|
ColoradoCleric posted:A lot of people will take advantage of the low effort of going through recreational stores but the 4X markup also has a significant portion of the people still going through medical card holders. But what I am Saying is that at worst the existing dynamic isn't being changed. Like you said, medical dealers don't check ID. That is the major determining factor for minors, regardless of how expensive the legal options are. You could make the argument that medical dealers only make a significant amount of money by dealing to minors and people who are too cheap for recreational marijuana, but I think there's enough of a demand for it among minors that those dealers would still be in business.
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:40 |
|
|
computer parts posted:But what I am Saying is that at worst the existing dynamic isn't being changed. Like you said, medical dealers don't check ID. That is the major determining factor for minors, regardless of how expensive the legal options are. I was just trying to point out that the concern of kids getting drugs wasn't necessarily resolved with a medical marijuana or recreation system (at least as of yet).
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
ChlamydiaJones posted:Academia can't dose but we can observe Why is this? Is it just that there's no way to secure funding via NIH/NSF grants or something like that, or are academics specifically barred from giving cannabis to subjects by some law? Would an independently-funded study still be unable to do so?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
adocious posted:Why is this? Is it just that there's no way to secure funding via NIH/NSF grants or something like that, or are academics specifically barred from giving cannabis to subjects by some law? Would an independently-funded study still be unable to do so? I mean, if you wanna fly me to Colorado and feed me a bunch of weed brownies while you record what happens, nobody, including me is going to stop you. The problem is finding a private money source, and then getting it published by someone respectable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
TheManWithNoName posted:http://www.cpr.org/news/story/marijuana-edibles-grow-popularity-caution-urged there is no effective legislative response to this perceived problem. the only solution is for parents to be careful. just another instance where lawmakers need to realize the limits of their power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
That won't stop idiots from demanding a legislative response, though. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
EightBit posted:That won't stop idiots from demanding a legislative response, though. edit: also just a reminder that Colorado doesn't require parents to lock up their guns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
While 7.2 ng/ml is above the DUI limit, it's not outrageously so, and it's certainly not intoxication to the level that would induce suicidal behavior or some kind of psychotic break with reality absent significant underlying mental problems. Edible overdoses usually result in someone passing out, not agitation and violent behavior as described in the report. I'm wondering exactly how thoroughly this kid's medical/behavioral history was checked out before the coroner made this pronouncement; whether they just pulled his one year of university records and called it good or actually took the trouble to get his records from Congo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:haha somebody please quote that D&D gun nut who responsed to a gun massacre with that "inevitable legislative response" he was more worried about than, you know, the human suffering of the situation The worst effects of 9/11 was the inevitable knee-jerk response which caused and is still causing hundreds of thousands of people more pain in suffering than the terrorists could ever have dreamed of, so being concerned about the "inevitable legislative response" isn't unreasonable. The good intentions on the road to hell and all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
adocious posted:Why is this? Is it just that there's no way to secure funding via NIH/NSF grants or something like that, or are academics specifically barred from giving cannabis to subjects by some law? Would an independently-funded study still be unable to do so? Because most academics don't exist in a void, we're not independent contractors in most cases. If you want a career in academia and you've gotten a doctorate then part of your career path is affiliating with an institution and using that institution as a backdrop to conduct research, write grants and collaborate on research. Jones from Harvard can do this better than Jones from Bob'sUniversityInOmaha. So in my case the university I'm affiliated with has stated loudly that we will not be conducting any marijuana based research that takes advantage of the state we live in (essentially). The university president uses the federal laws and scheduling of marijuana as the reason for this decision. We, as researchers who are using the name of the university to do our research and get our funding, suggest that performing research on the marijuana that is currently in circulation is a better decision than to use the standard produced by NIDA in Mississippi. There are problems with that; the NIDA standard is a standard but it bears very little resemblance to what is being used on the street BUT it IS a standard and it is free(once you pass a bunch of tests). At least two institutions that do research are being told to follow a standard defined by lawyers and not scientists and that's bad public health in my opinion. The institutions are also protecting themsleves because schedule 1 is a federal crime and the feds can shut down an institution that uses funds generated by marijuana, and especially uses those funds to research marijuana and ESPECIALLY uses those funds to research the therapeutic benefits of that use (that's all funds including student loans, infrastructure and lots of other stuff). ReverendCode one way to address the issues above is to use open source publishing for your results and to seek funds from industry. We're considering this and industry will do some research using its own funds. We all have to consider the tobacco industry though since that relationship sucked, was exploited and ruined many careers in the past. Nobody wants that poo poo to happen again. Industry is employing serious scientists and ethics guidelines will be published fairly soon. The really big problem is DOJ and institutions that are very, very twitchy to do this research. We REALLY want to dose you, believe me, especially for driving, intoxication delta studies and measurement of current versus past use but we can't. Yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:haha somebody please quote that D&D gun nut who responsed to a gun massacre with that "inevitable legislative response" he was more worried about than, you know, the human suffering of the situation Not sure the exact quote, but that sounds like Chris Christie* *the goon, not the governor ...although it hasn't been proven to my satisfaction that they aren't one and the same
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 07:07
|
|
|
eightBit posted:That won't stop idiots from demanding a legislative response, though. What's wrong with standardizing labels on edibles? You can't buy a bottle of liquor without knowing the exact alcohol content and seeing a warning about the effects, and that is a good thing. Edibles should absolutely have THC content measured and labeled, and there should be a warning to the effect of "If you're not used to this, you may feel uncomfortable after consumption. You are not at any risk physically, keep calm and carry on." Child resistant containers are a decent measure as well. Sure, they aren't foolproof, but small children aren't entirely logical creatures (just as adults aren't always, and will sometimes leave things in the reach of children that they shouldn't). Some will get bored and/or frustrated by such packaging, others may be stymied for long enough for the parents to notice and intervene. e: What is the downside exactly? Slightly increased overhead for edibles manufacturers and maybe some difficulty opening the next cookie if you're too high to figure out the child resistant package? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 11:13 on Apr 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 11:10
|
|
|
The rational response would be to use the existing laws that are in place that require companies to tell us what is in the poo poo we smoke/digest/inject/absorb rectally without going over board. But new laws have to be made because we have to justify the year round nonsense of these rear end in a top hat law makers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
Elotana posted:While 7.2 ng/ml is above the DUI limit, it's not outrageously so, and it's certainly not intoxication to the level that would induce suicidal behavior or some kind of psychotic break with reality absent significant underlying mental problems. Edible overdoses usually result in someone passing out, not agitation and violent behavior as described in the report. I'm wondering exactly how thoroughly this kid's medical/behavioral history was checked out before the coroner made this pronouncement; whether they just pulled his one year of university records and called it good or actually took the trouble to get his records from Congo. Can you accurately measure someone's mental response to their intake though? Doesn't tolerance and experience play a huge role? I've been smoking for like 14 years but a relatively small amount of marijuana will still put me into a fight-or-flight panic situation because of how I'm wired. I don't eat edibles or do huge bong rips but it took years of experimenting to figure out where the sweet spot is for me, and the sweet spot is also a moving target because if I smoke frequently my tolerance goes up. I guess what I'm saying is handing out really powerful edibles to people without warnings like "you will be high for hours, it might be terrible" is a bad idea. This probably has more to do with education than legislation though, information for first-time users should be readily available. It reminds me of that article posted a couple pages ago of the woman who went to Colorado and had kind of a bad time on edibles because they were too strong. I think a lot of people who are new to cannabis aren't necessarily going to be looking to have a borderline psychedelic experience, they just want to giggle and be relaxed and eat cheetos like the movies show. If a lot of people's first time (or first time since their youth) experience with cannabis is negative it's going to negatively impact support for legalization.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
prom candy posted:Can you accurately measure someone's mental response to their intake though? Doesn't tolerance and experience play a huge role? I've been smoking for like 14 years but a relatively small amount of marijuana will still put me into a fight-or-flight panic situation because of how I'm wired. I don't eat edibles or do huge bong rips but it took years of experimenting to figure out where the sweet spot is for me, and the sweet spot is also a moving target because if I smoke frequently my tolerance goes up. I guess what I'm saying is handing out really powerful edibles to people without warnings like "you will be high for hours, it might be terrible" is a bad idea. Yet no one has issues with handing out alcohol to first time users with no warnings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:Yet no one has issues with handing out alcohol to first time users with no warnings. What do you think ABV is?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
prom candy posted:Can you accurately measure someone's mental response to their intake though? Doesn't tolerance and experience play a huge role? I've been smoking for like 14 years but a relatively small amount of marijuana will still put me into a fight-or-flight panic situation because of how I'm wired. I don't eat edibles or do huge bong rips but it took years of experimenting to figure out where the sweet spot is for me, and the sweet spot is also a moving target because if I smoke frequently my tolerance goes up. I guess what I'm saying is handing out really powerful edibles to people without warnings like "you will be high for hours, it might be terrible" is a bad idea. For a smoking comparison: Four puffs of 1.75% THC (extremely low-potency compared to virtually anything available today) will produce 57 ng/ml serum levels. Elotana fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Apr 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:haha somebody please quote that D&D gun nut who responsed to a gun massacre with that "inevitable legislative response" he was more worried about than, you know, the human suffering of the situation Virginia Tech shooting thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2432735#post326154670 Vang posted:gently caress this rear end in a top hat. Not because he killed people, but because of the inevitable legislative response.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Miracon posted:Virginia Tech shooting thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2432735#post326154670 Powercrazy posted:The worst effects of 9/11 was the inevitable knee-jerk response which caused and is still causing hundreds of thousands of people more pain in suffering than the terrorists could ever have dreamed of, so being concerned about the "inevitable legislative response" isn't unreasonable. The good intentions on the road to hell and all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:yes, it is outrageously unreasonable and your analogy is loving ridiculous because hundreds of thousands of actual dead iraqis isn't the as bad as the possibility of firearms regulation (that never happened anyway). stop loving up my weed thread. If you don't want gunchat loving up your weed thread it probably isn't a super good idea to unilaterally introduce gunchat into the discussion for no loving reason beyond wanting to stroke your ego with an offhand demonstration of how socially ~enlightened~ you are. Just sayin'
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:haha somebody please quote that D&D gun nut who responsed to a gun massacre with that "inevitable legislative response" he was more worried about than, you know, the human suffering of the situation Why on earth would you want to drag guns into this thread?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:yes, it is outrageously unreasonable and your analogy is loving ridiculous because hundreds of thousands of actual dead iraqis isn't the as bad as the possibility of firearms regulation (that never happened anyway). stop loving up my weed thread. A large portion of citizens in Connecticut are felons because of a knee-jerk reaction to sandy hook, and the War on Drugs exists because of a knee-jerk reaction from some politicians in the late 60's through the 80's. Perhaps, the legislative response is actually more important than what some disturbed individual does? Let's also not forget Zero Tolerance policies that ruin students lives daily. Federal Legalization is hanging by a thread and all it will take is an incident like the suicide in Colorado, to bring the whole thing down, so perhaps you shouldn't be so smug because some right you think is unimportant is about to be trampled on because of some person doing something stupid. ate shit on live tv fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Apr 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:Why on earth would you want to drag guns into this thread?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:A large portion of citizens in Connecticut are felons because of a knee-jerk reaction to sandy hook, and the War on Drugs exists because of a knee-jerk reaction from some politicians in the late 60's through the 80's. Wasn't the "War on Drugs" just building on a preceding culture of racism and FUD, similar and related to the sentiments that spawned Prohibition around 1900-1930?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
The war on drugs also built a ton on non-racial classism across much of America. There weren't any minorities doing drugs in Generic Small Town, USA but there was still someone selling the drugs to Good Little Kids.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:A large portion of citizens in Connecticut are felons because of a knee-jerk reaction to sandy hook, and the War on Drugs exists because of a knee-jerk reaction from some politicians in the late 60's through the 80's. Perhaps, the legislative response is actually more important than what some disturbed individual does? Absolutely. All of this. Thank you Powercrazy for this thought provoking and well thought-out post. Sadly, however, you do speak huge amounts of truth. These old fuckers will do anything they can to stop cannabis at this point. That would be an effective cudgel at that, since poo poo smeared idiots seem to think with their emotions like neanderthals rather than reason like higher individuals. Knee-jerk legislation is loving bullshit, whether it be ridiculous firearms policy in response to random sickos, drug illegality based on the ridiculous notion that "negroes rape white women", or going to a decade long war because a couple of loving buildings got knocked down. Thanks again Powercrazy, I always feel good after reading your posts. Install Windows posted:The war on drugs also built a ton on non-racial classism across much of America. I have tended to notice a lot of the vitriol directed at cannabis consumers comes from older, successful business owning individuals. They see cannabis consumers as an inferior class of people, something to be culled from the workforce, discriminated against, and completely subhuman to their business owner selves in every possible way. To me, that screams the classism argument right there. NurhacisUrn fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Apr 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Has there been any talk of strain specific legislation? Or maximum THC% or anything like that? Because something like that would be disappointing given how inherently limiting that type of legislation is. I could see it opening the door to a company like Monsanto coming in and crafting legislation that makes their strains the only legal strains available. Florida of all places is considering legalizing weed with high concentrations of cannabidiol, or CBD, and less than 0.5% THC content. Won't get you high but apparently works wonders in children with major seizure problems. Note that this is the Florida legislature as opposed to a referendum coming up in Florida for medical weed in general. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/05/us-usa-florida-marijuana-idUSBREA242A620140305 rockopete fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Apr 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
rockopete posted:Florida of all places is considering legalizing weed with high concentrations of cannabidiol, or CBD, and less than 0.5% THC content. Won't get you high but apparently works wonders in children with major seizure problems. Note that this is the Florida legislature as opposed to a referendum coming up for medical weed in general. Unfortunately this seems to be the norm for lovely southern states. It alleviates them from being called heartless monsters since they can say they cared about these precious loving kids. To hell with all the adults who are struggling and suffering from neurological, bowel, inflammatory, etc conditions that THC benefits. Anything that helps them fight the devil's stoners. NurhacisUrn fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Apr 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
NurhacisUrn posted:Unfortunately this seems to be the norm for lovely southern states. It alleviates them from being called heartless monsters since they can say they cared about these precious loving kids. To hell with all the adults who are struggling and suffering from neurological, bowel, inflammatory, etc conditions that THC benefits. Anything that helps them fight the devil's stoners. No argument here. At least there's the rest of the country to move to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
rockopete posted:No argument here. At least there's the rest of the country to move to. I wish that was an option. Career and family has a way of anchoring a person like a loving millstone around your neck. It sucks being a drug-free kid when you really need to be able to poo poo without chronic inflammation. loving Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
So far all the state CBD measures have had two things in common: They don't contain any supply chain provisions. They don't allow in-state grows for these CBD oils so any parents seeking the exemption will be committing interstate trafficking. It's essentially an extremely limited affirmative defense to a state possession charge. They allocate research money to state universities which the UC example has shown won't be touched due to federal aid risk. Elotana fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Apr 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
Elotana posted:So far all the state CBD measures have had two things in common: The laws also support GW in their efforts to patent a specific cannabinoid once they've shown efficacy. I say that because GW has supported the efforts in each state that has moved in that direction because "whole plant medicine" doesn't generate income (once the seeds are in circulation). That said, the farm bill is roundly lauded as hugely supportive of CBD research and future studies since less than 0.3% THC is seen as manageable by industry. The research will get done but it will either be rear end backwards and inefficient or patented by Pharma.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
Goddammit, I hope the Dems do well in 2016 so we can just legalize it federally already.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
AYC posted:Goddammit, I hope the Dems do well in 2016 so we can just legalize it federally already. We're not really to that point yet. We've had a token one or two states legalize it, but one of those programs isn't even up and running yet and both of them are relatively small states by population. California (hopefully) legalizing in 2016 would probably be the big kickstarter for this, though there is a bit more of a stigma against it in the Eastern Seaboard (see: every law at medical marijuana actually requiring a full board approval instead of California's "pay me $60 for your 'pain' and I'll set you up"). If the timeline is similar to Gay Marriage (which is about the best case scenario) I wouldn't expect a very large number of states to legalize before about 2020, probably closer to 2024. e: If I could point to likely legalization states it would probably be any left-ish Western State (so Colorado to California, add in Oregon and maybe New Mexico/Nevada). Past that, I would look for states with historic budget troubles and which are relatively blue, while also being outside of DC's political control (so probably Michigan, probably not Maryland). computer parts fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Apr 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
AYC posted:Goddammit, I hope the Dems do well in 2016 so we can just legalize it federally already. I remember when I used to think electing a Democrat would change things.... but the past 7 years with Obama have shown me otherwise. No elected politician wants to legalize anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:I remember when I used to think electing a Democrat would change things.... but the past 7 years with Obama have shown me otherwise. No elected politician wants to legalize anything. Imagine the Romney administration's response to Colorado.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Imagine the Romney administration's response to Colorado. I think he'd be too busy using eminent domain to force the keystone pipeline through, and playing with his new BFF Putin in Crimea. Either way when states don't follow federal law it's a delicate situation since the 'nuclear option' of federal troops to enforce federal law is rarely the ideal, or even a good solution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Imagine the Romney administration's response to Colorado. Also the Democratically controlled New Hampshire lower house passed a marijuana legalization bill and there's one floating in the New York senate, also, just about every decriminalization bill has been by Democrats in recent years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:We're not really to that point yet. We've had a token one or two states legalize it, but one of those programs isn't even up and running yet and both of them are relatively small states by population. California (hopefully) legalizing in 2016 would probably be the big kickstarter for this, though there is a bit more of a stigma against it in the Eastern Seaboard (see: every law at medical marijuana actually requiring a full board approval instead of California's "pay me $60 for your 'pain' and I'll set you up"). RI will legalize before 2020, easily. They've been close for a few years now, getting closer every year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 21:40 |
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:I remember when I used to think electing a Democrat would change things.... but the past 7 years with Obama have shown me otherwise. No elected politician wants to legalize anything. Politics is not about the best option, but about the least damaging one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 16:36
|
|