Drug legalization thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Drug legalization thread

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

I see what you mean, but I think we can still draw a line somewhere. If you get involved in an illegal activity knowing that it requires the potential use of violence (which at the end of the day, is what a gun is, whether you end up shooting someone or not), that's on you.

And at this point we aren't really even talking about marijuana anymore, but drugs in general.

# ? Mar 12, 2014 03:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 09:24

Gus Sawchuk: Jul 13, 2001

http://www.newstribune.com/news/2014/mar/11/house-panel-mulls-marijuana-legalization/

A legalization bill actually got a hearing in Missouri. This is pretty surprising, considering a decriminalization bill only got a symbolic hearing on the last day of session last year. It has no chance of passing, but the committee did seem open to MMJ. Public perception is changing rapidly here, just like everywhere else, and we may legalize in 2016. I'm pretty optimistic when the other side's arguments sound like this:

Rep. Ken Wilson, R-Smithville, voiced concerns dealing with secondhand smoke, especially in regards to small children.

�Where does personal responsibility come into play?� Wilson said. �This is against the law, and yet people are violating the law.�

Gus Sawchuk fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Mar 12, 2014

# ? Mar 12, 2014 03:28

boner confessor: Apr 25, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Xandu posted:

I see what you mean, but I think we can still draw a line somewhere. If you get involved in an illegal activity knowing that it requires the potential use of violence (which at the end of the day, is what a gun is, whether you end up shooting someone or not), that's on you.

And at this point we aren't really even talking about marijuana anymore, but drugs in general.

Only in as much as violence is used to protect your credibility. Nobody wants to get shot or murder someone over $50 of drugs, but if you punk out that means a lot more in some neighborhoods than others.

# ? Mar 12, 2014 04:35

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Xandu posted:

I see what you mean, but I think we can still draw a line somewhere. If you get involved in an illegal activity knowing that it requires the potential use of violence (which at the end of the day, is what a gun is, whether you end up shooting someone or not), that's on you.

And at this point we aren't really even talking about marijuana anymore, but drugs in general.

Virtually all illegal activity that generates resources requires the potential use of violence to protect those resources, since you can't reliably use law enforcement to protect them (even when law enforcement defeats the robbery, they still take your stuff). I can't see why taking otherwise legal steps to prevent you from being robbed would be substantially worse merely because the activity which generated the resource which might be stolen was illegal. I'll call back to my earlier point that, at least in Washington state, people who sell alcohol specifically have greater legal rights to carry guns than other people (presumably to protect them from being robbed).

edit: This should be considered distinct from felony murder type laws, where you knew ahead of time that generating the resources whatsoever might potentially require violence (like robbing someone at gun point).

twodot fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Mar 12, 2014

# ? Mar 12, 2014 08:07

empty whippet box: Jun 9, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Ultimately the point is that having a gun legally should not add anything to a simple possession or distribution charge because you have it to defend yourself just like anybody else who walks around strapped. Having the gun illegally is another story. If someone feels that their totally legal job makes them more prone to that type of danger and thus they need a gun then they won't be charged just for doing their totally legal job while in possession of a gun.

Like I said, it's just one more way to discriminate.

# ? Mar 12, 2014 08:27

wilfredmerriweathr: Jul 11, 2005

Any user of a controlled substance without a prescription is ineligible to possess a firearm. That means that you don't have the gun legally.

But yeah it's just another way to discriminate.

# ? Mar 12, 2014 13:10

SgtScruffy: Dec 27, 2003; Babies.

In DC, the city council just passed the language that would add legalization (different from the recent decrim law that was passed) to the November ballot, pending 25,000 valid signatures.

It's probably got a lot of hurdles to leap through (namely Congress accepting that vs the decriminalization law), but it's somethin.

# ? Mar 12, 2014 16:30

AYC: Mar 9, 2014; Ask me how I smoke weed, watch hentai, everyday and how it's unfair that governments limits my ability to do this. Also ask me why I have to write in green text in order for my posts to stand out.

SgtScruffy posted:

In DC, the city council just passed the language that would add legalization (different from the recent decrim law that was passed) to the November ballot, pending 25,000 valid signatures.

It's probably got a lot of hurdles to leap through (namely Congress accepting that vs the decriminalization law), but it's somethin.

People openly selling marijuana right next to the Captiol Building would be the best sign yet that drug prohibition has failed completely.

No way Congress will let it pass, though.

# ? Mar 12, 2014 18:10

TenementFunster: Feb 20, 2003; The Cooler King

AYC posted:

People openly selling marijuana right next to the Captiol Building would be the best sign yet that drug prohibition has failed completely.

open black market sales are still happening today, right now at Denver's Civic Center Park in the literal shadow of the Colorado state capitol

# ? Mar 12, 2014 21:45

ChlamydiaJones: Sep 27, 2002; My Estonian riding instructor told me; "Mine munni ahvi t�ra imeja", and I live by that every day!; Ramrod XTreme

Bruce Benson, the president of University of Colorado, has always made his opinion clear that he would not allow any marijuana research to go on on HIS university campuses. He has now articulated how he's going to stop it. He's going to set unreasonably strict (and frankly impossible to attain) standards for that research;

quote:

To: University of Colorado Research Faculty
From: President Bruce D. Benson
University Counsel Patrick T. O�Rourke
Date: March 11, 2014
Re: Legality of Marijuana Research

Colorado is one of twenty states that have passed laws that allow marijuana to be used
for medical purposes. Colorado is one of two states that have passed laws that
decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana and create a regulatory
system for production, processing and sale.

With these changes to Colorado�s legal system, we have received inquiries from faculty
members about their ability to conduct marijuana-related research. Colorado�s General
Assembly is also currently exploring its ability to fund marijuana-related research. Our
governmental relations professionals are working with the legislators to define the legal
framework by which this funding could be distributed, including engaging with federal
agencies that have regulatory authority over marijuana-related research.

No University of Colorado faculty member has authority to conduct marijuana-related
research that has not been approved through the appropriate federal, state, and
University of Colorado processes applicable to research upon controlled substances.

I. Legal Framework for Marijuana-Related Research
The Controlled Substance Act creates a comprehensive federal framework that
categorizes drugs and other controlled substances into five �schedules.� At the high end
of the spectrum, and most tightly regulated, are Schedule I controlled substances, which
are those substances that: (1) have a high potential for abuse; (2) have no currently
accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and (3) have a lack of accepted
safety under medical supervision. Last year, a federal court recognized that �there is a
serious debate in the United States over the efficacy of marijuana for medicinal uses,�
but nonetheless upheld the Drug Enforcement Agency�s refusal to change marijuana�s
classification as a Schedule I controlled substance. As such, it remains illegal under
federal law for any person to import, manufacture, distribute, possess, or use marijuana.
The Department of Justice recently issued a memorandum denying that �any state or
local law provides a legal defense to a violation of federal law, including any civil or
criminal provision of the [Controlled Substance Act].�

Under the federal Drug Free Schools and Communities Act, institutions of higher
education have an obligation to comply with federal drug laws as a condition of
receiving grant funding or other financial assistance under any federal program.
Consequently, conducting unapproved marijuana-related research could adversely
affect the University of Colorado�s ability to seek federal research funding or federal
financial aid. To prevent this possibility, all marijuana-related research must be
conducted in strict compliance with federal, state, and University of Colorado processes.
Notwithstanding the Controlled Substance Act�s general prohibition upon any marijuana related
activities, federal law provides the Food and Drug Administration with the ability
to approve research using Schedule I controlled substances. Currently, across the
United States, more than 100 researchers have obtained registrations to conduct
marijuana-related research, including clinical studies involving smoked marijuana. The
process by which a researcher obtains permission to conduct marijuana-related
research varies according to the nature of the study:

A. Human Subjects � Under federal law, a researcher who wishes to use
marijuana in research involving human subjects must:

a. Submit an Investigational New Drug application to the FDA.
b. Obtain a registration from the Drug Enforcement Administration.
c. Obtain approval from the appropriate Institutional Review Board.
d. Receive a determination from the Department of Health and Human Services
that the investigator is qualified and the proposed research has merit.
e. Acquire the drug from the National Institute on Drug Abuse�s approved
source.
f. Follow DEA regulations and guidelines for storage and prescription.

B. Human Observational Studies � Human observational studies are those where
subjects use marijuana, but the researcher does not procure the marijuana for the
subjects, the marijuana is not used on the campus, and the marijuana is not consumed
on the campus. For such human observational studies, the researcher must:
a. Obtain approval from the appropriate IRB.

C. Animal Studies � A researcher who wishes to use marijuana in research
involving animal studies must:
a. Obtain a registration from the DEA.
b. Obtain approvals from the appropriate campus Institutional Animal Care and
Use Committee.
c. Acquire the drug from the NIDA approved source.
d. Follow DEA regulations and guidelines for storage and prescription.

D. Basic Research � For research that does not involve human subjects or
animals, yet is directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental
aspects of marijuana, the researcher must:

a. Obtain a registration from the DEA.
b. Acquire the drug from the approved source.
c. Follow DEA regulations and guidelines for storage and prescription.
Because federal law prescribes these mechanisms for conducting marijuana-related
research, they are binding upon the University of Colorado, and, with the potential
exception of research involving industrial hemp, represent the exclusive means of
conducting marijuana-related research on University of Colorado campuses. No
University of Colorado faculty member has authority to conduct marijuana-related
research that has not been approved through the appropriate processes. If you have
any question about whether a course of research is subject to these processes, please
direct those questions to the Office of University Counsel.

II. Industrial Hemp-Related Research
Very recently, the United States Congress passed a new law that allows the cultivation
of �industrial hemp,� which is �the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of such plant,
whether growing or not, with a delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more
than 0.3 percent on a dry weight basis� The law provides that, notwithstanding any other
provision of federal law, an institution of higher education may grow or cultivate
industrial hemp for �purposes of research conducted under an agricultural pilot program
or other agricultural or academic research.�

This exception has the potential to allow research on strains of low-THC marijuana, but
the framework for conducting this research has not yet been fully determined. Currently,
the Colorado Department of Agriculture is advising parties that, notwithstanding the new
research exception, "importation of viable industrial hemp seed across State lines and
Country boundaries is illegal under the Federal Controlled Substances Act."
Various state and federal agencies are currently attempting to determine the process by
which researchers should conduct industrial hemp-related research. At a minimum, for
any industrial hemp-related research involving human or animal subjects, a researcher
must obtain approval from the appropriate IRB or IACUC. The Colorado Department of
Agriculture will also need to inspect and approve any facilities in which industrial hemp
is cultivated, grown, or studied. Once those approvals are obtained, the University of
Colorado may need to enact additional policies to ensure that research in approved
facilities complies with federal law.

Until these processes are designed and agreed upon by the various governmental
actors, there is not an approved framework for conducting research on industrial hemp.
If you are considering any industrial hemp-related research, please coordinate that
research and the necessary applications with the appropriate campus officials and the
Office of University Counsel.

III. Private Research Funding
We have recently received questions related to whether researchers may accept
research funding from private organizations with an interest in marijuana research.
Answering those questions is difficult and depends upon the nature of the organization,
the mechanism by which the research is funded, the type of research that might be
performed, any potential restrictions upon the publication of the research, and whether
the organization wishes to claim any interest in intellectual property derived from the
research. If you wish to discuss a particular research funding proposal, please contact
the Office of University Counsel.

IV. Limitations Upon Research
We recognize that the current system under which the federal agencies are willing to
approve marijuana-related research will limit the types of research that faculty members
may legally perform. For example, under the processes that we�ve described,
researchers must obtain marijuana from NIDA approved facilities, and the University of
Mississippi is the only currently approved facility. Because the University of Mississippi
does not produce the same strains of marijuana that are prevalent in Colorado and used
by many Colorado patients, there is not a clear pathway towards conducting potentially
valuable research.

V. Seeking Additional Ability to Conduct Marijuana-Related Research
We understand that many researchers are eager to begin research in this area and
have expressed your interest to lawmakers and governmental agencies. We will
continue to explore mechanisms that will allow you to perform marijuana-related
research within the boundaries of the law. We will be seeking guidance on the state and
federal processes and will update you as any developments occur
The United States Congress�s recent law creating a mechanism for industrial hemp related
research demonstrates that lawmakers are becoming aware of the need for
additional research. The United States Department of Justice has also instructed United
States Attorneys that they should exercise discretion in initiating marijuana-related civil
and criminal actions. Even more recently, federal authorities provided banks with
permission to provide financial services to marijuana-related businesses.

Each of these actions had a consistent feature, however, which is that they depended
upon the federal government�s action. The United States Supreme Court recognized
that federal law creates a �closed regulatory scheme� governing controlled substances,
and additional avenues for research require federal approval. Until the federal
government examines and modifies its practices for marijuana-related research, the
current laws remain in effect, and noncompliance could have serious consequences.

So essentially there is no way to perform research on marijuana within the University of Colorado system. The good news is that the University of Washington might be less blinkered and shortsighted and they will be looking to do this research so it will get done. Bruce Benson would rather people expose themselves to marijuana based on hearsay and limited research rather than to simply allow researchers in his state to do the cutting edge research that needs to be done. I hope that history remembers that he failed Colorado with his actions.

# ? Mar 13, 2014 22:33

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Those aren't his regulations though, it's the DEA (and other federal agencies)'s onerous requirements on marijuana related research, he's just saying they have to follow federal law. Given how much universities rely on federal grants, that's not entirely unreasonable, but at the same time, most indications are the government isn't interested in going after stuff like that anymore.

edit: There is federally approved marijuana research being done, just not very much of it.

# ? Mar 13, 2014 23:14

Stanos: Sep 22, 2009; The best 57 in hockey.

If I was running a university, I'd definitely rather be safe than sorry too. I mean, there's a time to take a stand and there's a time to sell cars. You can disagree if you want but when your institution suddenly loses federal grant money you're going to have a lot more unhappy campers than you will by playing along with the DEA.

# ? Mar 13, 2014 23:21

Bip Roberts: Mar 29, 2005

I would bet he would have a lot more egg on his face if he allowed free reign for weed research and then University of Colorado lost it's ability to receive federal grants.

# ? Mar 14, 2014 00:51

slippery doc: Jan 17, 2006; kill the boy,
save the man

ChlamydiaJones posted:

Bruce Benson, the president of University of Colorado, has always made his opinion clear that he would not allow any marijuana research to go on on HIS university campuses. He has now articulated how he's going to stop it. He's going to set unreasonably strict (and frankly impossible to attain) standards for that research;

So essentially there is no way to perform research on marijuana within the University of Colorado system. The good news is that the University of Washington might be less blinkered and shortsighted and they will be looking to do this research so it will get done. Bruce Benson would rather people expose themselves to marijuana based on hearsay and limited research rather than to simply allow researchers in his state to do the cutting edge research that needs to be done. I hope that history remembers that he failed Colorado with his actions.

I'm a grad student at the University of Washington, and the day after legalization passed, the University President sent around an email reminding people that UW receives federal money and that their policy towards marijuana on campus hadn't changed. I wouldn't count on them being much friendlier.

# ? Mar 14, 2014 07:44

ChlamydiaJones: Sep 27, 2002; My Estonian riding instructor told me; "Mine munni ahvi t�ra imeja", and I live by that every day!; Ramrod XTreme

Xandu posted:

Those aren't his regulations though, it's the DEA (and other federal agencies)'s onerous requirements on marijuana related research, he's just saying they have to follow federal law. Given how much universities rely on federal grants, that's not entirely unreasonable, but at the same time, most indications are the government isn't interested in going after stuff like that anymore.

edit: There is federally approved marijuana research being done, just not very much of it.

I agree that he didn't set any new standards in that message, what he did was set the standard to remove any advantage research could glean from living in a state where it's legal. It also sets a standard that doesn't allow research into actual substances used by people on the street which is again the strictest possible interpretation of existing standards and completely separates the university from actual public health. The good thing is that there are other institutions that will not follow that standard (at least they aren't yet) and the research can be done there. At this point between $7 and $10 million in research funds will become available in the next few months and nobody who isn't already in the DEA marijuana use pipeline will be able to apply for it at the largest research institution in the state. Our legislature is discussing research and federal funding of institutions with the DOJ right now but this move by Benson quashes any directive DOJ puts forward on the subject.

As an example of Benson's bias, here's his official interpretation of a symposium we had last week. I attended it with several other researchers and none of us recognize what this guy is writing about due to the anti-marijuana spin in the article;

quote:

MARIJUANA SYMPOSIUM FEATURES UNIVERSITY HEALTH AND PUBLIC POLICY EXPERTS
Nearly 350 attend Colorado School of Public Health event

3/10/2014

DENVER � Experts from the vast spectrum of marijuana research gathered Friday to discuss the medical and public policy implications of Colorado�s new cannabis laws, focusing strongly on the drug�s impact on children.

�We are here to examine the evidence,� said moderator Tim Byers, MD, associate dean of the Colorado School of Public Health which sponsored the `Marijuana and Public Health Symposium� held at Mile High Station near the CU Denver campus.

Nearly 350 people attended.

The researchers quickly dismissed notions that marijuana was harmless, presenting studies showing links to cancer, lung disease, lower IQs and potential impacts on fetal health. At the same time, they pointed out the shortcomings of current research and the need for more robust studies in the future.

�There is this assumption that since marijuana is legal everyone knows what it is,� said Amanda Reiman, PhD, California Policy Manager for the Drug Policy Alliance. �But what is this plant? Where does it come from? The truth is, cannabis is as old as time. The therapeutic use goes back to 2800 B.C. Its history as a recreational drug is short compared to its use as a therapeutic agent.�

Known simply as cannabis for years, Mexican immigrants to the U.S. dubbed it `marijuana� in the 1930s and the name stuck, Reiman said. �What we have today is a whole load of marijuana hybrids, hundreds of strains that are a mix of ancient varieties of cannabis,� she said. �Each plant has over 600 chemicals and 70 cannabinoids.�

She noted that while cannabis �cannot be fatal� it�s not without risk.

Some of those risks were illuminated by Daniel Bowles, MD, a medical oncologist at the University of Colorado Hospital and the Denver VA Medical Center.

Bowles said marijuana smoke can induce precancerous changes in the respiratory mucosa of rats. He also cited a study of Swedish military conscripts, showing that those who smoked the highest quantities of marijuana had a 2.1 percent increase in lung cancer. Another study linked marijuana smoke to oropharyngeal cancers. There were also associations with certain kinds of testicular cancers.

�There is no research on edible or topical marijuana at this point for cancer,� he said.

The evidence linking marijuana use to heart and lung disease was less compelling.

�There is some evidence associating marijuana use with heart attack and stroke but it�s very limited,� said David Goff, MD, dean of the Colorado School of Public Health. �Chronic use has been associated with bronchitis but not emphysema.�

One of the most powerful presentations was made by Paula Riggs, MD, director of the division of substance abuse at the University of Colorado School of Medicine.

�We know that early substance abuse can lead to mental health issues later. We know that cannabis is really neurotoxic to childhood brain development,� she said. �Heavy use can lead to a reduction in six to eight IQ points. It is also connected to persistent deficits in reading, learning, abstract reasoning and is associated with early onset depression, especially in boys, by age 10.�

Riggs said one in 11 adults who try marijuana will become dependent, while one in six adolescents will do the same.

�It matters what kids are involved with during adolescence since their brains are under construction in a big way,� she said.

Protecting children was a major theme of the symposium. Public health officials talked about meeting high school students convinced marijuana was harmless or made them drive better.

Laura Borgelt, associate professor at the CU Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, said marijuana passes easily from the placenta to the fetus where it is stored in fat cells.

It also moves from the mother to the baby through breast milk.

�THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) is excreted in human milk in moderate amounts,� she said.

Borgelt said pregnant women who use marijuana need to be educated about the potential risks to the development of their fetus. Other experts say if women are using cannabis they shouldn�t breastfeed.

�Babies are full of fat so they are essentially storage chambers for marijuana,� said Borgelt.

George Sam Wang, MD, an emergency room physician at Children�s Hospital Colorado, has done studies showing a steep increase in children being treated in emergency rooms after eating marijuana-laced brownies, cookies and other edibles since medical marijuana was legalized in 2009.

Children show up suffering from extreme drowsiness, lethargy and respiratory problems. One boy recently had to be intubated after he stopped breathing.

�Edible products pose a unique issue for unintentional pediatric exposures,� Wang told the audience. �The answer is child resistant packaging. Right now the best thing is proper storage. Keep it out of reach and out of sight.�

Aside from the medical issues, there are a myriad of public policy and safety questions surrounding marijuana.

Law enforcement is still struggling to come up with an accurate way to measure `drugged driving.�

�Unlike alcohol, there is no clean relationship between THC levels in the blood and physiological effects,� said Ashley Brooks-Russell, PhD, MPH, assistant professor at the Colorado School of Public Health. �Some still believe the myth that people drive better when they are high. There is no evidence or any biological possibility that this is true.�

Larry Wolk, MD, chief medical officer and executive director of the Colorado Dept. of Public Health and Environment, said new marijuana laws are creating a host of challenges.

Waste disposal is an issue, quality control questions surround the pot being sold, monitoring the plants is a challenge and then there is the health threat posed by synthetic marijuana.

�This is an issue that touches and will continue to touch on so many aspects of public health,� Wolk said. �My title is chief medical officer but sometimes I think I�m really chief marijuana officer.�

If you didn't attend then it's hard to describe the bias in the article. The general feeling as people were leaving was that we'd be going forward with research because the overwhelming evidence as presented was; "very little effect, some known negatives with potentially positive therapeutic benefits" also "the research that exists is severely limited".

# ? Mar 14, 2014 17:34

KingEup: Nov 18, 2004; I am a REAL ADDICT
(to threadshitting)

Please ask me for my google inspired wisdom on shit I know nothing about. Actually, you don't even have to ask.

ChlamydiaJones posted:

As an example of Benson's bias, here's his official interpretation of a symposium we had last week.

Wow. This guy hits every prohibitionist talking point.

# ? Mar 15, 2014 07:51

JollyGreen: Aug 23, 2010

JollyGreen posted:

Effort post:

Maryland news !!!:
I feel that there's a lot of potential for movement in the decriminalization front (and maybe even legalization!). In general there's been a lot of favorable news and polls in the local media for decriminalization. There's even been some hesitant support for legalization, but the few comments that I've heard from legislators is that they're happy to let Colorado test things out first before they step in the water. Not surprising, but at least that hope for the very near future.

The first (of many) hearings for decriminalization (HB 879) and legalization (HB 880) are to take place on 3/13. I think the general idea is that this first reading has to be passed with some flavor of 'favorability' for it to get moved forward to the next step. Either way, the Maryland General Assembly closes for the year on April 7th (we only have a 90 day legislative session), if things are going to happen, we're going to be hearing a lot about this very soon.
Links to the relevant statuses of bills from Maryland's official site:
HB 879 (Decrim)
HB 880 (Legalize)

Self quote update: So legalization isn't happening this year; that bill is dead. But apparently decriminalization is still on the table, so there's that.

# ? Mar 15, 2014 16:19

JonathonSpectre: Jul 23, 2003; I replaced the Shermatar and text with this because I don't wanna see racial slurs every time you post what the fuck; Soiled Meat

FL update: Noted total loving scumbag Matt Gaetz and most of the other Republican state legislators have now gone on record opposing the medical marijuana ballot initiative in November in favor of his bill that makes it legal to treat kids with seizures with CBD pills.

See, the pills just stop you from having seizures, but smoking pot can lead to "euphoric feelings," so... SMALL LIMITED GOVERNMENT OUT MY LIFE LEAVE ME ALONE DON'T TREAD ON ME unless of course you want to tell me what I can smoke in which case it's good because the government has the legitimate right to legislate people's euphoric feelings.

Pssst... the real reason they are opposing the mmj bill is because they know it will drive Dems to the polls in November and they are desperate to keep the Goblin King in office and beat back the challenge of the demonic party flip-flopper Charlie Crist!

# ? Mar 15, 2014 16:27

Elotana: Dec 12, 2003; and i'm putting it all on the goddamn expense account

quote:

FL update: Noted total loving scumbag Matt Gaetz and most of the other Republican state legislators have now gone on record opposing the medical marijuana ballot initiative in November in favor of his bill that makes it legal to treat kids with seizures with CBD pills.

If "CBD pills" are legal but medical cannabis is not, how exactly are these "CBD pills" supposed to be manufactured?

# ? Mar 15, 2014 17:06

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; bone shaking.
soul baking.

Elotana posted:

If "CBD pills" are legal but medical cannabis is not, how exactly are these "CBD pills" supposed to be manufactured?

They already exist and are available via prescription now. Marinol is one brand.

JonathonSpectre posted:

Pssst... the real reason they are opposing the mmj bill is because they know it will drive Dems to the polls in November and they are desperate to keep the Goblin King in office and beat back the challenge of the demonic party flip-flopper Charlie Crist!

This is why I could see some of them supporting the legalization bill that's been presented in the house. If they straight up legalize it, the referendum won't be as much of a driver to the polls.

# ? Mar 15, 2014 17:10

Elotana: Dec 12, 2003; and i'm putting it all on the goddamn expense account

Mr. Nice! posted:

They already exist and are available via prescription now. Marinol is one brand.

Marinol is THC, not CBD. CBD is the main anti-convulsant (that we've identified so far).

# ? Mar 15, 2014 17:35

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; bone shaking.
soul baking.

Elotana posted:

Marinol is THC, not CBD. CBD is the main anti-convulsant (that we've identified so far).

My bad. Thought it was a blend.

# ? Mar 15, 2014 18:36

dalstrs: Mar 11, 2004; At least this way my kill will have some use; Dinosaur Gum

Mr. Nice! posted:

My bad. Thought it was a blend.

Marinol even though it is generic is super expensive (without insurance it is over $900 for a months supply) and super hard to find a pharmacy that will actually dispense it.

Also having gotten various manufactures of the pills they are not consistent with the dosage in each pill. It is not uncommon to take one and feel nothing or a day later to take one that knocks you on your rear end and almost unable to do anything because you are so high.

Using a one hitter and decent weed it is much easier to control the dosage and help with the nausea without making myself too high to function.

# ? Mar 15, 2014 19:23

Stanos: Sep 22, 2009; The best 57 in hockey.

Have there been many success stories with marinol? The two people I've known that had scripts for it did not care for it. Anecdotal of course but it wouldn't surprise me that it's that outrageously expensive and not very effective.

# ? Mar 15, 2014 20:53

dalstrs: Mar 11, 2004; At least this way my kill will have some use; Dinosaur Gum

Stanos posted:

Have there been many success stories with marinol? The two people I've known that had scripts for it did not care for it. Anecdotal of course but it wouldn't surprise me that it's that outrageously expensive and not very effective.

For myself if I get the right pill it helps some, but it does lack the CBDs that also tend to help with my nausea. So to add another count of anecdotal evidence it's not that great. Having the script does give some coverage on a drug test though because unless they are doing one of the more expensive tests it will cause you to be positive for THC.

# ? Mar 15, 2014 21:58

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

TenementFunster posted:

open black market sales are still happening today, right now at Denver's Civic Center Park in the literal shadow of the Colorado state capitol

It always was a hilariously sketchy place similar to Ssan franscio's own Civic Center.

# ? Mar 17, 2014 00:03

staticman: Sep 12, 2008; Be gay
Death to America
Suck my dick Israel
Mess with Texas
and remember to lmao

Maaan, midterms are so boring! They're not as exciting as presidential elections in the slightest. I live in a state where it's legal! Whatever happens as a result of the 2010 elections, I can simply just smoke and not care about those proble-

MAY I HAVE A BALLOT FORM?!

# ? Mar 17, 2014 06:35

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

staticman posted:

Maaan, midterms are so boring! They're not as exciting as presidential elections in the slightest. I live in a state where it's legal! Whatever happens as a result of the 2010 elections, I can simply just smoke and not care about those proble-

MAY I HAVE A BALLOT FORM?!

This more likely than not applies to Obamacare and even if it was explicitly about weed he would veto it because it encroaches on executive authority.

# ? Mar 17, 2014 15:17

The Angry Bum: Nov 10, 2005

computer parts posted:

This more likely than not applies to Obamacare and even if it was explicitly about weed he would veto it because it encroaches on executive authority.

It pretty much applies to anything Obama has done since being elected. Not just marijuana policy. Republicans would love nothing more than for every single federal law, executive action, presidential appointment since 2009 to be declared null-and-void.

# ? Mar 17, 2014 17:53

goodness: Jan 3, 2012; just keep swimming

The Angry Bum posted:

Republicans would love nothing more than for every single federal law, executive action, presidential appointment since 2009 to be declared null-and-void.

Most democrats would love to see that too.

# ? Mar 17, 2014 18:39

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD: Jul 7, 2012

That is certainly not true.

# ? Mar 17, 2014 19:46

goodness: Jan 3, 2012; just keep swimming

KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:

That is certainly not true.

I thought it was still generalization time.

# ? Mar 17, 2014 19:48

AYC: Mar 9, 2014; Ask me how I smoke weed, watch hentai, everyday and how it's unfair that governments limits my ability to do this. Also ask me why I have to write in green text in order for my posts to stand out.

http://www.laweekly.com/informer/2014/03/17/california-marijuana-legalization-initiative-fails

So there's only one viable marijuana initiative left in California for 2014. I've given about $30 to them but I doubt they'll come through, unfortunately.

It would take some rich guy giving them $3 million, which, while possible, doesn't seem incredibly likely.

# ? Mar 18, 2014 21:17

NurhacisUrn: Jul 18, 2013; All I can think about is your wife and a horse.
We are working on some SERIOUS SHIT in here.

Hah, you guys want to see the real face of marijuana prohibition? Employers.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/nashville-tn/TBCBN53ESRTAD72Q2

Check this ThomasA guy out. I think you all will appreciate the laughs to be had.

E: Wise ThomasA says about stoners in the workplace:

quote:

When you grow up and put on your big boy pull up pants, maybe you will start to understand why employers don't put up with scum bag employees that are more focused on bypassing company policy rather than focusing on their jobs. Careful screening by contract background search agencies filter out those undesirable gutter druggies and it's money WELL spent!

Wise ThomasA on whether or not to hire stoners, or beaners.

quote:

In many jobs, when it either comes to hiring a stoner or a beaner, people choose the beaner. They appreciate their jobs and don't try to constantly try to float upstream!

Could someone explain to me how these people are making policy...?

NurhacisUrn fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Mar 21, 2014

# ? Mar 21, 2014 08:55

AYC: Mar 9, 2014; Ask me how I smoke weed, watch hentai, everyday and how it's unfair that governments limits my ability to do this. Also ask me why I have to write in green text in order for my posts to stand out.

NurhacisUrn posted:

Could someone explain to me how these people are making policy...?

# ? Mar 21, 2014 09:35

KingEup: Nov 18, 2004; I am a REAL ADDICT
(to threadshitting)

Please ask me for my google inspired wisdom on shit I know nothing about. Actually, you don't even have to ask.

quote:

PHOENIX (KSAZ) -
The proposed University of Arizona scientific study about using marijuana to treat veterans with post traumatic stress disorder has the green light from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration.

It has support from the Department of Health & Human Services.

It passed the Arizona House of Representatives.

But one person, State Senator Kimberly Yee of Phoenix has stopped the bill in it's tracks...

...Senator Yee's biggest problem with the bill is she feels backers of the scientific study want to legalize marijuana, as in Colorado or Washington state.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/25022631/2014/03/19/state-senator-blocks-medical-marjuana-study

This is a little mean spirited.

# ? Mar 21, 2014 12:12

KernelSlanders: May 27, 2013; Rogue operating systems on occasion spread lies and rumors about me.

KingEup posted:

This is a little mean spirited.

It's deeper than mean spirited. I really cannot understand these people's thought process, where we must avoid the possibility that evidence would come to light that says our current policy is sub-optimal. Is just a faith vs reason worldview thing? I find that hard to believe since there are plenty of religious people who don't seem to be enemies of rational thinking in the rest of their life. I would love for someone to explain how someone gets to the point where their thought process is: Current policy is marijuana is illegal because it's dangerous -> doing study X might say marijuana isn't dangerous -> we must not investigate whether our policy reasonable because the status quo must be protected at all costs. Am I missing something? Is there some reasonable thought process in there somewhere?

# ? Mar 21, 2014 15:05

Doc Hawkins: Jun 15, 2010; Dashing? But I'm not even moving!

Sunken cost fallacy is a hell of...uhh, is a real and powerful thing.

# ? Mar 21, 2014 15:08

wilfredmerriweathr: Jul 11, 2005

KernelSlanders posted:

It's deeper than mean spirited. I really cannot understand these people's thought process, where we must avoid the possibility that evidence would come to light that says our current policy is sub-optimal. Is just a faith vs reason worldview thing? I find that hard to believe since there are plenty of religious people who don't seem to be enemies of rational thinking in the rest of their life. I would love for someone to explain how someone gets to the point where their thought process is: Current policy is marijuana is illegal because it's dangerous -> doing study X might say marijuana isn't dangerous -> we must not investigate whether our policy reasonable because the status quo must be protected at all costs. Am I missing something? Is there some reasonable thought process in there somewhere?

Support of private prisons/police unions pays their campaign bills? Hell, that's Sheriff Joe's territory. Plus if you combine that with genuinely believing the drugwar FUD (pass me the scotch, will ya? let's talk about how to lock up more dirty potheads), it's a recipe for being an out-of-touch rear end in a top hat that will never change.

wilfredmerriweathr fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Mar 21, 2014

# ? Mar 21, 2014 17:56

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 09:24

TACD: Oct 27, 2000

KernelSlanders posted:

It's deeper than mean spirited. I really cannot understand these people's thought process, where we must avoid the possibility that evidence would come to light that says our current policy is sub-optimal. Is just a faith vs reason worldview thing? I find that hard to believe since there are plenty of religious people who don't seem to be enemies of rational thinking in the rest of their life. I would love for someone to explain how someone gets to the point where their thought process is: Current policy is marijuana is illegal because it's dangerous -> doing study X might say marijuana isn't dangerous -> we must not investigate whether our policy reasonable because the status quo must be protected at all costs. Am I missing something? Is there some reasonable thought process in there somewhere?

I really think it stems from an inability to critically assess certain beliefs, yes. I'd basically agree with the first two points of the thought process you lay out, except the third point would be "we must not risk doing research that says it isn't dangerous because we already know it is dangerous!"

If 'drugs are bad' is a founding premise instead of a conclusion to an argument, then anything trying to undermine that must obviously be flawed and wrong in some way, even if it's not obvious how. And this is a version of events that assumes the person is genuinely trying to do what they think is best instead of just taking kickbacks from the for-profit prison industry or whatever.

# ? Mar 21, 2014 18:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Drug legalization thread

«‹›266 »