine since that was safer especially for travel then drinking local water sources. It's heavily involved in many religions with billions of adherents and all that. In contrast refined drugs like the brand name drug Heroin and Cocaine were only "ok" for very short amounts of time. Heroin was invented in 1874. Isolated cocaine instead of chewing the relatively low concentration in coca leaves was invented in 1856. Alcoholic beverages are known to have been made on purpose since somewhere around 7500 BC. Literally everything you've posted in regards to the historical and cultural influence of alcohol is also applicable to cannabis or psychedelic mushrooms, two highly illegal drugs on the federal level, so please excuse me if the argument seems pretty weak.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Since this seems to be the catch-all drug war thread now I wish it wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Literally everything you've posted in regards to the historical and cultural influence of alcohol is also applicable to cannabis or psychedelic mushrooms, two highly illegal drugs on the federal level, so please excuse me if the argument seems pretty weak. Yet somehow neither of those had their restrictions lifted in just 13 years. Hmmmm. The US managed to get enough support for prohibition as an amendment at one time, yet in just 13 years swung back around to enough support for another amendment removing it and amendments don't come lightly. It took decades of campaigning to get prohibition on alochol in place and the support for it absolutely vaporized in a little over a decade and is now treated as a joke. It's clear that anything "harder" than marijuana simply does not have the support to get prohibition removed on it at all, let alone as fast as alcohol did. And that's because of the culture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
Jesus made alcohol forever OK because he made wine turn into his blood? Also, Cannabis was socially acceptable for thousands of years but only in non white man lands.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:You're not giving a very good justification for why we should add another dangerous drug to the place alcohol holds though. This sounds like another version of the "we can't legalise other drugs because we have enough problems with alcohol" argument. KingEup fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Jan 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Yet somehow neither of those had their restrictions lifted in just 13 years. Hmmmm. The enforcement regime of modern drug prohibition mostly dates back to Nixon, as a way to disenfranchise and isolate the counterculture movement. The nuanced view is that this attempt at prohibition has lasted roughly 40 years and spans numerous events that gave prohibition an extra boost. For a start, this prohibition coincided with the start of the moral majority movement rather than being passed at the high-water point of the original progressive movement. 20 years in, we ended up with a president who had done drugs and was embroiled in numerous other culture-war morality fights. After that, we ended up with 9/11 and a massive resurgence in right-wing power as well as a concerted effort to link drug use with support for terrorism (due to supposed funding links). After that hysteria died down (circa 2008) we started getting serious and it's only taken a few years to turn the battle on at least one front.  The non-nuanced view is that your beliefs on the historical social uses of other drugs are highly end-of-history and Amerocentric, and flat-out wrong. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Jan 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Since this seems to be the catch-all drug war thread now, may I recommend that everyone go see The House I Live In, if you haven't already. Seconding this, it's a must-see documentary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
KingEup posted:This sounds like another version of the "we can't legalise other drugs because we have enough problems with alcohol" argument. Well I literally never said anything like that so you're just not good at thinking. I'm explaining why alcohol doesn't get restricted. Paul MaudDib posted:
This is a thread that is America centric because it's about America. Heroin factually didn't exist before the late 19th century and neither did refined cocaine (the traditional way to use coca leaves is far different from the way cocaine is used on its own). Paul MaudDib posted:The enforcement regime of modern drug prohibition mostly dates back to Nixon, as a way to disenfranchise and isolate the counterculture movement. The nuanced view is that this attempt at prohibition has lasted roughly 40 years and spans numerous events that gave prohibition an extra boost. And 40 is greater than 13.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Why is alcohol exempted, though? Why do so many people who see the folly of alcohol prohibition fail to see the same mistakes being made now? Anyone who says "because that's the only intoxicant that's ever, I mean literally ever, been socially acceptable" is ignorant of history. And as everybody knows, alcohol isn't a drug, it's a drink. People very definitely categorise alcohol and caffeine and other socially-acceptable drugs differently to other 'real drugs'. Oh sure alcohol is technically a drug but it doesn't really count, you know? Radbot posted:Literally everything you've posted in regards to the historical and cultural influence of alcohol is also applicable to cannabis or psychedelic mushrooms, two highly illegal drugs on the federal level, so please excuse me if the argument seems pretty weak. Cannabis is finally reaching that critical point where enough people have tried it or know somebody who has tried it for it not to be a weird thing. It's in enough mass media that most people are aware it's actually OK; it's mischievous, not criminal. Stoners are cute, but junkies are still sad. ...OK, maybe I pontificated a bit further. TACD fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Jan 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The non-nuanced view is that your beliefs on the historical social uses of other drugs are highly end-of-history and Amerocentric, and flat-out wrong. Drug prohibition though, in it's currently implemented edition, is a very American idea. It does have roots is Sharia law though, but that enforced penalties on growing or making and distribution, not usage, and that only ever applied to Muslims or those who sold to Muslims. Actually that's a good idea to get nutterheads behind legalization. "Prohibition is a 'Moslem conspiracy' to stop us from broadening our minds."
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Drug prohibition though, in it's currently implemented edition, is a very American idea. The claim I was responding to was that alcohol was some kind of an exception that couldn't be successfully prohibited because of its vast history of use, whereas other drugs never saw that kind of social acceptance and thus could be banned without much of an outcry. i.e. Install Gentoo posted:Alcohol gets special treatment because it's been widely used for thousands of years, including significant portions of history where people would primarily drink weak beer or wine since that was safer especially for travel then drinking local water sources. It's heavily involved in many religions with billions of adherents and all that. In contrast refined drugs like the brand name drug Heroin and Cocaine were only "ok" for very short amounts of time. Heroin was invented in 1874. Isolated cocaine instead of chewing the relatively low concentration in coca leaves was invented in 1856. Alcoholic beverages are known to have been made on purpose since somewhere around 7500 BC. Examples like cocaine, heroin, LSD, etc tautologically cannot have histories of use spanning thousands of years, as they were only invented recently on that scale. It's really a fallacy to bring them up as proof that no other drugs which are prohibited have a history of common social and religious use. For example: quote:However, amongst communities in the Horn of Africa (Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia) and the Arabian Peninsula, khat chewing has a long history as a social custom dating back thousands of years.[2] quote:Cannabis is indigenous to Central and South Asia.[127] Evidence of the inhalation of cannabis smoke can be found in the 3rd millennium BCE, as indicated by charred cannabis seeds found in a ritual brazier at an ancient burial site in present day Romania.[9] In 2003, a leather basket filled with cannabis leaf fragments and seeds was found next to a 2,500- to 2,800-year-old mummified shaman in the northwestern Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of China.[128][129] Cannabis is also known to have been used by the ancient Hindus of India and Nepal thousands of years ago. The herb was called ganjika in Sanskrit (गांजा/গাঁজা ganja in modern Indo-Aryan languages).[130][131] The ancient drug soma, mentioned in the Vedas, was sometimes associated with cannabis.[132] quote:Peyote is known to have been used since the middle of the Archaic period in the Americas by the people of the Oshara Tradition in the Southwest. In 2005 researchers used radiocarbon dating and alkaloid analysis to study two specimens of peyote buttons found in archaeological digs from a site called Shumla Cave No. 5 on the Rio Grande in Texas. The results dated the specimens to between 3780 and 3660 B.C. Alkaloid extraction yielded approximately 2% of the alkaloids including mescaline in both samples. This indicates that native North Americans were likely to have used peyote since at least five and a half thousand years ago.[4] quote:In the 16th century, Christian missionaries from Spain and Portugal first encountered indigenous peoples using ayahuasca in South America; their earliest reports described it as the work of the devil.[29] In the 20th century, the active chemical constituent of B. caapi was named telepathine, but it was found to be identical to a chemical already isolated from Peganum harmala and was given the name harmaline. Beat writer William Burroughs read a paper by Richard Evans Schultes on the subject and sought out yagé in the early 1950s while traveling through South America in the hopes that it could relieve or cure opiate addiction (see The Yage Letters). Ayahuasca became more widely known when the McKenna brothers published their experience in the Amazon in True Hallucinations. Dennis McKenna later studied the pharmacology, botany, and chemistry of ayahuasca and oo-koo-he, which became the subject of his master's thesis. quote:Cultivation of opium poppies for food, anaesthesia, and ritual purposes dates back to at least the Neolithic Age (new stone age). The Sumerian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Indian, Minoan, Greek, Roman, Persian and Arab Empires all made widespread use of opium, which was the most potent form of pain relief then available, allowing ancient surgeons to perform prolonged surgical procedures. Opium is mentioned in the most important medical texts of the ancient world, including the Ebers Papyrus and the writings of Dioscorides, Galen, and Avicenna. Widespread medical use of unprocessed opium continued through the American Civil War before giving way to morphine and its successors, which could be injected at a precisely controlled dosage. This is why I'm saying that his claim that alcohol occupies some unique space in religious or social drug use is false and Amerocentric. All of these drugs are banned, and yet they exhibit the same characteristics that InstallGentoo claim give a drug resistance to being prohibited. His "history of social use" of other drugs refers entirely to American usage while his citation of millennia of alcohol use in fact considerably predates the United States of America. If we really want to be pedantic, there is only 300 years of history of American alcohol usage - the same amount as all those other drugs, and not substantially longer than something like cocaine (which he dismissed as being too recent). In fact, the defining characteristic in banning all those drugs was racism. Outlawing peyote and ayahuasca was a way to gently caress up the religious rituals of Native Americans (later reversed in part). Opium was a way to stick it to those shifty Chinese, marijuana was a way to put those mexicans and blacks in jail where they belonged, far far away from our white women. Khat's following a similar trajectory, except with recent Yemeni/Somali immigrants instead. And to get back to the topic at hand: the most recent crackdown took place as a way to stifle counterculture during the 70s. Sure, it's "culture" - but it's basically old white guys protecting their cultural touchstone (alcohol) and banning the cultural touchstones of the Other. It's a story that played out repeatedly (and poorly) in other facets of American life, and I just don't feel that "white guys get what they want" is that great of a moral or logical support anymore. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Jan 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The claim I was responding to was that alcohol was some kind of an exception that couldn't be successfully prohibited because of its vast history of use, whereas other drugs never saw that kind of social acceptance and thus could be banned without much of an outcry. That's not the claim. Not only has alcohol had such a long history of use, but the one time enough support was raised to ban it nationally, it ended up reversed in just 13 years and the kind of blanket bans on it that get applied to other drugs have simply never worked for the national level here ever again. As evidenced by the fact that none of the other drugs have had bans lifted in such a fast time period. We're talking about IN AMERICA therefore it's by definition an America-centric perspective, dude. Paul MaudDib posted:Sure, it's "culture" - but it's basically old white guys protecting their cultural touchstone (alcohol) and banning the cultural touchstones of the Other. It's a story that played out repeatedly (and poorly) in other facets of American life, and I just don't feel that "white guys get what they want" is that great of a moral or logical support anymore. Yes indeed, racist white culture controls America and that's why alcohol isn't subject to anything on the level of the restrictions on weed or heroin. It is the fact and the why of why alcohol gets a relatively free pass for a drug of its danger level. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Jan 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
So... about those state legalization measures... Seattle had their first town hall meeting recently, more are following in various parts of the state. I missed the Seattle one but my lawyer's staying on top of the relevant issues, nothing of importance seemed to have came up. You know what it feels like right now? A motherfucking California gold rush. Everyone who has a piece of poo poo property is trying to cash in with ridiculous terms/conditions. I've had more offers for space in the past month than I've ever had in my entire career. I always knew they're be a sink or swim moment for me in this industry, and it's a surprise it's all happening so fast. I don't know about Colorado, but Washington is poised to be the producer/tourist destination for herb for the West Coast simply because everyone seems to be on board. And my god is there a lot of local venture/vulture money flying around. Forget about Camel or Marb blowing this business up, tech workers with disposable investment's are going to do that. I'm looking forward to the Cannabis Cup being held in Seattle in 2014 or 2015 at the latest. I'd bet a pound on that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Morphix posted:So... about those state legalization measures... You would imagine it's a bit more controlled, I would hope something like liquor licenses are implemented.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
Morphix posted:So... about those state legalization measures... And people seem to forget that with this industry, it opens up a lot of doors for other forms of job growth as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
/\/\ This is another thing, the amount of people I've talked to who don't want to produce/sell herb directly, but still would like to be involved somehow is what's amazing to me. For example, Couple months back, finding a reliable cook to make butter/food/treats from my by-product was hard. I gave up on it and just threw away trim, so much perfectly machined trim, like poo poo you could take bowl rips from and get hiiiigh as a kite. Now well, I have my pickings, do I want to hot horny young chick with big dreams of $$$ and little baking experience, or the 40-something mom whose looking to make some extra income and my god is her cooking amazing , among many other silly stereotypes :P/\/\Tab8715 posted:You would imagine it's a bit more controlled, I would hope something like liquor licenses are implemented. Licenses aren't actually even being rumored to be given out until end of April, and full implementation in terms of retail locations isn't supposed to happen until December. But when you have well connected lawyers telling you 'Go Go Go', well... I'm still playing it cautious myself but basically, you won't hear much from the big players in the next few months. Everyone's operating as if the law hadn't changed but suddenly there's a lot more money/space/opportunity opening up. Basically laying ground work, securing space, making sure Day 1 you can literally start printing money. Some words of wisdom to inspiring entrapraneurs out there; I am sorry to say, unless you're genius gardener already, trying to jump into the production game in Washington at this point is fruitless unless you have $50-100k you know what to do with. By the time you actually learn to grow, pay off your debts, and learn to run a business, you won't find a market for your product anyway. You'll be forced to take the export/black-market route, and if you weren't cool with working in the black market before, why would you think you'll be able to pull it off now. And to be perfectly honest, without the illegal connections to make you cool, you're just going to be a farmer. A burned out, poor farmer. Best of luck. Every useless college drop out in Washington thinks they're going to set the world on fire with their 1k of lighting and their HELLA LARGE GROW BRO. Myself included. \/\/ Whoops, sounds like I need to update my info, thanks \/\/ Morphix fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Jan 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
Morphix posted:Licenses aren't actually even being rumored to be given out until end of April, and full implementation in terms of retail locations isn't supposed to happen until December. There's various information here: http://liq.wa.gov/marijuana/I-502, and a high-level timeline here: http://www.liq.wa.gov/publications/Marijuana/I-502/I-502-Timeline-1-15-13.pdf. Says they plan on accepting producer permits in June and issuing the first ones in August.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
Morphix posted:
But you also have to remember, as/if more states become legal, there will be more room for people to expand. But yeah, Washington & Colorado are the new gold rush. Problem is like you said though; by time outside investors get that way, everything is pretty saturated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 05:48
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Honestly though, who the gently caress cares about whether amphetamine downregulates serotonin or not, or whether it destroys certain parts of axons or not, etc in a discussion regarding drug policy? As a society, we're clearly OK with substances that have demonstrated deleterious health effects, the question is why do we not hold alcohol to the standard we hold any other drug to? Why does a new drug get the scrutiny of everyone in the medical profession but, say, vapor-administered alcohol doesn't? Why do many industrial products and processes with well-documented toxic effects get off with zero regulatory scrutiny whereas drugs with known benefits and unclear risks get the microscope? I think the question is whether there's a point or should be a point where such health effects are so negative (and alcohol is widely used without causing permanent damage to everyone who uses it) that the government should not allow it. quote:I'm sure most current-day Americans are OK with khat, too, seeing as how there are no real side effects and it has also been around for thousands of years. Right? Well it probably causes cancer and is kind of gross, but it is widely used in a number of countries and enjoys a special place in those societies that other drugs do not. You could argue it does enjoy an equivalent status to alcohol in those areas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 10:24
|
|
|
Morphix posted:So... about those state legalization measures... I don't know how it's going in greater CO but as I posted earlier the county commission voted to ban recreational marijuana sales in Colorado Springs/El Paso County. I kinda hope the more outspoken commissioner talking about Marijuana's dangerous cancer causing addictiveness and dropping "think of the children" defense is experiencing her last term. At this point I'm not sure what someone like that would think they are accomplishing by demonizing the old devils lettuce. There are dispensaries everywhere and now it's legal for anyone to grow. Other counties and cities will have it for sale in a retail setting so all that stance is doing is turning down tax revenue while doing precisely nothing in return other than promoting a grey market.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 12:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:20 |
|
|
Morphix posted:And to be perfectly honest, without the illegal connections to make you cool, you're just going to be a farmer. A burned out, poor farmer. Best of luck. By "illegal connections" are we talking about the drug cartel stuff? I don't anything about the business, but one thing stopping me from participating as a consumer is the chance I might be helping really bad people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2013 13:25
|
|
