|
Orange Devil posted:Mushrooms are illegal now, and weed is going that way. Just out of curiosity, what do you suppose the main cause for that shift in policy is? Is it the nuisance of drug tourists, or the country becoming more conservative? Perhaps the hope that restricting cannabis to Dutch citizens will cause other countries to adopt more sensible laws of their own? I just think it's odd that a country that has for decades had successful, pragmatic drug and social policy is shifting towards restricting it to citizens only (and probably running afoul of EU policy in the process).
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2012 22:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
The Congressional Research Service put out a detailed report a few weeks ago about the implications of states legalizing cannabis: (pdf). e: here's a relevant section. Congressional Research Service posted:To What Extent Are State Medical Marijuana Laws Preempted by Federal Law? They're specifically reefering (heh) to medical cannabis there, but the same should be true in general. Broken Machine fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Nov 23, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
I would be surprised to see the feds crack down on states legalizing cannabis. It might be different had Romney won, but Obama doesn't have to worry about re-election, so he's a bit freer. A Mexican think tank released a study a short while ago (link), estimating that if cannabis had been legalized in all three states where it was on the ballot, it would cut the cartels' earnings by up to 30%. If anything, the more responsible politicians are going to look at the effect this has and once they see it's successful and having a profound impact on drug cartels, they're going to move to support this as much as they can. If laws are written in a way that they end up in court, it'll be to reconcile the state law with federal policy, and not to overturn them or bully the states into line.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
Ambrose Burnside posted:You make the assumption that politicans act to better their constituencies and not fulfill their part of the bargain to their campaign contributors, who are very frequently heavily involved in the private prison business, which thrives because of drug convictions. Sooooooo~ No, I actually agree that politicians are in the tank for various special interests. In this case, I think the wants of the prison lobby will be overridden by all of the other special interests and benefits, like the broad support behind legalization and advantages of tax revenue. Also there's nothing stopping them from diverting resources currently used for cannabis prohibition to busting people for other drugs instead.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
Chitin posted:Opiate withdrawal is often fatal - take away someone's scrip and they're often forced to turn to heroin just to stay well. This isn't really true. While unpleasant, withdrawing from opiates will not kill you. If you were in otherwise extremely poor shape otherwise, the added stress to your system could kill you, but that's more akin to dying from the flu or a cold. Alcohol and benzo withdrawal on the other hand can kill you if unmanaged. Opiate withdrawal would just make you wish you were dead.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 07:36
|
|
|
Shade2142 posted:but isn't the average opiate addict likely to be in poor shape? You would have to be in a chronically ill state where anything would kill you. Like a stage IV cancer patient. For all practical intents, no one dies from opiate withdrawal. Overdose, yes, but not withdrawal. You could think of it like having the flu - you feel awful for a few days, and in a week you're back to normal.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
Oh absolutely; it's an awful drug to be addicted to. Really we should have legal meth and opiate clinics where addicts get safe access to clean needles and drugs as well as treatment. That would really cut down on people ending with hep-c, or dopesick junkies committing crimes for their next fix. But that'd make too much sense.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
Growing quality cannabis is fairly easy these days. There's a ton of equipment available, large web communities devoted to growing, and good seeds are easy to come by. It was a bit different before the internet - harder to get good seeds and materials - but now it's not that hard. If you can follow a recipe you can grow good pot.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:He's saying that there's no conceivable way to stem a potential flood of legal weed from Washington State into Oregon along a major commuter and long haul trucking route. The Oregon cops (who are supposed to enforce laws against marijuana) can't do poo poo to all of the hundreds of thousands of people who cross the state line around Portland daily. The price in other states is already dropping, especially adjacent to legal states, according to people I've spoken with in the industry. If top shelf is going for 240 / oz in Colorado, it's not going to command that much of a premium in other states; maybe a 50% markup (360 / oz). There are some exceptions with states that really detest drug use like Missouri, but generally the price seems to be dropping about 25%. The floor is probably around 2k / lb at wholesale, or about half what it is now. Retail tops should be headed towards about 7 / gram. One of the great things about legalization is that it's significantly reducing the cash flows of cartels. Not to get too excited, but it's surprising to me how much having just two states vote for legalization has affected things. Also, I found this; it has user reported prices for all the states, and enough data points to where it should be reasonably accurate.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
I don't live in California or anything, but from what I understand there are at least some airports, like SFO that will let you board domestic flights with cannabis if you're a medical user. It's on you as to the legality once you land, but you'll get through to your destination fine. I would imagine it's going to be similar in states where it's legal. Or at least, it'll be the states setting the policy and not the feds.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yes, because you have a prescription drug without a prescription. There's a pretty good reason for not allowing that. I don't think that's true. The punishment should fit the crime; I don't think putting someone in jail for six months for having a couple of valiums is an appropriate response. Really any personal off-label use or abuse of a controlled substance should be dealt with by non-punitive means, such as offering that person treatment. Putting someone in jail and having them with a drug conviction on their record does a lot more harm than what the person was doing to themselves in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
It looks as though New Hampshire is about to join the rest of New England, and finally pass a medical cannabis bill. We don't even have any decriminalization yet - technically you can get a year in jail and a $2k fine for a roach (cops and prosecutors are usually fairly lenient in practice but still). Obviously we're not being trailblazers here. Essentially the only reason we don't already have medical cannabis is because of (now former) Governor Lynch. Previously, our House and Senate passed it, twice, only to have Lynch the Governor veto it. What an rear end in a top hat. Anyway, it looks as though 2013 is our year for medical. The House and Senate have agreed to reconcile the difference between the two versions of the bill, and then it'll go to Governor Hassan, who has said she'll pass it. The bill sort of sucks, but it's a drat sight better than the situation currently. Highlights of the bill as it stands currently include: +Up to two ounces if you're a med patient -Have to be chronically ill (cancer, AIDS, Hep C) and currently receiving heavy medication for the condition (interferons, chemo, etc) with a doctor's note -You need a signed letter from the property owner saying it's okay for you to smoke on their property -No home growing (what the hell folks) -There will be allowed a max of four or five dispensaries, to open in 2015 -No provision for an affirmative defense in court before the exchanges are set up. In other words, even if you're a medical patient who gets approved, there's no way to legally obtain or use cannabis for two years Hopefully the final version is a bit less draconian once they're done hashing it out, but it seems as though it's going to be disappointing regardless. Meanwhile, we have a rather high rate of consumption - one of the highest in the nation. Well over half of our population supports full legalization, medical polls 80%+ and we're going to pass a hugely restrictive medical bill.  the smallest
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:I think the pro-DUI crowd is underestimating people's ability to do stupid dangerous stuff. If you've read any stories of crashes caused by people smoking loving salvia while driving you'd realize that a reasonable impairment value isn't the end of the world. The salvia stuff blows my mind though - they may not know what dimension they are in, but they will probably make it to taco bell and back amirite? One main problem with an impairment level with cannabis is that establishing an impairment level for an individual that can be based on an objective measure - such as blood concentration - is difficult. Habitual, heavy smokers could be perfectly normal at a blood level that would render an infrequent user unable to function. Some strains have much shorter highs than others. If they're able to establish standards that account for that, I'd be all for it, but it will be hard and they'll have to do good research into what's appropriate. I'd rather them just give people an option for field sobriety tests instead of a blood / breath analyzer for THC. For example, from MPP: Marijuana Policy Project posted:
I'm all for sensible policy regarding driving while impaired, but at the same time you have to consider all of the other medications that, while they are legal to drive on, do impair a driver's ability to do so. Chemotherapy drugs could impair your ability to drive; so could taking many psych meds. They don't do blood tests for impairment with those, but they will conduct a field test if they suspect you're DUI. If you fail they will charge you accordingly. It is different from alcohol, and whatever policy is enacted needs to reflect that. Personally I'm all for just using field tests - you can pass a field test, you can drive home.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
Devyl posted:Money is a hell of a thing. I think with CO and WA being pioneers, they're going to cash in on a lot of heightened tourism due to being legal. Once other medical states see this, they'll probably want to rake in some of that sweet sweet tourism money too. Just wait until some really boring states legalize it and try to cash in. Come to Idaho! You can get high and... drat. You'll be really high though!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2013 03:02
|
|
|
twodot posted:Is this true? If it's true at all, I would guess that it would come down to race. If you buy in a legal state, there is no chance of being arrested at purchase. Driving with marijuana is only dangerous if you both get pulled over and searched. I've never been in a car that was searched by the police and I've been pulled over exactly once, but my demographic is definitely less likely to be pulled over or searched. It depends on where you're going but yes, driving around with drugs across state lines is potentially quite risky. First, consider that if you have a drug conviction - even a misdemeanor - on your record, even if it's just for weed, you're significantly curtailing future employment prospects. Specifically with respect to Colorado, if you're travelling East, the LE in counties in Western Kansas (really the Western 2/3rds of the state) have nothing better to do, and a vested interest in pulling you over and arresting you for cannabis. If you had a large enough amount they would probably charge you for distribution. If you kept travelling East into Missouri the laws and your prospects get worse. People need to keep in mind that in states like California, it's no big deal but in states like Missouri they can give you seven years in jail, and a 5k fine for over 35 grams. In Louisiana they can give you 20 years in Angola for a roach if it's a third offense (and yes, this does happen). It's a profitable game for them and not one that I would want to play; the risk just isn't worth the reward. If you do, despite the risks decide to do this regardless, secure it in your trunk, don't speed above 5 mph, have your car in good repair and completely innocuous (all the lights work, registration in glove box, insurance etc). Know the laws, don't drive inebriated in any way and be safe.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
twodot posted:Even if I grant you this (and I'm not prepared to), this doesn't support the contention. The claim that driving through western Kansas with marijuana is more dangerous than purchasing marijuana and driving home where you are going to (which, if you are crossing the border to purchase drugs, is presumably near Colorado, so very possibly, western Kansas). Even if random searches are more common around the Colorado border, we would need to compare that to random drug busts and random searches at whatever the destination is. Whatever man, I used to live next door to a cop that did drug interdiction on I-70 in Kansas and talked to him about it. It's your rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
It is up to a year in jail for a first offense in KS, and that's for any amount, even just a roach or a tiny bud. If it's a second offense it's a mandatory minimum 10 months in jail, and the fine is up to 100k. Seriously the Sunflower state is just a bad place to be driving around with weed, especially if you have out of state plates. The only good place to be in KS with weed is Lawrence, as they have decriminalized it in the city and Lawrence is cool.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
LuciferMorningstar posted:Really? If you read your article, it's a ticket. Compare a ticket with a year in jail. e: oh that's hosed up. Anyway my source on that was a cop friend at KU, so I didn't know they could technically still give you jail time. I would state that the police in Lawrence, and the courts there are unlikely to deal with it harshly unless you're being really irresponsible about it. Broken Machine fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Jun 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
Muck and Mire posted:Uhh, you know what happens when you get caught with drugs in America right? In a lot of places weed will just get you fined, but it's also one of the main ways we feed the prison-industrial complex. Not smoking weed because you don't want your life ruined by the American penal system is a pretty grown-up choice. On the other hand, Martin Luther King argued that we have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws. Suppose someone who eventually goes to work at the DEA had a friend who smoked cannabis, and they had a bunch of misconceptions about it beforehand. Through that friendship, it softened their view of it, dispelled some of the propaganda, and they then did what they could to improve DEA policy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Idran posted:I don't get why you're talking to one of the major pro-legalization posters in this thread like he's a crazy right-winger? He's talking about the decrease in lung function that's associated with inhaling smoke of any kind over the course of years, not about the effect of THC on the body. Which, yes, is less with marijuana users as compared to cigarette smokers, but that's more a function of people that smoke marijuana smoking far less often than those that smoke tobacco; even so, there's still a measurable loss of pulmonary function in those that have smoked marijuana for years. Human lungs just aren't built for handling particulate matter well. Actual studies on the matter are, at best, inconclusive. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/738255_4 medcscape posted:Smokers of marijuana had no significant difference in FEV1, FVC, FEV1/FVC or diffusion lung capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) compared with nonsmokers. These spirometry findings were similar in a number of other studies, both cross-sectional and longitudinal.[4,12,17] Interestingly, however, there was a modest but statistically significant increase in airway resistance and reduction in specific airway conductance in smokers of marijuana compared with both nonsmokers and tobacco smokers In general, inhaling plant matter into your lungs is not good for you; however, cannabis smoke specifically is a bronchodilator, which appears to mitigate the negative effects of inhaling smoke. Or you could just ingest it in another manner and avoid the issue entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
Misandrist Duck posted:Dick Durbin introduced a bill two weeks ago that, among other things, would allow people sentenced under the now abolished crack laws to petition for shorter sentences http://www.durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=be68ad86-a0a4-4486-853f-f8ef7b99e736 They didn't really abolish the crack laws, they just lessened the sentencing disparity from 100:1 to 18:1. Which really makes no drat sense, but it is a bit better than it was. Still, it's nice to see that hopefully those who received particularly harsh sentences will have some relief.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
For what it's worth, I remember a poll of a bunch of habitual smokers with ready access to top strains, and most of them puffed less than 2 oz. / month, average was around an ounce. If you have access to good, potent weed there's just no reason to puff that much. Even if your joints weighed a half a gram, that's a quarter a day, or about a half pound a month. You'd hardly notice a difference in the effects with the tolerance you'd have. I suppose if you just really enjoyed the act itself but it seems silly. Feel free to do so though, I couldn't care 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
RAND, a well-respected think tank, released a study in 2010 about the effect of legalization on the price. They predicted a drop in price of around 80%, to as little as $38 /ounce before tax. Here's an article discussing it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
Even arch-conservatives are voicing their support for taxation and legalization. National Journal ran an article today about Grover Norquist's position on it. He enthusiastically supported it, explaining that it wasn't really a tax increase:Grover posted:"When you legalize something and more people do more of it and the government gets more revenue because there's more of it ... that's not a tax increase," he explains. "The tax goes from 100 percent, meaning its illegal, to whatever the tax is." But really who cares, aside from the fact that his support means that GOP legislators are now in the clear.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
Cannabis laws in Louisiana are bizarre. They currently have some of the harshest on the books, due in part to their history as a port for smuggling. If you're charged with simple possession of less than 60 pounds, they can give you a fine of up to $500 for the first offense, and / or up to six months in jail. For a second offense it goes up to a max of $2500 and five years, and third time it's $5000 and 20 years in jail. But they don't even have to fine you or give you any jail time. It's not even classed as a misdemeanor. So they can, at their discretion, arrest someone and give them 20 years in prison for getting busted three times with a roach, while at the same time letting someone walk away scot-free after getting busted with 50lbs. They also have one of the highest arrest rates for it, roughly fifth. They actually did pass a bill through their House earlier this year to reform their sentencing, but the Senate didn't bring it to the floor. I really don't know what they'll do going forward, but it's sure to be a crooked game with kickbacks whatever they do.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Yeah but generally, are drinking-in-public laws used against people literally stumbling down Main St with a fifth, or people stoop drinking? Same goes for smoking-in-public laws. This has been settled in [Denver] Colorado at least; they found it legal for you to smoke cannabis on your porch or in your front yard.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:cool way to blame the DEA while lining your own pocket!! If prices have remained constant while quality has gone way up, then in effect the prices have dropped. If you want a real world comparison, look at the cost of opiate narcotics, which command about 10 times the price when sold illegally. Earlier in the thread I linked a RAND study where they estimate the cost of legal cannabis at about $35 / ounce before taxes. I can't find any easy sources, but if someone were to look up alcohol prices during and after prohibition, that'd be cool.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
Jeffrey posted:The governor says she'll veto it though, so we'll see. Still a major accomplishment, they are the first state legislative chamber to pass a legalization bill. I doubt it'll pass the Senate either. It's a good step forward, I suppose, but nh won't be the first state in the Northeast to legalize. I think what's most likely to happen is Maine will legalize in 2016, with the rest of the states in New England following - probably Massachusetts would be next. It's already not that big of a deal, but it'd be really nice to have retail stores and not even have to worry about any legal issues.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:I assume you meant 30% tax, not 30$? Nope; the proposal is a flat $30 tax per ounce.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
About 3% of California's energy consumption is estimated to be used for growing cannabis (source). Nationwide it's around a percent of all energy. When it finally goes legal, some of that will move to outdoor cultivation. Not all of it will, but a considerable amount. How much tobacco is grown indoors, or other crops? Legalization will be good for the environment.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Salt Fish posted:The everclear analogy is poo poo because edibles aren't "intense" by nature. They aren't somehow stronger than other routes of administration. The issue with edibles is that you aren't sure what the dose is and you aren't sure how quickly you'll metabolize the dose which introduces an element of chance in to your actual blood concentration of the active ingredient. Its just as easy to dose and end up feeling nothing as it is to dose and end up deeper than you wanted. One key difference between an edible and other methods of consumption is that you can fit a huge amount of cannabis into an edible, and with the delayed onset there's a lot of potential for overconsuption. How about a brownie with a quarter ounce of quality hash? You would be hard pressed to physically ingest that heavy of a dose in another fashion. If someone is given an edible, they should be clear on how strong it is. What would be ideal is if consumers had access to products of various strengths, and were able to make educated decisions based on their desires and experience. Whereas at the moment, some people are getting much higher than they'd like, and (in my opinion) there aren't enough options at the moment for those who want a product that's less potent.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:With all the talk of "up-to one year in prison" does this actually ever happen to anymore? http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/09/half-ounce-of-pot-gets-louisiana-man-twenty-years-in-prison/
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
snorch posted:Also remember that lady who lost child custody and now faces some heavy jail time claims cannabis is the only drug she has found that enables her to be a functional mom. Ah yes, I believe you're remembering this story from the fine state of Kansas. A mother and fine parent who lives there was taking cannabis oil to manage Crohn's disease, after doctors had previously written her condition off as untreatable, and previous treatments had failed; they actually had her on fentanyl to ease her passing as they figured she was going to die soon. Cannabis oil worked well enough that she was more or less okay. Unfortunately, she lives in Kansas and her son got to talking during an anti-drug propaganda event at his school, so of course the school called police, police got a warrant and mom is now facing the loss of her son and lots of jail time. They've already taken her son for the time being and charged her with distribution. She's facing 30 years in jail, has lost custody of her son and her health is now deteriorating.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Y'know guys, I was thinking, isn't it time we: You know, I disagree with all of their conclusions as to how to deal with it, and I don't think it's a drop in the bucket compared with abuse / overdose of legal opiates, but there are way too many people dying from heroin and it is getting a lot worse. Right now I'm in a sleepy little town with about 10k people. We have on average at least one overdose a week, and the other day I saw a junkie who just shot up - in a park right downtown, in broad daylight. Massachusetts is working on dealing with it as a health issue, so are we and I hope we get a handle on it because (combined with pharmaceuticals) it's ruining a lot of lives. I mean it's dumb to look at the issue and go "hmm yes, let's restart 40 years of bad policy that doesn't work", but it's a difficult issue that needs to be addressed, and it has gotten markedly worse just over the last few years. No one is looking at the epidemic of caffeine deaths and suggesting we ban caffeine and go after the suppliers though. I don't think that's realistic.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2015 10:22
|
|
|
OniPanda posted:Restart? Other than the softening stance on weed, they have pursuing the war on drugs as viciously as they ever have. And poo poo has actually gotten worse, what with civil asset forfeiture. Maybe it's just the wars over the past decade coloring my perceptions or whatever but after almost eight years of Obama, it seems as though the war on drugs has been at a low. I think many of those responsible for enforcement of drug laws are taking another look at the drug problem and rethinking it as a health issue, particularly with respect to decriminalizing consumption of drugs, rather than focusing on the cartels or other supply / demand reduction methods that don't work. With the growth of online drug markets and widespread research chemicals, along with other factors the drugs appear to be winning on that front. Not that it's so much the result of official policy changes, but the availability of most drugs, and abuse of research chemicals seem to be up considerably. Bath salts are worse than meth. Heroin deaths are approaching prescription opiate levels. Policymakers need to figure out how to adapt to those realities and advance policies that help. and I think more are realizing that all the time.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2015 12:12
|
|
|
FreshlyShaven posted:Rhetoric has shifted considerably in the past decade but laws haven't. Getting caught with 100 dollars worth of opiate pills in MA can still get you sent to prison for decades. They're in the process of changing the laws, and have already done a lot. Officers now have good access to naloxone, and addicts have an easier time getting maintenance and treatment if they end up in jails. There's a pilot program in Gloucester that's offering free treatment to addicts, no questions asked. The legislature is working on reforming laws to prioritize treatment over punishment, and there are pilot programs in place in some areas. They're working on it. quote:And research chemicals have little to do with the rise in opiate addiction. Not directly, but rcs are helping push legalization / decrim of many drugs. Meth isn't good, but when faced with the alternative of people taking novel amphetamines instead to pass a drug test, it changes things. If someone who has been a functional meth addict takes bath salts and goes psychotic, or causes permanent damage to themselves and others, far above what they were doing on meth, lawmakers start thinking about what they can do to reduce the harm. I think synthetic cannabinoids have similarly helped cannabis decrim. With opiates, it's a bit different as they're out of your system in a few days but people thinking about harm reduction is causing them to reconsider their stances.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
As I said earlier, it's still a lesser problem than prescription drug abuse, but deaths due to heroin are way up. From the data you posted, deaths went from 4,397 in 2011 to 8,257 in 2013. That's almost double in two years. Usage rates may not have changed much, but availability is up and deaths are way up. quote:Did we read the same article? The FDA is seriously leaning on suppliers of pure caffeine and some caffeinated products. Asking politely for companies to please stop selling concentrated caffeine is pretty different from attempting to ban or shut down / raid manufacturers. Point being that caffeine can be a dangerous drug, but happens to be one that's viewed positively by society. It illustrates how arbitrary our drug policies are; no one would consider attempting to ban it in response.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Reminder that RI and VT have been the two states with the credible chance of legalizing Recreational legislatively prior to the 2016 election. I've been following the Vermont legalization push, and one other thing is what they're actually legalizing at this point after bargaining through committee is a half ounce, and retail sales in state stores. It's going to be rather restrictive at first which is fine but I'm a bit disappointed it's not even an ounce. At this point even if they pass it, it isn't scheduled to take effect until 2018. I understand their concerns though - if they're the first state anywhere nearby with fully legal sales, they really don't want people diverting that to other states. There is a good chance it's going to pass.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2016 16:51
|
|