KingEup posted:So an Australian criminologist has tried to defend drug prohibition: http://anj.sagepub.com/content/47/2/176.full.pdf Jesus Christ. Alternative: Either decriminalize or legalize. Empirical evidence showing it works: Any European country that has decriminalized possession (there are quite a few) or Colorado/Washington, and hopefully DC soon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:39 |
|
|
Spoondick posted:Well, here's something that was poo poo out onto an Alaska Dispatch News editorial page: I have no idea if it'll fit, but may I repost your commentary on my Facebook? I'm an Alaskan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
site posted:I have no idea if it'll fit, but may I repost your commentary on my Facebook? I'm an Alaskan. Sure, go for it. Thinking about it some more, the thing that bothers me most about that article is that it's published by an organization that primarily represents public employees. The degree to which relevant information was omitted and irrelevant information was presented as relevant suggests this was an intentional effort to mislead voters about an important public policy issue. That's bad no matter who's doing it, but when it's done by an organization representing public employees it's particularly egregious. It would be like me writing a document titled "Why Spoondick Needs Double the Amount of Vacation Time Every Year, a Promotion, a Pay Raise and a Company Car" in which I unrealistically represent my proficiency at my job while accusing my coworkers of being child molesters, and give it to my boss with the expectation that I'll receive double the amount of vacation time, a promotion, a pay raise and a company car. Public employees work to enact the will of the public, but when they subvert the will of the public they end up enacting their own will at the expense of the public. That's one of the many consequences of the failed War on Drugs, and why legalizing marijuana is an important step in reversing the tide of financial and ethical corruption afflicting our public institutions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
site posted:I have no idea if it'll fit, but may I repost your commentary on my Facebook? I'm an Alaskan. There is one thing I have to nitpick about his commentary, if you're going to do that: quote:Marijuana-related exposures for children ages 0-5 increased 200 percent to 12 per year from the four per year in the early years of medical marijuana availability, 2006-2008. (I'm no mathemagician, but 12 is not 200% of 4 and I'm not sure where they're even getting these numbers because there were 14 total accidental marijuana exposures to children between 2006 and 2011 in Colorado.) They were actually correct on the math, here. 12 is a 200% increase over 4. "Increase" means that you add it to the original number, so 4 + (4*200%) = 12. It's a minor thing, but you have to make sure you're not making any mistakes in your arguments when you're attacking something like this, or people will use that to discredit the entire thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Spoondick posted:Sure, go for it. Cool, thanks! And you're right, it's entirely misleading and that's the point. It's like that speech from that conservative conference just posted above, they can get away with lying because anyone who knows the truth won't be listening anyways, half of the people who are listening already agree and just want someone to tell then they're right, and the other half won't bother to check the facts. KillHour posted:There is one thing I have to nitpick about his commentary, if you're going to do that: Thanks. Maybe it can be replaced with something like, "this is an equivalent to saying there's a problem to voter fraud and therefore we need voter ID laws when there was only like 480something cases nation wide. Maybe that was an increase from some arbitrary starting point, but if you look at the number of incidents compared to the number of medical mj users in total, this doesn't make it a 'problem' that warrants negating the whole thing." Plus that whole, "there will always be outlier lovely parents, no matter what topic you're discussing", thing. You don't want the government interfering with parenting because no one knows better than the parents? Guess that means they have to take some responsibility for loving up too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
This hot ad keeps playing on my TV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNobrt_r3J0 You've got to love the guy's serious voice. By the way, I'm getting less and less hopeful this will pass. I have no faith in my state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
lil mortimer posted:This hot ad keeps playing on my TV: I like how they don't even say what the caregiver clause is, they just tell you it's bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I like how they don't even say what the caregiver clause is, they just tell you it's bad. I live in tallahassee and we're bombarded with ads talking about the horrors of Obama care instead of amendment 2. The funny thing is, none of them cite any stats since it went into effect and instead trot out stuff from 2011-2013.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Yes because someone who sells cannabis illegally would love to claim that they're a caregiver and be subjected to all kinds of scrutiny. Alternative Sarcasm: These drug dealers really sound like a problem. If only there was some way to render them unnecessary and drive them away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
LolitaSama posted:A few days ago, at an annual gathering of social conservatives called the Value Voters Summit, U.S. Congressman John Fleming (R-LA) gave a 17 minute speech entirely about the "dangers of marijuana legalization." It can be informative of how restrictionists will couch their anti-legalization rhetoric going forward. The whole video of it can be found on Youtube. I actually listened to this and it was a lot of the crap we'd already seen mentioned in this thread, plus the old gems from the past 40 years ("No it totally is a gateway drug"). The thing I loved the most, though, is Fleming imploring the audience that now was the time for them to speak up and make their voices heard. As if their voices, the voices of prohibition, had been silent since the War on Drugs started. That their voices weren't the only voices anyone had been hearing up until recently. These really are just a bunch of ignorant, ridiculous old men, and it's sad and also illuminating to see just how backwards the thinking of the people who run the nations of the world is for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
site posted:Thanks. Maybe it can be replaced with something like, "this is an equivalent to saying there's a problem to voter fraud and therefore we need voter ID laws when there was only like 480something cases nation wide. Maybe that was an increase from some arbitrary starting point, but if you look at the number of incidents compared to the number of medical mj users in total, this doesn't make it a 'problem' that warrants negating the whole thing." Yep, not a mathemagician. I couldn't figure out where they were getting the children under 5 accidental marijuana exposure data from, but it definitely wasn't Colorado. I have a feeling that's a statistic representing the national population misrepresented as a Colorado number to make things there look worse than they are, but I couldn't find anything conclusive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
Spoondick posted:Yep, not a mathemagician. I couldn't figure out where they were getting the children under 5 accidental marijuana exposure data from, but it definitely wasn't Colorado. I have a feeling that's a statistic representing the national population misrepresented as a Colorado number to make things there look worse than they are, but I couldn't find anything conclusive. The first number is from accidental marijuana consumption leading to an ER visit (kid found a dimebag/pot brownie and went to town). The second number is from marijuana-related exposure in general, meaning they could be including instances where people were smoking weed in front of their kid. Or the kid touched some weed. Or the kid saw some weed. They don't really define "exposure."
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
For this whole kid accidental ingestion thing, it seems a popular angle in the "omg Colorado!" narrative. Though I note they tend to phrase it as. "Increased by X percent" instead of absolute numbers, leading me to expect the absolute numbers are still unimpressive. Clearly kids ingesting weed accidentally is sub-optimal, but how severe of emergency room visits are we talking here? Are such kids in severe danger, or more in for an unpleasant trip, upset stomach, etc? In arguments I don't wand to underrate it if kids are ending up in the ICU with brain damage from eating nugs, but if it's more "feed him activated charcoal, let him sleep it off" that's a whole nother thing. Is it any as bad as, or any worse, than your kid getting a hold of a bottle of vodka, chewing up a fistful of Camels, or getting under the sink, or at guns, power tools, or a zippo?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
Both candidates for governor the other day said in a debate they have in fact smoked marijuana in the past and both candidates are opposed to legalization. *sigh*
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Is it any as bad as, or any worse, than your kid getting a hold of a bottle of vodka, chewing up a fistful of Camels, or getting under the sink, or at guns, power tools, or a zippo? The angle is that infusing sugary treats makes it more attractive to kids, which is hard to argue with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:I live in tallahassee and we're bombarded with ads talking about the horrors of Obama care instead of amendment 2. The funny thing is, none of them cite any stats since it went into effect and instead trot out stuff from 2011-2013. I'm mostly worried because I've yet to see a Yes on 2 ad anywhere, and I'm pretty sure this state is full of complete idiots. The great polls are nice and all, but I don't know if they'll hold up the closer we get to the actual day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
lil mortimer posted:I'm mostly worried because I've yet to see a Yes on 2 ad anywhere, and I'm pretty sure this state is full of complete idiots. The great polls are nice and all, but I don't know if they'll hold up the closer we get to the actual day. Likewise I haven't seen a pro-Crist commercial either. I hope it passes. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl--marijuana-ad-war-launched-20140930-story.htmlquote:Recent polls indicate support is slipping. A SurveyUSA poll this month, for example, found that 53 percent of Florida voters supported the amendment, 32 percent opposed it and 15 percent were uncertain. I've actually seen quite a few Crist ads lately. They're really hammering the "Rick Scott pled the fifth 75 times" thing. I've seen a couple different ads on that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Florida politics in general are such a clusterfuck. I've also seen more blatantly dishonest political ads here than I ever have in my life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
snorch posted:The angle is that infusing sugary treats makes it more attractive to kids, which is hard to argue with. The anti-pot campaign in Oregon is making the claim that infused sugary treats exist solely as a marketing ploy to attract young kids.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
snorch posted:The angle is that infusing sugary treats makes it more attractive to kids, which is hard to argue with. Not to mention that the packaging for infused products could use some standardization and labeling requirements, no less than any other OTC product with psychoactive effects. e:  - is that too much to ask for?
AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:
Unlike everything else you listed, there is no acute danger from kids eating weed. Don't let your kids have weed, obviously, but such an exposure in no way requires a trip to the ER. I suppose they could have a panic attack, or a fainting spell, but since there is still no record of an overdose death, I think this is all FUD.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
Jago posted:Unlike everything else you listed, there is no acute danger from kids eating weed. Don't let your kids have weed, obviously, but such an exposure in no way requires a trip to the ER. I suppose they could have a panic attack, or a fainting spell, but since there is still no record of an overdose death, I think this is all FUD. From poking around, it seems there are a few examples of very small children allegedly going into a coma from weed consumption. That said, the landmark study on that appears to be from a particular case in 1989, so it doesn't appear to be burning up the presses weekly. Here's a great Denver post article saying that the number of kids going to the emergency room for weed is "on pace to more than double last year's total." And last year's total is... eight. So basically the alarmist "surge" in the headline means "8 kids went last year, and as of July it's looking like we could hit over 16 this year." I'm lazy so I'll just use the first google hit and note that at the start of 2012 there were 1,216,485 children in Colorado. Looking further at the article, as of end-May, nine kids had gone to CO emergency room's for ingestion, of which 7 were sent to the ICU for "extreme sedation or agitation", one of whom had to be put on a respirator for breathing problems. A hospital rep said "It is important to stop it before it becomes a huge problem." Of course it's not good to have a doped-up seven year old in the emergency room, but zero deaths, presumably no severe injuries or the article would be all over that, and only one kid that needed any serious intervention, that's not exactly a case for drug-warmongering. Dug around a little, and for 2010 per Child Death Review for 0-19yr olds in Colorado, 493 deaths total out of 1,364,692 kids. Of those 493 health issues, 31 homicides (16 by firearm), 49 suicides. "Unintentional injury" was 133 total: Motor Vehicle 61 Drowning 17 Fire/Burn * Poisoning 10 Suffocation 23 Firearm * Sorta good news I suppose that CO children are only being shot to death intentionally, so decent job on overall safety standards. I'm having trouble finding poisoning stats for Colorado, but I found some good ones for another weed-voting city, DC. For the DC metro area overall (including NoVA and MD presumably), per the National Capital Poison Center, here are the calls they got in 2013: Children < 6 Years (16,655 Exposures) Substance -- No. Cosmetics/personal care products: 2,541 Cleaners: 1,758 Pain medications: 1,495 Foreign bodies: 1,359 Topical medicines: 963 Vitamins: 808 Antihistamines: 793 Batteries: 672 Plants and mushrooms: 537 Antimicrobials: 509 Pesticides: 470 Arts/crafts/office supplies: 447 Gastrointestinal preparations: 393 I think I'm veering a little off-topic here, but the overall gist is that no Colorado kids have died from eating weed, few appear to be seriously harmed, and meanwhile presumably an rear end-ton of CO kids are constantly coming into the emergency room for eating stupid things, and tens of thousands are eating other stupid things and their parents have to call the poison line. TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Not to mention that the packaging for infused products could use some standardization and labeling requirements, no less than any other OTC product with psychoactive effects. This is such a major thing that needs to be done, and it's so obvious, and so potentially lucrative too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
I've seen my second "No on Amendment 2" ad. This time, it's a fierce-looking doctor giving a no-nonsense, direct appeal to the camera about how she'd never prescribe MARIJUANA for anything, and no credible doctor would either. I can't find it online. I really hope United For Care and Yes on 2 start hitting the airwaves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
For those not aware on October 1 Colorado began to issuing licenses to new retail stores, grow facilities, and product manufacturers. Previously only established medical providers could convert to retail. The current line of thinking is that this could eventually cut retail prices in half now that the market is open. High retail prices have been an issue here and continue to send people to the black market, or cause them to sign up for a medical card and exploit that loophole.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ilw6iYOyc9s
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Not to mention that the packaging for infused products could use some standardization and labeling requirements, no less than any other OTC product with psychoactive effects. I am completely down with that, though maybe not as hugely extensive, as a basic consumer safety measure. I wish alcohol containers had slightly more info rather than just an ABV and a "don't drive/pregnant" warning on them. And frankly cigarettes are probably making the right move going towards just a small brand name and "THIS WILL KILL YOU" written across it. Is there any cool gallery somewhere of the informative labels on marijuana packaging that different producers/retailers are experimenting with? Especially since it seems reefer has all kinds of subsets and variants, clear labeling of how much X and how much Y it has in the mix (THC, CBD, and all that) seems crucial for consumers. Slight segue: now that weed is legal and prices should be dropping, will that start moderating the whole "SUPER XXX STRONG" trend? As a nonsmoker it seems to me that all anyone talks about is how amazingly powerful Strain X is and it's awesome. If this eventually becomes federally legal or I change careers and can smoke it legally in a state, I'm going to be drat annoyed if all the offerings are the equivalent of MOLSON XXX 9.8% LAGER!!! I like my beers around 4-6% alcohol, so I'd imagine I'd like a really low-key weed that I can sip on vice doing the equivalent of tequila shots of ganja.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Smoke less, problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Jago posted:Smoke less, problem solved. If I want a pint of 5% beer, that doesn't mean I'd be just as happy with a half-pint of 10%, or quarter-pint of boilermaker.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Jago posted:Smoke less, problem solved. Sometimes the smoking itself is part of the fun though. I enjoy the act of smoking, but don't enjoy tobacco. It is sometimes annoying when I want to chill and smoke a whole joint but the only semi-legal weed I have access to is ULTRA MEDICAL GRADE 9000% THC. The option of crappier corporate weed is one of the "downsides" of legalization I'm actually looking forward to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
A Time To Chill posted:Sometimes the smoking itself is part of the fun though. I enjoy the act of smoking, but don't enjoy tobacco. It is sometimes annoying when I want to chill and smoke a whole joint but the only semi-legal weed I have access to is ULTRA MEDICAL GRADE 9000% THC. The option of crappier corporate weed is one of the "downsides" of legalization I'm actually looking forward to. Have you tried cigars? I know it's tobacco, but it's not really the same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
There are tons of strains though that aren't like maxed THC varieties, they have sativa/indica mixes with different ratios of CBD to THC, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:21
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Have you tried cigars? I know it's tobacco, but it's not really the same. Yeah I enjoy them from time to time but as more of a special occasion type of thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
rscott posted:There are tons of strains though that aren't like maxed THC varieties, they have sativa/indica mixes with different ratios of CBD to THC, etc. And with legal standards for those strains* (or even just basic labeling on %-THC) people will be able to make informed decisions about the marijuana they want to buy. *Like how Bourbon is legally defined to be bottled at (minimum) 40% ABV and distilled to no higher than 80% ABV. computer parts fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
rscott posted:There are tons of strains though that aren't like maxed THC varieties, they have sativa/indica mixes with different ratios of CBD to THC, etc. Well, even if they're higher in CBD than THC, they're still all optimized to get you extremely high (at least the strains generally available at my local dispensaries). Sometimes I just want the Coors Light version of weed and that's not currently an option, outside the black market.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Slight segue: now that weed is legal and prices should be dropping, will that start moderating the whole "SUPER XXX STRONG" trend? As a nonsmoker it seems to me that all anyone talks about is how amazingly powerful Strain X is and it's awesome. If this eventually becomes federally legal or I change careers and can smoke it legally in a state, I'm going to be drat annoyed if all the offerings are the equivalent of MOLSON XXX 9.8% LAGER!!! I like my beers around 4-6% alcohol, so I'd imagine I'd like a really low-key weed that I can sip on vice doing the equivalent of tequila shots of ganja. My opinion is that you're correct, and the trend will be towards less potent strains of cannabis, and definitely weaker edibles. Everyone I know thinks weed is too strong these days. Yeah, you can just smoke less, which is cool because it lasts forever, but sometimes you want a difference experience. I like relaxing with some wine, but it wouldn't be the same experience to take little sips of tequila. The alcohol content is the same, but the experience isn't. I highly recommend making very weak canna-butter or canna-coconut oil if you would like to experience what could be. Do something like 1/8th of a regular recipe. That's the sipping wine version of edibles. Along the same lines, would anyone say that Everclear is better alcohol than a nice scotch, simply because it's stronger? Both have their uses, but I think once weed is legal we'll see the definitions change of what is considered "good" weed. I'll take something with a really nice flavor and an energizing mental effect over something that plasters me to the couch any day. This all goes hand in hand with proper labeling, and in my experience, if you talk to a smoker, 99% of them are very enthusiastic about both of these ideas. People would just do it themselves, but a surprising amount of people are intimidated with the idea of making edibles. I guess it's like brewing your own wine or beer. Suppose alcohol were illegal, and all bootleggers sold was whiskey and gin? People would still want beer and wine, but how many would go through the trouble of making it? I've been meaning to do some research into alcohol consumption during prohibition. I'm curious if there was a similar effect. Where people getting hammered on really strong poo poo because it was illegal? Did that change over to beer at some point afterwards?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
District Selectman posted:
Alcohol consumption did shift over to beer after prohibition but consumption pre-prohibition was also primarily high ABV beverages.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
District Selectman posted:I'll take something with a really nice flavor and an energizing mental effect over something that plasters me to the couch any day. That's just the difference between indica and sativa (flavor notwithstanding), not necessarily THC content. While it is refreshing to hear that some people wish they could smoke MORE weed, might I recommend a vaporization method instead? It's more gradual, and is much better for your lungs and perhaps teeth (definitely for me).
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:39 |
|
|
District Selectman posted:Along the same lines, would anyone say that Everclear is better alcohol than a nice scotch, simply because it's stronger? Both have their uses, but I think once weed is legal we'll see the definitions change of what is considered "good" weed. I'll take something with a really nice flavor and an energizing mental effect over something that plasters me to the couch any day. So smoke sativas and sativa-dominant strains? They usually don't have much CBD, which is what turns people into ravenous couch jockeys. While many strains do aim for maximum THC or CBD percentage, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of strains that have been bred for a host of other reasons. Whether it's the look of the plant of the whole or just the buds, the smell and taste, or the ability to consistently give a certain high, you can find a strain for pretty much anything. I usually keep a sativa-dominant on hand for a mentally stimulating high while spending time with friends or writing, and an indica strain for when I just I'm just vegging out. The largest factor in determining the quality is the amount of care taken in growing and curing. You can grow pretty good cannabis straight from the seeds of some lovely brick weed, and you can turn Cannabis Cup winners into lovely 3% THC weed if you grow it in the wrong climate in mixed-sex fields and cure/process it improperly. The hypothetical middling-quality corporate stuff would likely be plants grown outdoors, but in a decent climate and from clones. A better alcohol analogy would be a top-shelf single-barrel bourbon or scotch (indica and sativa) versus generic whiskey. The top-shelf stuff is amazingly good, and each brand is distinct, but you can get just as drunk from something that still tastes decent and cost 1/3 the price.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 02:08
|
|
