|
ColoradoCleric posted:If you really wanted to estimate how much a heavy smoker could realistically go through a day at most I would say probably an 8th, but even then the amount of people who would do that consistently over a month or longer is probably very small. I think on average your probable "heavy/regular" user would go through an ounce a month. I have a friend who would definitely smoke more than that if he could afford it. I'm pretty sure he would do like 3oz/month, but maybe I'm wrong.
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Well funny you guys bring up that lung cancer study because I just for the White House FAQ for cannabis that mentions barely the new legal status in Colorado and Washington, figure I'd post it here so we could tear into anything misleading or false if they're dumb enough to cite it. Your sudden post frenzy is this thread is hard to read because you have all sorts of grammer and tense issues. Work on quality over quantity!  ColoradoCleric posted:Really though the studies still debunk cannabis as being dangerous regardless of how much you use if its only harmful by smoking heavily when people have several ways of mitigating that from using water filtration when you combust cannabis or going the safer way and vaporizing or even eating it. To say that using cannabis is dangerous because you can increase your risk of carcinogens from burning it is disingenuous as you are ignoring all the other methods of ingesting it. The only legitimate way to evaluate the dangers from carcinogens and cancers would be to look at all methods of ingestion together and make conclusions from that, which I have a feeling would spread the danger even thinner and respectfully still represent the actual danger that the average person could expect. EDIT: Found an abstract, for what it's worth: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=163344 I recall the article being reasonable in it's methodology, but ymmv. The Article posted:The waterpipe study was motivated by concerns that marijuana smoking, like tobacco smoking, posed hazards to respiratory health. The study tested smoke from seven different sources. It focused on two key components of the smoke: total solid particulates, or tars, waste by-products of burning leaf like those from tobacco; and cannabinoids, the chemicals distinctive to marijuana, including THC, its major psychoactive ingredient. The tests disclosed that waterpipes do not necessarily protect users from harmful tars in marijuana smoke. Waterpipes filter out more THC than they do other tars, thereby requiring users to smoke more to reach their desired effect. The study does not rule out the possibility that waterpipes could have other benefits, such as filtering out gases. It suggests that other methods, such as the use of high potency marijuana, vaporizers, or oral ingestion are needed to avoid toxins in marijuana smoke. mdemone posted:Well, there is an unexpected societal benefit to that level of smoking: if you take down a quarter of an ounce in one day, you aren't going anywhere except to the pantry. Stimulates the grocery economy. EDIT: ColoradoCleric posted:If you really wanted to estimate how much a heavy smoker could realistically go through a day at most I would say probably an 8th, but even then the amount of people who would do that consistently over a month or longer is probably very small. I think on average your probable "heavy/regular" user would go through an ounce a month. Delta-Wye fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Mar 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
So... as someone who has never used any marijuana in his life, would you say brownies or something like that is the healthiest/best option? I'm not trying to get all TCC, but this is coming to my state soon(barring a federal lawsuit) and I'm pretty sure the local stores will be carrying pot in multiple forms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
Mrit posted:So... as someone who has never used any marijuana in his life, would you say brownies or something like that is the healthiest/best option? I'm not trying to get all TCC, but this is coming to my state soon(barring a federal lawsuit) and I'm pretty sure the local stores will be carrying pot in multiple forms. If you're worried about the harmful effects of smoke, not smoking removes that completely. If you're worried about the harmful effects of the active ingredients (THC, cannaboids, etc) then cooking doesn't really help! Plus edibles have other issues (the come-up time is long so it's easy to get a higher dose than intended) so they aren't a perfect solution for new people either. The markets in CA, WA, and CO have gotten pretty clever though and there are all sorts of dosing options from vaporization to pills to oils to tinctures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:For the record, I think a pack of cigarettes is about 0.7 grams/cigarette * 20 cigarettes, or 14 grams of tobacco. This is a half ounce. There are certainly people who smoke two packs a day, I find it hard to believe that anyone smokes an ounce of weed a day. (That's a challenge goons get on it.) I don't know how much a heavy user would smoke a day but I imagine the highest(snicker) would would be ~1/4 oz a day, and that's still insane. Even on my heaviest days I don't go above 1.5 grams a day, and 1.5 grams of tobacco is way worse for you than 1.5 grams of weed. I've heard of hardcore concentrate-only smokers burning through the hash equivalent of 7 or 8 ounces of bud a week though. Plus my bong isn't soaked in formeldahyde or whatever the gently caress. Mrit posted:So... as someone who has never used any marijuana in his life, would you say brownies or something like that is the healthiest/best option? I'm not trying to get all TCC, but this is coming to my state soon(barring a federal lawsuit) and I'm pretty sure the local stores will be carrying pot in multiple forms. Vaporizing is the best of all worlds. No calories, no negative health effects(zero), more efficient, better taste. But eating weed is definitely second best. Honestly, combusting is the hedonistic, wasteful way to do it. But there's something about a big rip off a bong that hits you and just smacks you with highness. empty whippet box fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Mar 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
I would definitely recommend vaping for someone who's new. Smoking will make your throat/lungs feel like they are on fire if you've never smoked anything and is obviously less healthy than other options. Edibles are great too but it can be hard to gauge the dose correctly since it takes so long to kick in whereas with vaping it's easy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:Edibles are great too but it can be hard to gauge the dose correctly since it takes so long to kick in whereas with vaping it's easy. Edibles are another issue that came up during the Colorado recommendation task force, basically they want to limit how much THC/weed/whatever you can put in edibles. I'm guessing they're doing this so the average person doesn't go into the store and unintentionally purchases something way too strong and get hosed up high. I see it as being similar to limiting alcohols to certain percentages but I'd be interested in seeing what other people's opinions are. Personally I'd like to go into a store and buy stupid powerful brownies but this can also run into liability issues if you're knowingly selling something that not only fucks someone up but also over a very long period of time. For this reason if Colorado ever allows people to open hash bars I don't think allowing for onsite consumption of edibles would be a good idea for the store owner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
Mrit posted:So... as someone who has never used any marijuana in his life, would you say brownies or something like that is the healthiest/best option? I'm not trying to get all TCC, but this is coming to my state soon(barring a federal lawsuit) and I'm pretty sure the local stores will be carrying pot in multiple forms. Whatup following the law buddy. You can mod an e-cigarette/get a vaporizer fairly cheaply at most tobacco stores here (you said you were in WA right?), its going to do less damage to your lungs than smoking (which obv. wouldn't do that much damage to begin with assuming its a casual one off thing). I know nothing about edibles having only done synthetics (which owned, gently caress the haters and the stupid spice act), so my plan is just to use my existing hookah for "you can buy weed in stores day" when (if) it arrives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
TCC is probably a better forum if you're looking to get into using marijuana. Let's stick with policy related discussions in here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 19:24
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Edibles are another issue that came up during the Colorado recommendation task force, basically they want to limit how much THC/weed/whatever you can put in edibles. I'm guessing they're doing this so the average person doesn't go into the store and unintentionally purchases something way too strong and get hosed up high. I see it as being similar to limiting alcohols to certain percentages but I'd be interested in seeing what other people's opinions are. Personally I'd like to go into a store and buy stupid powerful brownies but this can also run into liability issues if you're knowingly selling something that not only fucks someone up but also over a very long period of time. For this reason if Colorado ever allows people to open hash bars I don't think allowing for onsite consumption of edibles would be a good idea for the store owner. Eating edibles that are too strong is a real thing and has the potential for tons of bad PR. Give someone who has very little drug experience and no tolerance to marjiuana edibles that are too strong and they will have A Bad Time, and its going to last hours. It's not realistic to expect legalization to come without a lot of strings attached and a max on potency is not too bad in the grand scheme of things. In an ideal world the dosages are clearly labeled and consumers are informed enough to eat just the right amount but in practice neither of those things are going to happen without someone forcing the issue. I personally think it's not effective for protecting people (maxing out the strength of everclear, for instance, doesn't keep people from just drinking more) but its not a huge deal and if it encourages producers to standardize the dosages in their product better it could end up being a legit good thing. Xandu posted:TCC is probably a better forum if you're looking to get into using marijuana. Let's stick with policy related discussions in here. Vaporizors: Vaporization Megathread - Smoke Free or Die Hard Edibles: Eating weed is the loving way to go. Serious Questions/Information: The Serious About Weed Thread I feel like it is irresponsible to make policy decisions about something you are ignorant about (and apparently Steve Katz agrees!); if you want to have a fruitful discussion it helps to be informed. Edibles are a solution to smoke inhalation but present problems that aren't there with smoking; there is no 'one true way' to consume marijuana that doesn't have some sort of drawback and understanding those tradeoffs are important if you want to understand policy details. Oh, how it warms my heart we're discussing the how to legalize properly and not the "we should legalize it" discussions of yesteryear 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:Eating edibles that are too strong is a real thing and has the potential for tons of bad PR. Give someone who has very little drug experience and no tolerance to marjiuana edibles that are too strong and they will have A Bad Time, and its going to last hours. It's not realistic to expect legalization to come without a lot of strings attached and a max on potency is not too bad in the grand scheme of things. In an ideal world the dosages are clearly labeled and consumers are informed enough to eat just the right amount but in practice neither of those things are going to happen without someone forcing the issue. I personally think it's not effective for protecting people (maxing out the strength of everclear, for instance, doesn't keep people from just drinking more) but its not a huge deal and if it encourages producers to standardize the dosages in their product better it could end up being a legit good thing. Fair enough and I guess I have enough experience with this stuff I was assuming everyone else did too. Now with regards to edibles, I know some CA medical marijuana shops do sell them. Does anyone have any anecdotes about what sort of information/warnings they come with?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Fair enough and I guess I have enough experience with this stuff I was assuming everyone else did too. I know that some of the edibles sold in Colorado's dispensaries do have labeling saying how much THC is in each dose, though I don't think it is required as of right now. Personally I don't know how they go about measuring how much THC or other active chemicals are in raw cannabis or related products, but it seems that trying to get consistency down on a very fickle plant might be hard.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Fair enough and I guess I have enough experience with this stuff I was assuming everyone else did too. Some/most packages I've seen have approximate dosages, if you trust the grower->processor->baker->wholesaler->retailer (depending on the amount of vertical integration, of course) not to gently caress something up in the production process. I don't think any of it is regulated and I've heard stories where the dispensary has labeled things very specifically like CBD/THC content percentages but doesn't realize the flowers have seeds in them (  ), which calls into question the accuracy of all the other labels. It would be trivially easy to sell a cookie as ".5g maui wowie" or whatever the gently caress you think people will buy when really it was made with a handful of trimmings and you have no clue what its potency is. As far as I know there is no oversight or requirements right now, but hopefully that will change once things are regulated. The only real saving grace is the dosing levels for marijuana are really really wide so ODing and such is not a concern.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:I know that some of the edibles sold in Colorado's dispensaries do have labeling saying how much THC is in each dose, though I don't think it is required as of right now. Personally I don't know how they go about measuring how much THC or other active chemicals are in raw cannabis or related products, but it seems that trying to get consistency down on a very fickle plant might be hard. There are lab tests that can be done and as far as I know (I have a friend who worked in a thc bakery in CO) they have to be tested by law. I was under the impression they also had to put the corresponding information on the packaging but I'll admit I've seen some product that didn't have it. I think the lab tests they have are pretty accurate though, I could be mistaken. They certainly act like they are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:There are lab tests that can be done and as far as I know (I have a friend who worked in a thc bakery in CO) they have to be tested by law. I was under the impression they also had to put the corresponding information on the packaging but I'll admit I've seen some product that didn't have it. I think the lab tests they have are pretty accurate though, I could be mistaken. They certainly act like they are. Do you know if they measure strictly THC or do they also measure the other cannabinoids? One thing that bothers me about using the THC amount as a measurement of potency is that it does not account for the effects that the varying amounts of cannabinoids have on making someone "high". Of course now with things like strict CBD cannabis strains you could end up buying something that just gives you "couch lock" without realizing it, though I doubt it would happen too often with an experienced bud tender.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Do you know if they measure strictly THC or do they also measure the other cannabinoids? One thing that bothers me about using the THC amount as a measurement of potency is that it does not account for the effects that the varying amounts of cannabinoids have on making someone "high". Of course now with things like strict CBD cannabis strains you could end up buying something that just gives you "couch lock" without realizing it, though I doubt it would happen too often with an experienced bud tender. I've seen some of the labels that have come out of the place where he works and all the individual cannabinoids are mentioned (at least the big ones I know about, CBD, CBN, THC). I'll see if he can send me an example label somehow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Do you know if they measure strictly THC or do they also measure the other cannabinoids? One thing that bothers me about using the THC amount as a measurement of potency is that it does not account for the effects that the varying amounts of cannabinoids have on making someone "high". Of course now with things like strict CBD cannabis strains you could end up buying something that just gives you "couch lock" without realizing it, though I doubt it would happen too often with an experienced bud tender. They do tests for other cannaboids. One of the CO testing companies (or employees?) posts pictures on reddit, their account may include more discussion of the process but I haven't dug too deeply. http://www.reddit.com/r/trees/comments/1a31l8/photos_i_take_as_a_cannabis_lab_assistant_50/ You send in samples and they send you back numbers. I think similar testing is popular in WA as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
It's important for medical suppliers to have those kind of stats, but for recreational use it really depends on the density.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:For the record, I think a pack of cigarettes is about 0.7 grams/cigarette * 20 cigarettes, or 14 grams of tobacco. This is a half ounce. There are certainly people who smoke two packs a day, I find it hard to believe that anyone smokes an ounce of weed a day. (That's a challenge goons get on it.) I don't know how much a heavy user would smoke a day but I imagine the highest(snicker) would would be ~1/4 oz a day, and that's still insane. I used to smoke an eighth a day, and that was achieved only with a high volume of self loathing, escapism and most of a decade of weed smoking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
I would want edibles to have almost an overkill of information on it to distinguish between the expected effects. I wouldn't want someone to go "I don't want to smoke, but I'll try a brownie" and then go out and buy a highly potent edible. It'd be like giving a first time drinker multiple shots of Everclear, but without the vomiting and dying part.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:I know nothing about edibles having only done synthetics (which owned, gently caress the haters and the stupid spice act), so my plan is just to use my existing hookah for "you can buy weed in stores day" when (if) it arrives. That poo poo is bad for you, and is an excellent reason for why recreational drugs need to be regulated and decriminalized or flat-out legalized. While the compounds used initially may not have been all that bad (who can tell, there was never any human testing since it was so rough on rodents), the stuff that's been sold for the last couple of years to skirt around the bans just eats away at your skin, mouth, internal organs, and brain. I know this first-hand, since I was addicted to it for nearly two years. The smoke was so harsh that I had constant styes and the skin of my face aged more in two years than it did in 6 years of tobacco and heavy weed smoking before that. My teeth and gums will never fully recover, and I can only hope that my brain does. Going from calculating derivatives in my head after a 6-pack to getting a headache from focusing on a math problem with variables was a pretty loving nasty wake-up call to the harm that the drug caused. I only smoked around 6-9 grams a week of the stuff, which is a similar amount to someone who smokes a couple of joints or a few big bowls of weed everyday. While discussing drug policy with a nurse I know (family friend that I only see every few years, she was unaware of my former addiction), she brought up how in the last few years, teenagers being rushed to the ER after smoking Spice and collapsing would usually have the lungs/liver/kidneys of an elderly chain-smoker from just a few months to a year of smoking it. She was so horrified from seeing the organ damage some of these kids had that it had turned her entire stance on drug prohibition around, despite previously being a staunch opponent of drug legalization (due to personal factors that understandably influenced her views on drug use). She felt that it would be better to openly sell meth or heroin in stores, as long as it kept people away from Spice. But to bring this back to policy, Spice/K2 is a prime example of how prohibition doesn't work. Prohibition of marijuana created a market for a quasi-legal but very harmful alternative to a much less harmful, but illegal, substance. It's similar to the krokodil example earlier in the thread, with people abusing an extremely harmful drug because prohibition limits access to the safer alternative. Additionally, even attempts to prohibit Spice itself have failed, despite numerous Federal, state, and local-level bans of it. All that happens is stores mark down and sell out of the banned brands and then buy a new kind that contains RC's not prohibited by the latest and previous bans. Prohibition creates a situation where teenagers can walk into any shady convenience store and legally buy bags of catnip and bark (both were prominent ingredients when I smoked it) laced with completely unknown chemicals, but someone caught with a moderate amount of a virtually harmless drug can easily have their future ruined. It's such a ridiculous situation that it's almost funny until you realize how much harm prohibition causes, both to society and to individuals.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Another part is trying to regulate these recreational drugs considering their effects. While being able to get LSD at a store would be great, how does society deal with people who misuse the drug and negatively affect not only themselves but others around them. Sure you can make acts like spiking the punch at a party with LSD illegal, but by making LSD even more prevalent and easier to get is going to increase the odds of events like that happening a lot more frequent. I propose that these drugs be legal, but can only be sold at yoga studios 10+ miles from any road and reachable only on foot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 05:58
|
|
|
ColoradoCleric posted:Another part is trying to regulate these recreational drugs considering their effects. While being able to get LSD at a store would be great, how does society deal with people who misuse the drug and negatively affect not only themselves but others around them. Sure you can make acts like spiking the punch at a party with LSD illegal, but by making LSD even more prevalent and easier to get is going to increase the odds of events like that happening a lot more frequent. Prohibition barely increases the difficulty in obtaining drugs. Drugs are prevalent and easy to get right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 06:21
|
|
|
All Of The Dicks posted:I propose that these drugs be legal, but can only be sold at yoga studios 10+ miles from any road and reachable only on foot. I could go for that, but you'd also have to climb a mountain to reach the yoga studio. Not necessarily a big mountain, but one that could be tastefully decorated with a path and some statues and flags. People in Kansas may be out of luck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
Rob Filter posted:Prohibition barely increases the difficulty in obtaining drugs. Drugs are prevalent and easy to get right now. Not compared to, say, cigarettes or alcohol. Prohibition is not effective, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that legalization would not cause any increase in availability.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
e_angst posted:Not compared to, say, cigarettes or alcohol. Prohibition is not effective, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that legalization would not cause any increase in availability. According to surveillance data published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: quote:Current marijuana use among high school students was more common than current cigarette use (23 percent compared to 18 percent) http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6104.pdf Does that mean tobacco is more available than cannabis? Hand waving about availability is an irrelevant distraction. The prevalence of smoking (tobacco) has declined by 30% in WA in the last 10 years. Availability remains the same. FYI there is almost no relationship between cannabis use and availability:  KingEup fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Mar 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
e_angst posted:Not compared to, say, cigarettes or alcohol. Prohibition is not effective, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that legalization would not cause any increase in availability. That depends on the age group. It's definitely easier for a 15 year old to buy weed than it is for them to buy alcohol because Joe the dealer doesn't card you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 07:54
|
|
|
The current environment of legalization and decriminalization is pretty vindicating to the crowd that was all like "weed use is a conspiracy by the man, man". Turns out it was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 16:59
|
|
|
Radbot posted:The current environment of legalization and decriminalization is pretty vindicating to the crowd that was all like "weed use is a conspiracy by the man, man". Turns out it was. What do you mean by this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
I think the truth is most people don't know poo poo about drugs. They may know a bit about marijuana, but that's it. This is why its so easy to scare people with drugs. Psychedelics regularly found to be one of the least dangerous group of drugs, is seen by the general public to be as bad as heroin or some other powerful opioid. People literally believe that some of these drugs MELT YOUR BRAIN AWAY! AND ARE SUPER ADDICTIVE! Lets not mention that most psychedelics are considered non-addictive(I can't think of any addictive one, but just to be on the safe side). The war on drugs is most powerful in its thought control. The fear it pumps into people. That really is the biggest battle, fighting all these old false concepts. People believe that drug legalization is based on science, the truth is it could hardly be less science based.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:What do you mean by this? When the government tells the public "There's no medical use for marijuana; that's crazy talk!", but also acknowledges that marijuana does have proven medical uses (as long as the government makes money), that pretty much validates concerns that the US drug policies are created mostly by greed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:When the government tells the public "There's no medical use for marijuana; that's crazy talk!", but also acknowledges that marijuana does have proven medical uses (as long as the government makes money), that pretty much validates concerns that the US drug policies are created mostly by greed. I see the argument that you are trying to make, but the existence of medical uses for a Schedule I drug (regardless of who owns the patent), doesn't invalidate its scheduling. The U.S. Supposedly owns the patent so it can issue licenses for studies and so it can get around schedule I. The reason that cannabis has no "accepted medical use" (which is a different thing than no medical use) has been outlined by the DEA before. Its perverse and almost catch 22ish, but it isn't evidence of some grand moneymaking conspiracy (especially given how much marijuana prosecutions/sentences cost in taxpayer money).
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:I see the argument that you are trying to make, but the existence of medical uses for a Schedule I drug (regardless of who owns the patent), doesn't invalidate its scheduling. Legally that is true, but when the medical uses for a drug are so obvious that even the US government is patenting them then there's no logical justification for including that drug in a schedule whose members are supposed to have no accepted medical uses. We use drugs for unaccepted medical uses all the time, this is called 'off label usage'. If this proves fruitful we have trials to officially approve them, even. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Mar 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 20:37
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Legally that is true, but when the medical uses for a drug are so obvious that even the US government is patenting them then there's no logical justification for including that drug in a schedule whose members are supposed to have no accepted medical uses. I 100% agree with you, and off label usages are a huge blow to the entire scheduling system IMO. That said the logic still is there. Nicotine, Morphine and Imbibed Alcohol all have medical usages as well, but they are not issued by the medical community anymore (except maybe nicotine for quitting smoking), the logic is that Marijuana doesn't do anything that other drugs don't do better, and the medical field isn't issuing it even off label (ironically they can't because of its schedule, catch 22), so its got no recognized medical use. All things considered though, the Health and Human Services stance on marijuana, until recently was that all off label uses weren't worth consideration because it is too addictive. The government just licensed out its patent out though for some trials to see if it could be a valid treatment, so a rescheduling of marijuana is not necessarily off the table.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:I see the argument that you are trying to make, but the existence of medical uses for a Schedule I drug (regardless of who owns the patent), doesn't invalidate its scheduling. It should, just the way Marinol was bumped incrementally from schedule I to schedule III. Literally the only difference between a schedule I drug and a schedule II drug is whether it can be used medically, and all this childish "I'm not touching the bad cannabinoids!" dancing around is ludicrous. Everyone who has done even the most basic research into the topic knows that marijuana doesn't deserve its schedule I status. quote:The U.S. Supposedly owns the patent so it can issue licenses for studies and so it can get around schedule I. The reason that cannabis has no "accepted medical use" (which is a different thing than no medical use) has been outlined by the DEA before. Its perverse and almost catch 22ish, but it isn't evidence of some grand moneymaking conspiracy (especially given how much marijuana prosecutions/sentences cost in taxpayer money). Did you actually read that paper you linked? The "scientific authority" they cite is HHS - the department of health and human services. That basically says the US drug enforcement agency asked the US department of health and human services "Hey, is marijuana still bad? If you say no, me and all my friends on the 3rd floor no longer have our jobs." and HHS said "Pssh, you know it's bad *wink*. See ya at the bar later." Red_Mage posted:That said the logic still is there. Nicotine, Morphine and Imbibed Alcohol all have medical usages as well, but they are not issued by the medical community anymore (except maybe nicotine for quitting smoking), the logic is that Marijuana doesn't do anything that other drugs don't do better  Morphine is still used today, all the loving time.Besides, that "logic" isn't the issue at all; efficacy has no bearing on schedule status. The factors that qualify a substance for schedule I are: -high potential for abuse -no currently accepted medical use -lack of accepted safety under medical supervision Based on medical uses it should already be disqualified, though the other two points are worth rebutting as well. The third point, lack of safety even with medical supervision, is laughable. Even ignoring the countless celebrities who are smoking heavily well into their old age, the LD50 (approximately the lethal dose) of THC is absurdly high. There is no possible way to accidentally kill yourself with marijuana. It is theoretically possible, but it would require a prohibitively expensive quantity of concentrated marijuana extract. The first requirement, having a high potential for abuse, is marijuana's weakest point just because of the ambiguity of the word "abuse". Is someone who smokes every weekend abusing marijuana? How about every day after work? How much, and how often do you have to use cannabis for it to be considered abusing? How come alcohol is legal, but its potential for abuse is through the roof? How come loving methamphetamine is more legal than marijuana?! RichieWolk fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Mar 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:-lack of accepted safety under medical supervision I would add that: 1. This conflicts with the government's own Institute of Medicine report on cannabis and cannabinioid based drugs: quote:the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range of effects tolerated for other medications. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376&page=5 2. It also conflicts with independent data on safety: quote:In our review, we identified 8371 adverse events related to medical cannabinoid use, 4779 of which were reported in 23 randomized controlled trials and 3592 in 8 observational studies. Most of the events were not serious. None of the reported adverse events was unexpected, according to the International Conference on Harmonisation criteria.30 http://www.cmaj.ca/content/178/13/1669.full
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
Are there any proposed decriminalization models in which users are licensed for drug possession? I'm imagining a system where you receive training in responsible use, handling inclement incidents, and identifying/responding to problem use patterns. It could be done on a substance by substance basis with the training designed around the challenges posed by each drug.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 23:39
|
|
|
Xandu posted:Fair enough and I guess I have enough experience with this stuff I was assuming everyone else did too. http://imgur.com/JY31q5W http://imgur.com/MFGIw9G This is the exception currently in CA not the rule but I was still floored by it when I first ran across these. They are also holy poo poo potent. I'm a pro at this weed stuff and eating one of these will put me on my rear end no question. Most edibles suck in my experience with the exception of hubby bars. Hubby's are also candy bars but they're just wrapped in foil with an inkjet printed label about containing medical marijuana and also possibly coming into contact with peanuts. With a few exceptions the edibles I've found go with the home printing option. The one that jumps out in my head are called Gold Caps which look like a vitamin supplement but are hash oil or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
MixMasterMalaria posted:Are there any proposed decriminalization models in which users are licensed for drug possession? I'm imagining a system where you receive training in responsible use, handling inclement incidents, and identifying/responding to problem use patterns. It could be done on a substance by substance basis with the training designed around the challenges posed by each drug. I don't think that would really count as decrim, that would be like giving people licenses for speeding. It doesn't make much sense to train people for something illegal, even if it is a civil offense and not a criminal one. But to answer your question regarding legalization, there simply aren't many serious proposals for legalizing all drugs at this point. In the US at least, organizations in favor of regulating all drugs have been keeping quiet about that and focusing on marijuana, for reasonable political reasons. In fact, the only serious proposal (that I know of, I've been out of the scene for a bit) is Transform Drug Policy Foundation's Blueprint for regulation. It's a fantastic document that anyone interested in this debate should read, whether you're onboard or you just can't picture a system that would work. But- the closest thing to that is under the heading "Pharmacy Model": quote:A specialist, non-medical drug pharmacist would occupy a distinct professional niche, one that would need careful development, definition and management. This new role would be subject to a similar code of practice to that of more conventional pharmacists, but with additional access control criteria. These specialist pharmacists would also be required to offer advice about harm reduction, safer use, and treatment services and referrals to help users quit, where appropriate. Such advice would be supported by necessary additional training or experience in drug counselling. They could either operate alongside existing pharmacies (subject to appropriate licensing conditions) or from separate licensed outlets. Note that the pharmacy model is only one of a handful of options that they outline in that section of the document.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Its perverse and almost catch 22ish, but it isn't evidence of some grand moneymaking conspiracy (especially given how much marijuana prosecutions/sentences cost in taxpayer money).
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 00:00
|
|
