|
Peer review and replication serve different goals. It's not really an either-or.
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Peer review and replication serve different goals. It's not really an either-or. Well peer review is so you can get the research out there without the burden of having it be independently replicated, but if the name of the author is a better predictor of journal acceptance than the scientific soundness of the paper, the process has broken at some point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
Looks like the legalization vote in Alaska may be pushed back to November: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/alaska-marijuana-2014-election-105870.html?hp=l6
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:Looks like the legalization vote in Alaska may be pushed back to November: Can't load the page. What's the gist of it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
AYC posted:Can't load the page. What's the gist of it? quote:"Marijuana likely won’t be on the ballot until November in Alaska when voters head to the polls in the general election, because of the state’s Legislature extending its session.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
prom candy posted:My super liberal family who has past (positive, mainly) experience with marijuana is already talking about how the super strong weed in Colorado is making people "go crazy" and jump off balconies or shoot their spouses. I'm as pro-legalization as anyone, but their concern isn't completely misguided. Go back a mere 20 years, and the cannabis in and around Colorado and elsewhere near there (Nebraska, Oklahoma etc.) was mostly Mexican brick weed of mediocre quality and potency. You couldn't even sell that these days. If someone who hasn't had much experience with the drug smoked too much (say a fat joint of some krippy), they could easily have a bad time, or panic and ending up in a hospital. It's a more potent drug than its reputation amongst some fans. I'd like to see more dispensaries and producers work on improving other qualities of their smoke than just how potent it is, especially for medical users that don't care for the psychoactive effects.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
Broken Machine posted:I'm as pro-legalization as anyone, but their concern isn't completely misguided. Go back a mere 20 years, and the cannabis in and around Colorado and elsewhere near there (Nebraska, Oklahoma etc.) was mostly Mexican brick weed of mediocre quality and potency. You couldn't even sell that these days. If someone who hasn't had much experience with the drug smoked too much (say a fat joint of some krippy), they could easily have a bad time, or panic and ending up in a hospital. It's a more potent drug than its reputation amongst some fans. I'd like to see more dispensaries and producers work on improving other qualities of their smoke than just how potent it is, especially for medical users that don't care for the psychoactive effects. To be honest it was hard to not see some of these complaints coming. I fully expect to see most types of edibles banned in stores, the liability issue is huge and I'm surprised anybody bothers to sell the loving things - if a little kid gets ahold of a pot brownie they aren't going to die but they are going to have a really loving terrible time. It's easy to make the "parents need to be responsible" argument but some parents aren't and never will be. (My parents weren't!) Banning "ready to eat" edibles is probably something that is going to happen. It does not help at all that edibles are the most apparently accessible form of THC delivery, since you don't have to own a pipe or learn how to smoke it. I can see a lot of total newbies going into a pot store, throwing down for a brownie for their first high, and then going out of their loving mind because they can't handle the effects. Mirthless fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:if a little kid gets ahold of a pot brownie they aren't going to die but they are going to have a really loving terrible time. Unless it contains peanuts and they're allergic to peanuts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Mirthless posted:To be honest it was hard to not see some of these complaints coming. I fully expect to see most types of edibles banned in stores, the liability issue is huge and I'm surprised anybody bothers to sell the loving things - if a little kid gets ahold of a pot brownie they aren't going to die but they are going to have a really loving terrible time. It's easy to make the "parents need to be responsible" argument but some parents aren't and never will be. (My parents weren't!) Banning "ready to eat" edibles is probably something that is going to happen. They should ban ready to smoke weed then. Or ready to drink alcohol. Or ready to eat allergens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
goodness posted:They should ban ready to smoke weed then. Or ready to drink alcohol. Or ready to eat allergens. That's not what we're saying. A closer analogy would be drinking grain alcohol the first time you get drunk, and the only choices in the liquor store are all hard alcohol. It's just something that needs to be figured out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
I think people are eating pot brownies and expecting to giggle and make dumb observations like on That 70s Show, not go on an 8 hour borderline psychedelic trip. I hope dispensaries start doing a better job of warning people that eating a brownie can be like the weed equivalent of drinking a 26er of tequila (without the risk of poisoning)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Broken Machine posted:That's not what we're saying. A closer analogy would be drinking grain alcohol the first time you get drunk, and the only choices in the liquor store are all hard alcohol. It's just something that needs to be figured out. Yeah, what I said actually makes more sense. Kids can walk into grocery stores, cabinet, friends and easily get alcohol/deathly allergens/etc. Way easier than getting a pot brownie. Obviously their should be info on the edibles and the store employees should be educating people. But you can't stop stupid. I definitely see a lot stricter guidelines and testing on edibles happening, and its needed imo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
goodness posted:Kids can walk into grocery stores, cabinet, friends and easily get alcohol/deathly allergens/etc. Way easier than getting a pot brownie. And? There's also way fewer people actually deathly allergic to any sort of food than there are people who can have a miserable time on too much of a drug.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:And? There's also way fewer people actually deathly allergic to any sort of food than there are people who can have a miserable time on too much of a drug. Really? So you think there are more people that are so uneducated that they would just walk into a dispensary and buy a brownie (which all the ones I have seen have warnings on them), then there are people who are seriously or deathly allergic to any food? I guess a miserable time and a good lesson are worse than death. I do think they should be regulated more, but banned? Nah 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
The Government just need to standardize weed dosing. With Alcohol is pretty easy ABV is a great indicator on how drunk something will get you and ABV is tightly regulated such that you will never be "tricked" into drinking something WAY stronger than you are expecting, though certain beers can sneak up on you. So once a standard process of THC proofing comes up, most of this will be taken care of. As an aside that is one of the reasons I don't like edibles. The dosing is all hosed up combined with the amount of time it takes to kick in, means that I've eaten two brownies before realizing the first one would get me higher than I've ever been.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
What percentage of allergies do you think are fatal? I'd guess <1% but I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
goodness posted:Really? So you think there are more people that are so uneducated that they would just walk into a dispensary and buy a brownie (which all the ones I have seen have warnings on them), then there are people who are seriously or deathly allergic to any food? I guess a miserable time and a good lesson are worse than death. Yes I do! Among school-age children for example, the CDC estimates that 6% of them have medically relevant allergies to foods http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/foodallergies/ Note that this is not the same as people so allergic to foods they can die from it, but it involves anything from painful skin hives and sneezing to death, with most of them trending towards the less severe part of that. Are you saying that over 95% of people can't have a miserable time or what?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:you will never be "tricked" into drinking something WAY stronger than you are expecting You've clearly never had purple jesus. How many times have you eaten a 2nd brownie waiting for the first one? Install Windows posted:Yes I do! Among school-age children for example, the CDC estimates that 6% of them have medically relevant allergies to foods http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/foodallergies/ Are you saying that a possible miserable time is that relevant? Anything in reality can cause someone a miserable time. If you want to talk the %, then think about the % that smoke weed or want to smoke in this country. Then narrow that down to people who have no experience with weed. Then narrow that down even further to people who want to buy an edible for their first time. Then narrow that down to people that have a bad time. Jeffrey posted:What percentage of allergies do you think are fatal? I'd guess <1% but I don't know. I have no idea either, more fatal than weed though! "The number of people admitted to hospital with life-threatening anaphylactic shock – involving sudden swelling, breathlessness and low blood pressure – has increased by at least 700 per cent in the last two decades." "Anaphylaxis causes about 20 deaths a year in otherwise healthy people from heart attacks or suffocation caused by the swelling of tissues in the mouth and throat." goodness fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
goodness posted:You've clearly never had purple jesus. What's purple jesus? Oh it just looks like the typical sweet alcoholic mixed drink which if you knew the type of alcohol and the amounts put into, would 100% inform you of how drunk you'd get from it. That is a different type of tricking then I'm talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
Do infused sodas and drinks take effect any faster than solid edibles? If the problem is novices unable to dose themselves properly due to the delay, dispensaries should market those instead of candies or pastries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
goodness posted:Are you saying that a possible miserable time is that relevant? Anything in reality can cause someone a miserable time. It's relevant for deciding what to allow places to sell outside of medical stuff, yeah. It's not like people are asking to ban the creation of edibles for people to use, after all. We don't let stores sell tobacco bread, after all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Not often because I just stay away from edibles. Yeah, purple jesus (PJ), jungle juice, hunch punch, etc. Good stuff but drat it will sneak up on you for sure. And then smash you in the face. Install Windows posted:It's relevant for deciding what to allow places to sell outside of medical stuff, yeah. It's not like people are asking to ban the creation of edibles for people to use, after all. Edibles are medical stuff for some people though. So yes, they need more regulation and the store employees need to do a better job of educating people (which they are probably doing an amazing job since there have not been more incidents). goodness fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Do infused sodas and drinks take effect any faster than solid edibles? If the problem is novices unable to dose themselves properly due to the delay, dispensaries should market those instead of candies or pastries. Are those common? I was under the impression that since THC is fat-soluble it's difficult to mix it smoothly into things that don't contain a significant fat portion. Edit: I mean, you could do a smoothie with some ice cream or something but a soda would require using BVO or some similar chemical wizardry I think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
goodness posted:
So is erythromycin. This doesn't mean you can just pick up a bottle of erythromycin off the shelf at a grocery store. Availability of a product as an actual medical thing doesn't mean allowing the same sort of stuff outside the framework.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:So is erythromycin. This doesn't mean you can just pick up a bottle of erythromycin off the shelf at a grocery store. And you can't just walk in a dispensary and grab a brownie. You have to have a medical license or be 21 in CO (admittedly not hard but they don't just stand outside the shop throwing brownies to kids). Edibles should be useable for medicinal or recreational patients, just read the freaking label and don't be dumb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Are those common? I was under the impression that since THC is fat-soluble it's difficult to mix it smoothly into things that don't contain a significant fat portion. You can do this with glycerol. I personally think that edibles are going to be a problem for dispensaries both because of the camouflage effect and their potential to cause dosage problems. If I ran a dispensary I wouldn't sell them. People can do the conversion themselves at home without causing a potential legislation issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:You can do this with glycerol. Cheaper and better to make brownies/baked goods at home. If only it was easy to make BHO products.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
goodness posted:And you can't just walk in a dispensary and grab a brownie. You have to have a medical license or be 21 in CO (admittedly not hard but they don't just stand outside the shop throwing brownies to kids). Reading the label would be good advice if you could trust them. The manufacturers are usually making a dead reckoning guess on dose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
goodness posted:Cheaper and better to make brownies/baked goods at home. I'm not sure BHO has the same issues as edibles. It advertises its severity through the mechanics of using it. Anyone heating up a nail or a swing is going to understand on some level that they'd better strap in. A lot of people won't touch BHO because they think using it looks "crack-y".
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:Reading the label would be good advice if you could trust them. The manufacturers are usually making a dead reckoning guess on dose. What is the trouble with the dosage? Unless they are making it in such large batches that it is not doable, but I was under the impression most of the edibles came from smaller operations. # of brownies/# of weed
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
goodness posted:What is the trouble with the dosage? Unless they are making it in such large batches that it is not doable, but I was under the impression most of the edibles came from smaller operations. Per the Denver Post: http://www.thecannabist.co/2014/03/09/tests-show-thc-content-marijuana-edibles-inconsistent/6421/ quote:One Dr. J’s milk chocolate Star Barz labeled for 100 milligrams of THC had 0.37 milligrams of the valued psychoactive component  I tried Dr J's cookies and biscotti - did absolutely nothing for me. I've also had a different brand's brownie that made me hallucinate and kept me high until the next morning. It's incredibly inconsistent. I hope the market will sort itself out but it hasn't yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Are those common? I was under the impression that since THC is fat-soluble it's difficult to mix it smoothly into things that don't contain a significant fat portion. Elotana fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
prom candy posted:My super liberal family who has past (positive, mainly) experience with marijuana is already talking about how the super strong weed in Colorado is making people "go crazy" and jump off balconies or shoot their spouses. The spouse-shooting is a thing
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
goodness posted:And you can't just walk in a dispensary and grab a brownie. You have to have a medical license or be 21 in CO (admittedly not hard but they don't just stand outside the shop throwing brownies to kids). Yes, precisely because of the reasons we were just talking about. Nah, I don't think it actually should be (the recreational part), given that it's not needed. Again I refer you to the example of tobacco bread - something you could probably make and sell, but due to impracticalities it's not really allowed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
TheManWithNoName posted:Per the Denver Post: So it seems the problem is with companies just trying to be as greedy as possible. Making edibles is just better to do yourself, for now at least. How hard is it to gently caress up making brownies with .5 in each. Install Windows posted:Yes, precisely because of the reasons we were just talking about. Wait, you don't think edibles should be legal for recreational use? But you do think weed should be legal?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
goodness posted:Wait, you don't think edibles should be legal for recreational use? No, I don't think they should be legal to sell, because frankly it's unneeded and it's a lot easier to gently caress up the product. Companies have kinda shown themselves to be untrustworthy with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Edibles should be legal just not sold in stores. A lot of people imagine them as a non-threatening and good for beginners when they're in reality really really intense. There's just too much of a chance of someone having a terrible experience on them and panicking and possibly doing something nutty. It's a legitimate concern.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:No, I don't think they should be legal to sell, because frankly it's unneeded and it's a lot easier to gently caress up the product. That just means the states (ideally the feds, but you know...) need to develop a regulatory system to ensure people are getting what they expect and that labels include decent dosing information.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Telephones posted:Edibles should be legal just not sold in stores. A lot of people imagine them as a non-threatening and good for beginners when they're in reality really really intense. There's just too much of a chance of someone having a terrible experience on them and panicking and possibly doing something nutty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:27 |
|
|
twodot posted:This is bad reasoning. Edibles aren't inherently "really really intense", people just (sometimes) make them that way for whatever reason. Even if you think making people avoid intense edibles is a sensible policy goal (I think this is questionable), the correct thing to do would be to establish an acceptable level of intensity, and either forbid them or require substantial labeling over that intensity. Everclear is a fairly dangerous substance, and it has a bunch of labels alerting you to that fact, it seems to work ok. Normal Everclear's also illegal in 14 states and not illegal but not salable in a 15th. So yeah, I suppose that's "working ok" for Everclear.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 03:55
|
|