|
Broken Machine posted:Actual studies on the matter are, at best, inconclusive. It's actually very interesting how 'common sense' doesn't apply to cannabis. It is not honest to compare it to either cigarettes or alcohol which are both objectively poisonous to the body in dozens of ways. http://news.thoracic.org/june-july-2013/annals-ats.php quote:
This difference between reality and common heuristic knowledge of cannabis means that we have to be extra careful to reject subjective non-reasoning when discussing legalization. Our culture has spent so long demonizing cannabis that any common sense notion has been poisoned against rational thought.
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:44 |
|
|
Idran posted:What recreational drug use? I never heard about anything like that, and I followed the race pretty closely. He ate coffee-flavored ice cream that contained caffeine. His campaign sensibly said that Mitt Romney can have whatever kind of ice cream he wants and it's not an issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:It's actually very interesting how 'common sense' doesn't apply to cannabis. It is not honest to compare it to either cigarettes or alcohol which are both objectively poisonous to the body in dozens of ways. In a lot of instances common sense shouldn't be solely relied on anyway. Everyone rolls their eyes when scientific studies confirm 'common sense notions', but there are many studies which show that conventional wisdom is partly or completely the opposite of how things function in reality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
Powerful message coming from the US Conference of Mayors. They have adopted a new resolution:quote:BE IT RESOLVED that the United States Conference of Mayors reaffirms its support of fair and effective criminal justice and drug policies and reiterates its previous call for the reclassification of marijuana under federal law; and http://blog.seattlepi.com/marijuana/2013/06/24/mcginn-u-s-mayors-tell-feds-dont-interfere-with-legal-marijuana/
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
Powerful message, certainly, but out of curiosity, does the Conference of Mayors have any real power in any meaningful way? Is it even composed of a powerful cross-section of the mayors of the United States?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
InsomnicIneptitude posted:Powerful message, certainly, but out of curiosity, does the Conference of Mayors have any real power in any meaningful way? Is it even composed of a powerful cross-section of the mayors of the United States? I'm gonna say yes: http://usmayors.org/81stAnnualMeeting/PreRegisteredMayorsPhotos.asp
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
4 of the ten largest cities in the US are absent, plus Seattle, Denver, Boston, Detroit, El Paso, Memphis, Miami, Tampa, and a ton of other big ones. Xandu fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jun 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
This is how delusional the ONDCP is:quote:Thank you, @usmayors, for unanimously supporting the Administration's approach to #DrugPolicyReform. More: wh.gov/drugpolicyrefo… #uscm2013 https://mobile.twitter.com/ONDCP/status/349544560290045952
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
S.T.C.A. posted:I'm gonna say yes: Yeah, but it could just be a blue ribbon committee of do-nothings. Aside from Xandu's observation about 4/10 of the largest US cities being missing, just because everyone shows up and talks at this thing, doesn't mean they do anything about it. Many of these cities have pretty stringent anti-drug policies, despite being on this council.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
quote:Selling marijuana in retail stores could lead to more traffic crashes and fatalities, said Colorado Springs Police Chief Pete Carey. http://gazette.com/colorado-springs-council-gets-earful-on-pros-cons-of-retail-marijuana-sales/article/1502888 Why would people who have been abstaining from weed because it is illegal (i.e. law abiding citizens), suddenly start ignoring the law even though it would still be illegal to drive whilst impaired? Am I missing something here? KingEup fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Jun 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Why would people who have been abstaining from weed because it is illegal (i.e. people who have been following the law), suddenly start ignoring the law even though it would still be illegal to drive whilst impaired? It could just be from increased availability (potheads can get more because it's easier to get to and/or cheaper and they drive).
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
You're saying that people who are already driving high may become more dangerous because there's a chance they may be able to afford more than usual? What do you make of studies like this? quote:In conclusion, the present study generally confirms that heavy cannabis users develop tolerance to the impairing effects of THC on neurocognitive task performance. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21049267
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
As a (formerly heavy) marijuana user I don't think that argument holds much weight. A chronic user isn't going to get too high to drive, unless they've just tried a new method of ingesting. (The non-user's mind may boggle at the number of ways you can take in weed.) A chronic user will also have the experience to say "hold on a sec, I'm high as a goddamn kite." The new user will likely treat it as a novelty, and feel zero desire to smoke before/while driving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 09:25
|
|
|
KingEup posted:You're saying that people who are already driving high may become more dangerous because there's a chance they may be able to afford more than usual? I'm just explaining the mindset, not the truth behind it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I'm just explaining the mindset, not the truth behind it. Fair enough. But there's zero actual evidence that legalizing pot will lead to an increase in traffic fatalities. In CO and CA, traffic fatalities have dropped considerably since the introduction of dispensaries. http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/02/why-medical-marijuana-laws-reduce-traffic-deaths/
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:Not '1-2' orders of magnitude. To get even a little buzz, you'd have to ingest about 9 entire fields of hemp within half an hour. It's a nonsensical argument by assholes who only want to cause more suffering to make more money. Before I made the initial post, I googled this and checked multiple sources, all of which say things like: http://hempethics.weebly.com/industrial-hemp-vs-cannabis.html posted:Industrial hemp contains only about 0.3% - 1.5% THC The european standard for industrial hemp is 0.3% max. That's within an order of magnitude for lovely mexibrick, and within 2 orders of magnitude for the best weed you're going to find anywhere. So, my statement appears to be accurate, unless you've got some stats I haven't found. Internet Webguy posted:Except for the fact that you would need a giant amount of resources and time for such a tiny return it's not even worth it. I'm in no way trying to argue that the ability to harvest minimal THC content is a good reason for keeping hemp illegal, but let's not be ridiculous. There are places in the US where old industrial hemp has grown wild forever, and I have known people in real life who have found it and processed it exactly as I've suggested, because it's not very hard. Even though the end result isn't anything to write home about, the expense is practically nothing and kids will be kids. Suggesting that the same thing won't continue to happen if industrial hemp suddenly becomes a huge industry seems a little silly to me, since I know from experience that it's already happening right now. The only thing that would really keep that from happening is increased availability of quasi-legal really good weed at a price where it's literally not worth the effort of tossing some hemp into a jar with alcohol for a couple of hours, then filtering it and letting it evaporate in a pyrex dish in your barn for a couple days.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
probation.spengler posted:Before I made the initial post, I googled this and checked multiple sources, all of which say things like: There are a couple of things to consider: 1) It's not just a question of how much THC is in the plant, it's also a question of the ratio of THC to CBD and other cannabinoids. Recreational marijuana has a high ratio because that's what gives the desired effect. Cannabis with lots of CBD and little THC is barely intoxicating and has little recreational value. It might have high medicinal value(since CBD is responsible for a lot of the medicinal effects) but it won't fetch much money on the street. 2) In order to make the process worthwhile, you'd need a lot of hemp. As in, enough to easily draw attention to yourself. It wouldn't be any safer than growing actual marijuana. So while you may have some individuals doing this(although I've never heard of it nor do I see the point given the amount of labor and the low quality of the results), it's not going to be done on any kind of commercial scale. Diverting hemp to produce hash oil is not cost-effective and it's no safer than growing illicit cannabis. That's probably why diversion is not a serious concern in Canada or other countries where hemp cultivation is permitted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
I was not trying to insinuate this was a serious concern or a reason to write policy; I'd made a casual suggestion that this is, in fact, possible and several people tried to tell me that it's not. As I know people who have done it, I assure you that it is. The results are not great, but "not great" passes for great hash oil in parts of the flyover country.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
Oregon is inching closer. It's not full legalization but that won't be far off since this was passed by the legislature instead of a ballot measure. http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/07/medical_marijuana_bill.html#incart_river_default Oregonian posted:The Oregon House on Saturday passed a bill legalizing medical marijuana retail establishments, moving what has been a booming but legally hazy industry squarely into the mainstream and handing medical marijuana advocates a major victory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
There have been some updates on the progress of I-502: "The Liquor Control Board (LCB) is pleased to release the proposed rules for I-502 implementation. These rules reflect the Board’s stated goal of developing a tightly regulated and controlled market, and also demonstrate the agency’s initial thinking on how best to achieve that market. The Board is concerned with out-of-state diversion of product, traceability of products, responsible business practices, youth access and other public and consumer safety issues." Proposed rules: https://lcb.box.com/proposed-rules I've only briefly looked over these, but it looks like no changes are being proposed for medical grows (from the FAQ): Medical Marijuana Note: I-502 does not address medical marijuana. The state does not currently license or regulate medical marijuana outlets. I-502 does not change how or where they operate. Q: Can medical marijuana patients continue to cooperatively grow? A: I-502 is silent on medical marijuana. http://www.liq.wa.gov/marijuana/faqs_i-502 Also, no residential growing for recreational pot?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 07:29
|
|
|
Under the proposed rules, pot shops will have to be 1000 feet or more away from any videogame arcade. Because those exist still.  Everything else in the proposed regulations seems really reasonable, based on glancing over them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 08:00
|
|
|
Tim Selaty Jr posted:Under the proposed rules, pot shops will have to be 1000 feet or more away from any videogame arcade. Because those exist still. Hahahaha. Yeah, no way conservatives are out of touch.  If it had said 'internet and gaming cafe' or something like that I'd understand. But arcade?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:Hahahaha. Yeah, no way conservatives are out of touch. Even then, a quick search only turns up only one gaming cafe near Seattle, in Lynnwood and then another a little further out of town in Everett. Gaming cafes are dead and whatever internet cafes that are left are used primarily by homeless people who got banned from the library for jerking off
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
Tim Selaty Jr posted:Even then, a quick search only turns up only one gaming cafe near Seattle, in Lynnwood and then another a little further out of town in Everett. Gaming cafes are dead and whatever internet cafes that are left are used primarily by homeless people who got banned from the library for jerking off My best friend just opened one up two months ago and it is doing very well in Mandeville, LA. He has not had a single day that he didn't make profit! I wouldn't say they're dead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 08:58
|
|
|
Tim Selaty Jr posted:Under the proposed rules, pot shops will have to be 1000 feet or more away from any videogame arcade. Because those exist still. There's one in downtown Tacoma, and they sell beer. Obviously they don't want the competition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 09:03
|
|
|
Pyroxene Stigma posted:There's one in downtown Tacoma, and they sell beer. Obviously they don't want the competition. I'm not sure how much political clout Dorky's Bar has in Olympia, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 09:55
|
|
|
Tim Selaty Jr posted:I'm not sure how much political clout Dorky's Bar has in Olympia, to be honest. I didn't post the , I kind of assumed it was implied.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 10:03
|
|
|
I assume arcade is in a list of a lot of other places that old people think kids these days hang out in because that's what happens in all the 80's movies? And that that list includes schools and parks?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 12:53
|
|
|
Tim Selaty Jr posted:Under the proposed rules, pot shops will have to be 1000 feet or more away from any videogame arcade. Because those exist still. The language was passed in the initiative. If the LCB didn't ban marijuana sales within 1000 feet of "game arcades open to minors," they'd be breaking the law. If you want to blame an old person, I guess you could look to the guy who called his book "Europe Through the Back Door."  There are still a few arcades around, though. Chuck E Cheese has twelve locations in Washington, and of course there are a bunch of independent "family fun centers" that are shadier than any weed shop. There's plenty of room to debate whether the distance requirement is actually good policy (personally, I'd say no, but on the other hand the initiative authors did a very good job of heading off all the "think of the children!" counter-arguments that could have derailed the whole thing). No matter what side you come down on, though, arcades still exist. The business model of selling kids ten cents' worth of toys for five bucks' worth of tickets out of a rigged machine isn't going anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 14:20
|
|
|
Tim Selaty Jr posted:Under the proposed rules, pot shops will have to be 1000 feet or more away from any videogame arcade. Because those exist still.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
Can somebody link that google map that has grayed out areas where dispensaries/pot shops will be banned? Thanks
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
It's in Portland Oregon so it doesn't count, but Ground Kontrol is a great arcade and, ironcially, a bar! I live in southern Washington State near and I'm looking forward to the implementation of I-502. I also expect it will put a lot of pressure on Oregon to basically follow suit as Portlanders (who make up 50% of Oregon's population) cross the river to buy legal weed... although I gather the illegal weed market in Portland is plenty robust.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
So does this just apply to arcades open to minors or to all arcades? edit: for content, CO just released its rules. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/marijuana-legalization_n_3529986.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
KingEup posted:You're saying that people who are already driving high may become more dangerous because there's a chance they may be able to afford more than usual? Thanks for sharing that. I had thought something like that was true but wasn't entirely sure. Now I have a study! I really like CO's rules. I think they're very forward thinking and accurate, especially the one about delayed effects.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
MixMasterMalaria posted:So does this just apply to arcades open to minors or to all arcades? quote:Per RCW 69.50.331, the board shall
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
Tim Selaty Jr posted:Can somebody link that google map that has grayed out areas where dispensaries/pot shops will be banned? Thanks This one? http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/01/25/under-i-502-pot-stores-banned-almost-everywhere-in-seattle The obvious solution is to put your pot business on a small barge 1500 ft offshore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2013 07:09
|
|
|
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the sheriff of Yuma County has to give back the marijuana that was seized from a MMJ card holder. The sheriff disagrees with the ruling and wants to see the case go to the US Supreme Court to solve the conflict between federal and state laws. http://www.yumasun.com/articles/pot-88570-rules-case.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 13:14
|
|
|
Capt. Morgan posted:The Arizona Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the sheriff of Yuma County has to give back the marijuana that was seized from a MMJ card holder. The sheriff disagrees with the ruling and wants to see the case go to the US Supreme Court to solve the conflict between federal and state laws. In theory, the state is allowed to enforce federal laws. That's exactly what happen in Michigan - dispensaries were all raided by state and local police - enforcing federal law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
So I found this article:quote:The trade-off of abuse vs. illicit markets applies to all drugs, but each drug has its own special characteristics. For marijuana, three are most important. Would someone care to explain how you can make a trade-off between prohibition related murder and self harm? Are these people suggesting we can find some kind of 'sweet spot' where prohibition related murder is reduced but not zero (presumably at some bizarre 'acceptable level') and self harm is kept in check? Because gently caress that poo poo. I want prohibition related murder to be nil. Reducing self harm should be a secondary concern. KingEup fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:44 |
|
|
KingEup posted:So I found this article: You'd make a terrible engineer The first 90% is easy, the last 10% is almost impossible. The fact there is an 'acceptable level' isn't bizarre, even if having to sit down and work out what that level would be is a bit macabre.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2013 18:18
|
|
