|
TACD posted:I thought it would be another 20 years before we saw things like this. This is amazing. I'm all for legalization and decriminalization but not so that people have better access to cannabis and want to use cannabis is a way of life, or an indentification
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:50 |
|
|
echinopsis posted:I'm all for legalization and decriminalization but not so that people have better access to cannabis and want to use cannabis is a way of life, or an indentification How about regulation? Those pictures are from the WA state labeling guidelines - they have to be affixed, along with other information, to every cannabis-containing product sold.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I'm all for legalization and decriminalization but not so that people have better access to cannabis and want to use cannabis is a way of life, or an indentification
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 21:28
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:The Feds have basically been totally quiet on this, and now I think we've passed the point of no return. This is going to happen, weed will be legal for all adults to buy and will be taxed. Does anybody have any opinions on Obama doing something either for or against CO and WA or the DEA on its own? Will they just leave it for the next president? I actually had expected a large negative response to CO and WA from somebody in the federal government but it doesn't seem to be happening. Hell, the UN seems more concerned than the feds! Yeah. The UN is completely right here that Obama/Holder is making a mistake by letting it slide. I mean its nice to some extent, because it should be legal, but the executive has an obligation to keep the states from just ignoring federal laws, because if they don't act swiftly, it is taken as acceptance. That said, I don't think we are past the point of no return yet, money hasn't changed hands aboveboard in either state yet, and its possible (actually likely given some of the actions Holder has taking on another state v. fed issue of voting rights) that Holder and the DoJ are waiting for each state to cash its first metaphorical check from the taxes on weed. They could then bring the state's governor/treasurer to task quickly. This has the benefit of not hurting anyone at the lower levels while still allowing the federal government to maintain its position that states cannot overrule this and letting them challenge both states directly.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:You know, Clinton didn't pardon that many people. Reagan pardoned almost as many; and yeah, Clinton pardoned more people than the Bushes did, but they're the outliers, not him. Yes, my post was mostly tongue in cheek but sadly there isn't an emoticon to express that. Most presidents abuse the poo poo out of their power on their way out, but Clinton just did it the biggest which was my point. My point was also that he actually pardoned people who deserved to be in jail vs all the people in jail for possession. Ya dig?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Yeah. The UN is completely right here that Obama/Holder is making a mistake by letting it slide. Oh no the UN might pass a strongly worded statement 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:Oh no the UN might pass a strongly worded statement When we're forced to supply troops to invade ourselves you won't be laughing anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
Red_Mage posted:Yeah. The UN is completely right here that Obama/Holder is making a mistake by letting it slide. I mean its nice to some extent, because it should be legal, but the executive has an obligation to keep the states from just ignoring federal laws, because if they don't act swiftly, it is taken as acceptance. I can't imagine the anti-marijuana treaties are long for this world. If it were just a matter of "people can't smoke weed," I don't think anyone would give a poo poo; the real issues behind this are issues of organized crime, wars being fought with weed money, and people being sent to prison. This is some life-and-death poo poo, and legalization is going to go a long way towards fixing a lot of it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I'm all for legalization and decriminalization but not so that people have better access to cannabis and want to use cannabis is a way of life, or an indentification How about I use it however I want to because this is America?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:How about I use it however I want to because this is America? Nice argument rear end in a top hat. Who is going to pay for the psychiatric visits for psychosis or for COPD treatments? you or the taxes you paid on the weed? If so then cool but no bro is an island don't forget But these laws should be designed for reducing harm in the face of the reality that people are going to use these things. It shouldn't encourage use in any form. That's for morons to do in they spare time
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
TACD posted:Neither of those things are why I think this is amazing. Legalization is great for lots of reasons but those labels in particular made me happy to see the cannabis leaf being used in an official, 'adult' way commensurate with how the plant is coming to be regarded in society, rather than being draped all over tacky stoner paraphernalia. You don't think that's tacky? official welp
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Who is going to pay for the psychiatric visits for psychosis or for COPD treatments? You're making a number of assumptions here. First you're assuming more people will smoke cannabis following legalisation. Do you get COPD from consuming cannabis tea or other edible cannabis products? Second you assume that all types of cannabis cause psychosis. Cannabidiol [CBD], one of many cannabinoids present in the cannabis plant, has anti-psychotic properties and is currently being trialled as a treatment for schizophrenia (see links below). The psychotic effects of cananbis are currently believed to be closely related to the THC:CBD ratio. For example, there have been no reported cases of psychosis caused by the natural botanical cannabis product sold by GW Pharmaceuticals which has a 1:1 THC:CBD ratio (nabiximols). http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v2/n3/full/tp201215a.html http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dta.1425/full http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFpZ29zlpG4 KingEup fucked around with this message at 07:47 on May 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 07:02
|
|
|
I'm assuming people will continue to get high as gently caress on sticky loving joints
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 07:41
|
|
|
But seriously that is interesting, and good to know. My point still stands somewhat however. No drug is benign, and it's use will have a cost to society. You're in a sense saying my point fails because in certain use cases it falls over but only in those cases. People will continue to smoke weed even when vapes exist and who is going to be opting for 1:1 ratio cannabis if they have the option of higher THC ratios? Not the majority I am certain Promoting or defending its use because ~my freedoms~ is only valid if you're prepared to accept the cost to others even if its quite indirect
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 07:47
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:No drug is benign, and it's use will have a cost to society. We are paying for prohibition and cannabis related health problems right now. Please explain how the lawful availability of cannabis will cost more than prohibition. quote:You're in a sense saying my point fails No, I just pointed out some assumptions you had made. quote:Promoting or defending its use because ~my freedoms~ is only valid if you're prepared to accept the cost to others even if its quite indirect Do you think people should be allowed to consume different types of junk food? If yes, on what grounds? See I believe that people have the right consume different types of intoxicants. We used to arrest gays for having a sexual preference not shared by the majority. Why should people be locked in cages for having a drug preference that is not shared by the majority? KingEup fucked around with this message at 08:12 on May 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
KingEup posted:We are paying for prohibition and cannabis related health problems right now. Please explain how the lawful availability of cannabis will cost more than prohibition. Everyone's gonna be lazy and shiftless and fall prey to the twin evils of loose women and jazz music.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Promoting or defending its use because ~my freedoms~ is only valid if you're prepared to accept the cost to others even if its quite indirect This is why I support unconditional free speech, the second amendment and why I don't allow cops to search my vehicle or person and if you gave a gently caress about anything you would do the same.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 08:15
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:But seriously that is interesting, and good to know. My point still stands somewhat however. No drug is benign, and it's use will have a cost to society. Forget freedom. If we could get even a small fraction of people who self-medicate with alcohol to choose marijuana instead, it would be a tremendous boon to public health. And consider it as an analgesic: it's pretty damned benign compared to opiates. I find it difficult to envision a scenario where legalization isn't a net benefit from a health perspective.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 10:39
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:But seriously that is interesting, and good to know. My point still stands somewhat however. No drug is benign, and it's use will have a cost to society. So what are the costs of someone growing pot in their backyard and smoking it in their own home? And even if everyone smoked weed, without prohibition, what are the costs of them doing that? Sorry, but no, smoking marijuana has no 'costs'. It is utterly, completely benign and the only 'costs' are those intentionally put in place to gently caress over minorities and other disenfranchised peoples. There are no costs outside of these manufactured penalties for smoking a plant with basically zero harmful effects of any kind. The 'cost' of marijuana being legal is that hundreds of thousands of people won't be in jail and will be paying taxes, voting, participating in our economic system and society, and increasing our country's worth. The 'cost' is also that less families will be destroyed, the drug cartels will be severely weakened, resulting in far less violence, the for-profit prison industry will be weakened and we can start fixing that part of our infrastructure, cops won't be able to use the smell of weed as probable cause so our civil liberties will be stronger, police will no longer have to enforce marijuana laws, saving tons of time and money, tax revenue will increase and the list goes the gently caress on. Meanwhile, the pros are: 2% decrease in lung function, maybe? Sometimes you might not like how it smells? Is someone going to go on a marijuana bender and eat too many cheetos? 'cost to society' my rear end. empty whippet box fucked around with this message at 12:12 on May 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 12:08
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:Is someone going to go on a marijuana bender and eat too many cheetos? You laugh, but after too many cheetos and milkshakes my farts are powerful enough to hasten global warming. Also you'd be surprised (or maybe not) to hear that more than one anti-weed acquaintance has stated that their biggest reason for hating weed is because it smells "so gross." Of course, I find their constant drunk driving and sleeping with bar sluts "gross" too, but they don't seem to care about that.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 13:37
|
|
|
The main opposition to cannabis here in the United Kingdom is that it has been linked with pushing susceptible individuals off the rails as far as mental health goes. It has been implicated in Schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. As to whether the mental health problem associated with it are worse than the mental health problems associated with alcohol or tobacco, I am not sure.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 13:45
|
|
|
Tobacco: no, it's extremely benign in that regard, though its addictive effects and the terrible things it does to your body make it way, way more dangerous than numerous illegal drugs. Alcohol: pretty definitively worse than marijuana on the mental health front. Crazy people smoke weed and go crazy. Sane people don't go crazy from smoking weed. It's unfortunate in some respects, but those people probably would have snapped eventually anyway. This is unlike alcohol which can actually cause a whole host of mental and physical disorders with repeated use - including seizure disorders that result in death. wilfredmerriweathr fucked around with this message at 14:07 on May 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 14:05
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:Tobacco: no, it's extremely benign in that regard, though its addictive effects and the terrible things it does to your body make it way, way more dangerous than numerous illegal drugs. I'm fairly certain smoking tobacco on a daily basis is bad for your mental health. quote:"Studies all over the world suggest that severe mental illness, including schizophrenia and mood disorders, is associated with tobacco smoking." quote:"we estimate that persons with a diagnosable mental disorder in the past month consume nearly half of all cigarettes smoked in the United States."
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
KingEup posted:I'm fairly certain smoking tobacco on a daily basis is bad for your mental health. As with cannabis, correlation != causation. Generally with tobacco and mental illness, the causation is considered to go the other way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia_and_smoking
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 15:00
|
|
|
Interesting. I knew the correlation but assumed that it was more a function of people having a mental disorder which is eased to some small degree by nicotine, leading them to become daily users as a way of self-medication. e:f,b
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 15:01
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:As with cannabis, correlation != causation. Generally with tobacco and mental illness, the causation is considered to go the other way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia_and_smoking Where does it say that?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Where does it say that? Basically the entire "causes" section. These are the theories that attempt to explain the correlation, and they all place schizophrenia as the cause and nicotine addiction as the effect: quote:Causes hepatizon fucked around with this message at 15:29 on May 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:Interesting. I knew the correlation but assumed that it was more a function of people having a mental disorder which is eased to some small degree by nicotine, leading them to become daily users as a way of self-medication. Yeah, if that were true people with a mental illness would decompensate when they quit smoking. They actually get better.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Yeah, if that were true people with a mental illness would decompensate when they quit smoking. I would think the long-term effects of nicotine are to blame there. Not the short term.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:Basically the entire "causes" section. They all discuss schizophrenia as the cause and nicotine addiction as the effect: I'm talking about smoking cessation. You don't have to quit nicotine to enjoy an improvement in your mental health, just smoking. Cigarettes and nicotine are not the same thing. There are loads of studies like this: quote:Depressive symptoms declined significantly over time for participants who stopped smoking quote:Multiple regression analysis revealed significant effects of smoking cessation on mental health after controlling for other confounding factors. It can be concluded that smoking cessation may improve mental health. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10803811 quote:Efforts to promote smoking cessation should highlight that individuals are likely to feel more rather than less psychologically healthy when they successfully quit smoking. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3028190/ quote:Subjects who smoked but never had a mental disorder in their life, had an increased risk of developing a mental disorder (P < 0.01), and this remained significant after correcting for major risk indicators of mental disorders. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17624980 KingEup fucked around with this message at 16:04 on May 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
There's also the issue of mental hospitals practically encouraging smoking.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
As well as rehab centers and AA groups.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
Xandu posted:There's also the issue of mental hospitals practically encouraging smoking. This is great article if you can get it: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871610001018 quote:Abstract
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Nice argument rear end in a top hat. Who is going to pay for the psychiatric visits for psychosis or for COPD treatments? you or the taxes you paid on the weed? If so then cool but no bro is an island don't forget And while the jury isn't 100% in on the exact health effects of smoking marijuana, it's pretty clear that alcohol and tobacco are both waaaaaayyyyy worse for you.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
KingEup posted:We are paying for prohibition and cannabis related health problems right now. Please explain how the lawful availability of cannabis will cost more than prohibition. quote:Do you think people should be allowed to consume different types of junk food? If yes, on what grounds? quote:
Sure. I agree. But you're silly if you think that you can do so without a cost. quote:We used to arrest gays for having a sexual preference not shared by the majority. Why should people be locked in cages for having a drug preference that is not shared by the majority? They shouldn't Warchicken posted:So what are the costs of someone growing pot in their backyard and smoking it in their own home? And even if everyone smoked weed, without prohibition, what are the costs of them doing that? So no-one has ever gotten COPD, psychosis or dependent on cannabis? Cool quote:The 'cost' of marijuana being legal is that hundreds of thousands of people won't be in jail and will be paying taxes, voting, participating in our economic system and society, and increasing our country's worth. The 'cost' is also that less families will be destroyed, the drug cartels will be severely weakened, resulting in far less violence, the for-profit prison industry will be weakened and we can start fixing that part of our infrastructure, cops won't be able to use the smell of weed as probable cause so our civil liberties will be stronger, police will no longer have to enforce marijuana laws, saving tons of time and money, tax revenue will increase and the list goes the gently caress on. Meanwhile, the pros are: 2% decrease in lung function, maybe? Sometimes you might not like how it smells? Is someone going to go on a marijuana bender and eat too many cheetos? I agree with your positives as far as removing prohibition but that's about as far as it goes. You know what situation would be best? If people didn't smoke weed at all. But people are going to, so we make it so when they do there are support groups if they want to stop but feel they can't (yes this happens with cannabis) and ways to recover some of the cost to the health system. Thanatosian posted:We can use the savings from law enforcement and the elimination of the negative externalities of marijuana prohibition to pay for it. But why get the general tax payer to pay for it? Sure that money is better spent on treatment than prohibition, but why should the majority pay for the costs for the minority when we're discussing something that's (generally considered) a choice like drug use. "Better than" is not equal to "the best" quote:
It's quite disappointing how often a comparison is made. Cannabis reform should be based upon harm reduction and not as a comparison to something else. People don't need an intoxicant and it's not "our" duty to supply people with a better one than alcohol. I oppose cannabis use from a long term health perspective, but it's not too bad in the short term and yeah people shouldn't be punished for it. But who pays for the ambulance when johnny 16 eats too many cannabis cookies and gets scared? We live in a social society and this drug use is going to have a cost. It might be small. It's likely smaller than the cost of prohibition and/or the cost of alcohol to society. Doesn't mean it's "all good" echinopsis fucked around with this message at 21:03 on May 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I agree with your positives as far as removing prohibition but that's about as far as it goes. You know what situation would be best? If people didn't smoke weed at all. But people are going to, so we make it so when they do there are support groups if they want to stop but feel they can't (yes this happens with cannabis) and ways to recover some of the cost to the health system. That being said, the alternative to having taxpayers pay for indigent healthcare is people dying on the streets. And if you say "well, we shouldn't pay for healthcare for drug users because it's voluntary behavior," isn't driving a car voluntary, too? Eating foods that aren't good for you? Where do you draw the line?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I oppose cannabis use from a long term health perspective, but it's not too bad in the short term and yeah people shouldn't be punished for it. But who pays for the ambulance when johnny 16 eats too many cannabis cookies and gets scared? We live in a social society and this drug use is going to have a cost. It might be small. It's likely smaller than the cost of prohibition and/or the cost of alcohol to society. Doesn't mean it's "all good" If a total cost is negative we call it a "benefit". We don't tax caffeine and use the money to pay for treatment of caffeine-related illnesses even though caffeine has negative health effects because we don't consider keeping caffeine legal to have a significant cost. The only reason marijuana is different is because it is illegal right now. It is precisely because legal marijuana will be a more ready alternative not only to alcohol, but to other dangerous drugs such as acetaminophen and aspirin and ibuprofen that legalization is good from a health perspective.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:Meanwhile, the pros are: 2% decrease in lung function, maybe? The Scientific American Says: quote:More pot smoking was associated with increases in lung capacity up to a level equivalent to about one joint per day for seven years or one joint per week for up to 49 years. Only at levels of marijuana smoking higher than this did the researchers see a leveling off and then potential reversal of this relationship to improved lung capacity. link to peer reviewed paper It should be pointed out that there may be statistical bias here, because my understanding of the peer-reviewed article is that they are equating a joint and a bowl. The bowl a regular user would consume typically contains far more cannabis than that of an occasional user.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 21:17
|
|
|
Not to mention that if (when) it is fully legal there won't be any need to rush johnny to the hospital for eating too many weed brownies because literally nothing bad will happen to him and the 911 operator can forward him to the "I got too stoned" automated helpline which reminds people that they need to drink some water, sit their rear end down and watch a movie.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:50 |
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:If a total cost is negative we call it a "benefit". We don't tax caffeine and use the money to pay for treatment of caffeine-related illnesses even though caffeine has negative health effects because we don't consider keeping caffeine legal to have a significant cost. The only reason marijuana is different is because it is illegal right now. It is precisely because legal marijuana will be a more ready alternative not only to alcohol, but to other dangerous drugs such as acetaminophen and aspirin and ibuprofen that legalization is good from a health perspective. Not as a rebuttal, but can you elaborate on the dangers of acetaminophen? I sell/dispense it to people every day and I want to know what I should be warning them about Thanatosian posted:I mean, if the people who have health effects from drug use have insurance, the taxpayer won't have to pay for anything. I'm saying that it would be better if the drug was taxed and care was payed out of that tax than the drug be tax free and the costs coming out of the general tax dollar. I'm not opposed to treatment but if we're going to do it, why not have the cause of the cost pay for the cost? wilfredmerriweathr posted:Not to mention that if (when) it is fully legal there won't be any need to rush johnny to the hospital for eating too many weed brownies because literally nothing bad will happen to him and the 911 operator can forward him to the "I got too stoned" automated helpline which reminds people that they need to drink some water, sit their rear end down and watch a movie. HIS HEART IS RACING! HE"S GOING TO DIE! SEND AMBULANCE NOW!!!! Yeah those ambulance drivers only come out when they're 100% sure they're going to be saving a life..
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 21:20
|
|