|
Jonny 290 posted:Seeing cannabis products be used effectively instead of opiates for palliative care and such may swing some people, hopefully; IIRC Ireland's had a bit of a heroin explosion lately. Is there anywhere on earth that hasn't had an explosion of opiate use lately? If cannabis legalization can be shown to effectively decrease opiate addiction or death rates, I think you'll see a move toward legalization pretty much everywhere. Unfortunately, this explosion has been happening as cannabis becomes more socially and legally acceptable in North America, so even though those two things are probably unrelated, the data may not look so good.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:35 |
|
|
Not to derail off our favorite plant, but people have discerned a sea change in the tone of opiate arguments, now that white middle and upper-middle class people are fragging out their entire families with opiate abuse. Huge wave of "Are we treating addicts properly?" " A bit of compassion for Fentanyl addicts" articles and things like that. I think awareness might be up, though for of course self-centered, racist reasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Opiates and weed kinda breaks down to three issues: -- is cannabis safer than opiates for pain control while still being effective? -- can cannabis be used to treat opiate addiction? -- does the availability of cannabis provide an appealing alternative to opiates for people that just need to abuse something recreationally? I'm not spun-up on which med journals are good and which newspapers are citing good studies vice clickbaiting, but from a cursory glance there seems to be a growing argument for "yes" for all three, to varying degrees. Specifically there's been mainstream media reporting that opiate overdose deaths are relatively down in the states that have legalized weed, which at least on a gut level sound significant. Note that this slows down the anti-weed folks, plenty of them arguing "hmmm, people are legalizing weed and opiate ODs are up, it's obvious!". IIRC Maine in particular had people pushing "Maine has an opiate problem, why add *more* drugs to the mix?" These arguments may seem pretty ridiculous to a lot of us reading the thread, but apparently that message actually works on some significant portion of people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
American legion goes to bat for rescheduling
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Is there anywhere on earth that hasn't had an explosion of opiate use lately? If cannabis legalization can be shown to effectively decrease opiate addiction or death rates, I think you'll see a move toward legalization pretty much everywhere. Unfortunately, this explosion has been happening as cannabis becomes more socially and legally acceptable in North America, so even though those two things are probably unrelated, the data may not look so good. You don't even really need to go that far, there have been some really cool economics studies (prior to active legalization!) that a percentage of alcoholics will switch directly to marijuana abuse if it's available (and the overall percentage of substance abusers doesn't particularly go up). This is good and important because alcohol abuse is pretty-much-undebateably worse in pretty much every way than marijuana abuse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Jonny 290 posted:Not to derail off our favorite plant, but people have discerned a sea change in the tone of opiate arguments, now that white middle and upper-middle class people are fragging out their entire families with opiate abuse. Huge wave of "Are we treating addicts properly?" " A bit of compassion for Fentanyl addicts" articles and things like that. I think awareness might be up, though for of course self-centered, racist reasons. I think you are absolutely right but I'm not gonna look a gift horse in the mouth. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
GonadTheBallbarian posted:American legion goes to bat for rescheduling I think MDMA and psilocybin will get Schedule II status before weed gets Schedule III. I'm not even joking, the FDA and DEA are so inside the box that a pill no matter the effects is more "medicine" than a smoked plant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I think you are absolutely right but I'm not gonna look a gift horse in the mouth. Similar for veterans and PTSD: it's not a bad-faith argument, but it's a really niche one, but I'm fine with that if it helps convince otherwise-recalcitrant folks that there are legit uses for cannabis. Speaking as a combat vet, anything that empirically helps to keep (even just some) vets from drinking themselves to death is probably a general public good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
Apropos of both vets and opiates, ran across this little snippet of data on GoogleBooks, citing the main academic who wrote about US troops smoking weed during the Vietnam War:quote:Dr. Zinberg reported back that the army's anti marijuana campaign increased the use of heroin in Vietnam.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
For other US events to watch for, expect to see a vote on legalization in Michigan in 2018. Michigan would've voted along with the rest this November, but rules changes screwed over a bunch of their petition signatures and they were left off the ballot. They're looking at a Supreme Court case to get their signatures accepted, but also standing by to do a new petitioning run if they get shot down. In either case, 2018 vote appears to be the goal: http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/09/petition_drive_planned_for_201.html Medical cannabis also got hung up in Oklahoma despite having enough votes, so that one also is expected to be pushed back to 2018. Until November 2018, mainly we're watching to see what the new Trump administration does, and which states try to legalize medical or recreational cannabis legislatively. Vermont, Rhode Island, or maybe New Jersey or Connecticut seem like relatively likely states to legislatively legalize, but I'd expect that barring a complete federal stompdown we'll see a few states legislatively bring in CBD oil or medical marijuana in an attempt to stave off ballot initiatives which might be more aggressive. Recall, only six states don't allow even CBD oil, so watch for one of those to at least make the minor concession in the next couple years. But again, a lot of this is going to depend on the Trump admin stance on cannabis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
I would find it so odd to see New Jersey legalize yet leave New York behind. I'm sure the overwhelming majority of NJ Weed would end up right in NYC.
Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Dec 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
Weed laws and medical mj is great and all, but I think one of the major issues yet to be dealt with, and one of the most effective ways for feds to gently caress with weed manufacturers or whatever, is banking http://www.wsj.com/articles/marijuana-companies-stuck-doing-business-the-old-fashioned-way-in-cash-1459416605 Are there any changes looming that will allow people in the mj industry to do legit banking?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
shove me like you do posted:The big questions for me right now (operating under a "legalization is a matter of time" perspective) mostly pertain to how the pot market itself will play out. Personal anecdotal experience in IT is companies that don't deal with things like computer security is they know if they drug tested the IT department they would no longer have an IT department. While reading up on Massachusetts there was a quote from someone in Colorado saying the same thing for the ski resorts, they know if they cracked down they'd go out of business. Throwaway employees like Walmart cashiers still get tested for hiring but after that the main use seems to be getting out of paying for workplace injuries. Dispensaries in Mass will probably not be that big, its going to take an estimated 2 years (why I have no idea) for the legislature to set up an agency to regulate but as of Thursday you can just grow at home. 6 plants per person/max 12 per household with I think half can be immature and half flowering, you can give away up to an ounce to people. With the ability to use much cheaper LED's for growing everyone I know who smokes is just waiting till Thursday to order their first seeds. Why pay dispensary prices and tax when you can just grow a shitload.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Personal anecdotal experience in IT is companies that don't deal with things like computer security is they know if they drug tested the IT department they would no longer have an IT department. While reading up on Massachusetts there was a quote from someone in Colorado saying the same thing for the ski resorts, they know if they cracked down they'd go out of business. Throwaway employees like Walmart cashiers still get tested for hiring but after that the main use seems to be getting out of paying for workplace injuries. Amusingly this problem extends to government agencies including the FBI and NSA which are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit competent IT workers given their strict rules on past use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
The No on 1 campaign in Maine, the folks who demanded a recount and are slowing up the recognition of legal cannabis in Maine, couldn't even manage to drum up the 10 volunteers they're supposed to supply to help with the hand recount, until a couple days in when they managed to scramble people. When called out, they got pretty huffy about it: quote:Augur bristled at criticism about volunteer numbers from the Yes on 1 campaign, pointing out that the opposition campaign is not as well funded and relies on a grassroots group of volunteers who have full-time jobs. I'm not seeing any signs that finding 3,000 mis-counted ballots is likely, out of the 750,00 ballots cast, but counting all those by hand is going to take a while, so not any chance of a (legal) Green Christmas in Maine this year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Don't they have an interest in miscounting them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
SSJ_naruto_2003 posted:Don't they have an interest in miscounting them? I'll assume at least *some* good faith and rephrase that as "they have an incentive to have people on their team contribute to a critical look at the count". But yeah, couldn't even round up 10 at first so fell back on the anti-protest classic "well *our* people actually have jobs so they're too busy". If you can't find 10 bored retirees in Maine who dislike weed, that's saying something. I haven't seen any good speculation as to what their actual goal is here, short of just "cross fingers and hope that somehow 3,000+ ballots are dicked up or miscounted". Just me personally I'm curious if some of this is just a stalling tactic hoping that some Federal move in the meantime changes the balance and gives the governor top-cover to just strike down the whole measure somehow. But the recount shouldn't last long enough for Trump to get confirmed, much less get Sessions into place, so again not really clear on what they're trying to do here other than just being spiteful and wasting a half-mil of taxpayer dollars. As a minor sidenote, I note the anti-weed side loves to use the David v. Goliath argument with the "poor put-upon little defenders of the right are we, facing down Big Marijuana and its profit-seekers". Instead of, you know, admitting that they basically have the entire federal government and nearly a century of legal momentum on their side. I would not be at all surprised if that was literally a provided talking point from SAM or some similar group, since it seems a recurring argument they use to try to draw sympathy. Man, I hate SAM so much, so freaking disingenuous, basically a textbook example of concern-trolling. Their leader Kevin Sabet loves to do the whole "look folks, I couldn't care less if someone wants to hang out in their basement and smoke a joint while watching a movie, but I'm deeply concerned about Our Kids and Big Marijuana". Of course, SAM doesn't back any measures that would, say, decriminalize cannabis for adults while prosecuting provision to kids, because they're totally fine with the status-quo and exist solely to pump the brakes as hard as they can.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:I haven't seen any good speculation as to what their actual goal is here It's a stalling tactic. La Page is going to try to get the pot thing stopped at a federal level. If the opponents just slow things up and take a long time finding volunteers and count really slow and start over a bunch of times or whatever they buy enough time for the governor to work out his plan to use trump to use federal resources to stop pot sale or use. He then plans to change the rules on referendums so it's harder for maine to pass any by changing the way signatures need to be distributed. There is no real meaningful recount. It's just a way to buy some days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Dmitri-9 posted:I think MDMA and psilocybin will get Schedule II status before weed gets Schedule III. I'm not even joking, the FDA and DEA are so inside the box that a pill no matter the effects is more "medicine" than a smoked plant. To be fair, effective medical treatment usually requires reasonably precise control over drug doses. That tends to be tricky when you're directly ingesting the plant instead of isolating the chemical you want from it - variations in plant genetics and growing conditions can result in wildly varying concentrations of the medicinal chemicals. TapTheForwardAssist posted:As a minor sidenote, I note the anti-weed side loves to use the David v. Goliath argument with the "poor put-upon little defenders of the right are we, facing down Big Marijuana and its profit-seekers". Instead of, you know, admitting that they basically have the entire federal government and nearly a century of legal momentum on their side. I would not be at all surprised if that was literally a provided talking point from SAM or some similar group, since it seems a recurring argument they use to try to draw sympathy. That sounds exactly like the people arguing against gay marriage. Many of them had essentially taken the position that living in a society which doesn't force people to live by their religious doctrine was a violation of their religious freedom.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's a stalling tactic. La Page is going to try to get the pot thing stopped at a federal level. If the opponents just slow things up and take a long time finding volunteers and count really slow and start over a bunch of times or whatever they buy enough time for the governor to work out his plan to use trump to use federal resources to stop pot sale or use. He then plans to change the rules on referendums so it's harder for maine to pass any by changing the way signatures need to be distributed. There is no real meaningful recount. It's just a way to buy some days. This is kind of what I expect it is. The only good-faith reason for what they're doing would be "we genuinely believe our electoral system has a margin-of-error over 1% so let's flip the coin and see if it comes up our way this time." If you see any investigative writeups that more firmly flesh out how this can be a stalling conspiracy, that'd be useful for the thread. quote:That sounds exactly like the people arguing against gay marriage. Many of them had essentially taken the position that living in a society which doesn't force people to live by their religious doctrine was a violation of their religious freedom. It's kind of even weirder than that, it's like some anti-marriage group saying "we have no objections to people filing income tax jointly and getting all the other administrative perks, we just object to it being called 'marriage' on religious grounds." Then when you point our there's a bill to fully legalize "civil unions" in Alabama, they just clam up and walk away whistling. Do we have any Euro-goons who are following the topic closely? To my eyes, if anyone is going to go full-legal anytime soon in Europe, Italy looks to be the most promising candidate. Exception could be if Catalonia does secede from Spain, since they seem way more pro-pot in that region than in the rest of the country. That said, it'll be interesting to see if Europe (in the near future) at all goes for Colorado/Uruguay-style full legal, or does more of what Spain and the Netherlands do, "decriminalizing" without fully legalizing and just shrugging their shoulders as de-facto legalization fills in the legal gray area. In recent news, Denmark *had* been doing that for a long while in one neighborhood of Copenhagen, a squat-collective called Christiania. Until very recently, they had hashish stalls set up like they were food trucks down one whole segment of the neighborhood, hundreds of customers milling around and buying hash to smoke while playing backgammon on the patios. It wasn't technically legal but the authorities were willing to turn a blind eye so long as the area stayed calm, though they did infiltrate the area trying to ferret out the actual wholesalers and nail them elsewhere. But just this fall the cops stopped one of the bag-runners for the dealers and he shot some cops, so the neighborhood itself voted to tear down all the stalls on "Pusher Street" and ask people to stop coming to their neighborhood to buy weed: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/02/denmark-copenhagen-christiania-residents-demolish-drug-stalls-after-shooting 
TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:In recent news, Denmark *had* been doing that for a long while in one neighborhood of Copenhagen, a squat-collective called Christiania. Until very recently, they had hashish stalls set up like they were food trucks down one whole segment of the neighborhood, hundreds of customers milling around and buying hash to smoke while playing backgammon on the patios. It wasn't technically legal but the authorities were willing to turn a blind eye so long as the area stayed calm, though they did infiltrate the area trying to ferret out the actual wholesalers and nail them elsewhere. But just this fall the cops stopped one of the bag-runners for the dealers and he shot some cops, so the neighborhood itself voted to tear down all the stalls on "Pusher Street" and ask people to stop coming to their neighborhood to buy weed: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/02/denmark-copenhagen-christiania-residents-demolish-drug-stalls-after-shooting
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 12:14
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:To be fair, effective medical treatment usually requires reasonably precise control over drug doses. That tends to be tricky when you're directly ingesting the plant instead of isolating the chemical you want from it - variations in plant genetics and growing conditions can result in wildly varying concentrations of the medicinal chemicals. Morphine, Codeine and Thebaine are all made from opium poppies (And thebaine is used to make the semisynthetics like oxycodone, hydrocodone made from codeine etc), granted there are somethings like 500 active cannabidiods and cannabidiols beyond just THC but I don't think extracting the desired chemicals isn't that hard. People have been creating their own strains for specific uses like sleep, pain relief, nausea, appetite and 'just get hosed up' for quite awhile. I think the pharmaceutical industry could figure it out. There's also a couple people still on government provided weed from like a decade or two ago, they get tins full of joints grown by the government every month. They somehow were grandfathered in after they stopped the program but they smoke them and it works fine. One guy was on an early Penn & Teller Bullshit episode, guy smokes like 20 a day and is I think a lawyer, I doubt he gets the get hosed up strain  Edit The "Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program", only 30 people got in, 4 left. 
Toasticle fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:To be fair, effective medical treatment usually requires reasonably precise control over drug doses. That tends to be tricky when you're directly ingesting the plant instead of isolating the chemical you want from it - variations in plant genetics and growing conditions can result in wildly varying concentrations of the medicinal chemicals. Not necessarily. That would be true if marijuana were used to control, say, high blood pressure or to fight off an infection. But marijuana is used medicinally as a palliative treatment, ie. to treat the symptoms. By definition, the appropriate dose is the minimum dose which eases the symptoms and since the severity of symptoms can vary widely from individual to individual and even day-to-day or hour-to-hour for an individual, that dose is impossible to standardize. Because cannabinoids enter your bloodstream very quickly when you smoke or vaporize marijuana, it's very easy for users to titrate their dosage and stop ingesting cannabis when they've taken enough to treat the symptoms. What good is a standardized dosage system if you're using cannabis for chemo-related nausea and you need one dose on Monday, a lower dose on Tuesday, a huge dose on Thursday and a tiny dose on Friday?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:To be fair, effective medical treatment usually requires reasonably precise control over drug doses. That tends to be tricky when you're directly ingesting the plant instead of isolating the chemical you want from it - variations in plant genetics and growing conditions can result in wildly varying concentrations of the medicinal chemicals. Unfortunately the DEA uses the perfectly reasonable standards of medical science to stonewall any research because they know medicalization will change the attitudes about marijuana in general. It is extremely telling how CBD was handled in the US. Raphael Mechoulam discovered the anti-seizure properties of CBD in the 70s but it wasn't until Colorado legalized and was able to manufacture huge quantities of it could anyone take advantage of it. If they really cared about "identifying which parts of the plant" they want want to legalize like they said they could have had a 40 year head start. FreshlyShaven posted:Not necessarily. That would be true if marijuana were used to control, say, high blood pressure or to fight off an infection. But marijuana is used medicinally as a palliative treatment, ie. to treat the symptoms. By definition, the appropriate dose is the minimum dose which eases the symptoms and since the severity of symptoms can vary widely from individual to individual and even day-to-day or hour-to-hour for an individual, that dose is impossible to standardize. Because cannabinoids enter your bloodstream very quickly when you smoke or vaporize marijuana, it's very easy for users to titrate their dosage and stop ingesting cannabis when they've taken enough to treat the symptoms. What good is a standardized dosage system if you're using cannabis for chemo-related nausea and you need one dose on Monday, a lower dose on Tuesday, a huge dose on Thursday and a tiny dose on Friday? Also the medical marijuana community is way ahead of medical science in recognizing the "entourage effect" of different cannabinoids and terpenes. Dmitri-9 fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
One of my old bosses' kids literally cannot function without CBD oil. It's sad his seizures are so severe without 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Dmitri-9 posted:Unfortunately the DEA uses the perfectly reasonable standards of medical science to stonewall any research because they know medicalization will change the attitudes about marijuana in general. I know the DEA refused to move weed from Schedule 1 recently (No recognized medicinal use) which is how they've managed to block any testing for not just marijuana but things like MDMA and I think LSD for PTSD. Its a nice catch-22, you can't have any to test for treating anything because we've already decided there is no legitimate medical use. That whole system needs to change, the DEA can 'emergency' schedule a drug but they are supposed to then prove it to keep it scheduled and for the last decade I don't think they've even bothered with step 2, nevermind they don't have to ask you know, doctors, they can just make it illegal because they say so. If there finally was an AMA or whoever recognized use can the DEA still refuse to move it to Schedule II? It's depressing enough with THC, MDMA also because I've read that for things like PTSD its amazingly effective. To leave people struggling with PTSD because the drug happens to also really fun is just loving evil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:I know the DEA refused to move weed from Schedule 1 recently (No recognized medicinal use) which is how they've managed to block any testing for not just marijuana but things like MDMA and I think LSD for PTSD. Its a nice catch-22, you can't have any to test for treating anything because we've already decided there is no legitimate medical use. That whole system needs to change, the DEA can 'emergency' schedule a drug but they are supposed to then prove it to keep it scheduled and for the last decade I don't think they've even bothered with step 2, nevermind they don't have to ask you know, doctors, they can just make it illegal because they say so. No the FDA has already approved Phase 2 trials for MDMA: http://www.sciencealert.com/the-fda-just-approved-the-largest-clinical-trial-on-ecstasy-to-date There was no NIDA research embargo on the other Schedule 1 drugs just cannabis. I'm sure you need a DEA license and everything but once they have FDA approved clinical trials they will probably reschedule. One of the problems with cannabis was that the FDA and DEA kept passing the buck to each other because there were no approved clinical trials because no lab could source it in the quantities needed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:This is kind of what I expect it is. The only good-faith reason for what they're doing would be "we genuinely believe our electoral system has a margin-of-error over 1% so let's flip the coin and see if it comes up our way this time." It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a thing he's said, his plans on this issue is to "delay, delay" then ask trump to put a stop to it when trump is in power. http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...n&ct=clnk&gl=us
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
So what's the level of concern here, if any, that our new law and order President is going to unleash AG Sessions to crack down on all these people violating Federal law? It's low hanging fruit for Sessions to prove his bonafides.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
It's more a question of practicality than anything. It'd take an absolutely ridiculous increase in funding, some way to overcome the courts being less likely to convict over low level offenses, and a huge number of suits on tenth amendment grounds. Still, I'm pretty horrified at the prospect despite the hurdles needed to be cleared.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a thing he's said, his plans on this issue is to "delay, delay" then ask trump to put a stop to it when trump is in power. Oh, I agree it's openly stated that the governor is stalling, just idly wondering if the *recount* is purely a "help the governor stall longer" tactic or whether there's another calculus to it. TapTheForwardAssist fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
Dmitri-9 posted:No the FDA has already approved Phase 2 trials for MDMA: Excellent. I used to follow MAPS attempts at getting it approved years ago but hadn't followed up. quote:There was no NIDA research embargo on the other Schedule 1 drugs just cannabis. I'm sure you need a DEA license and everything but once they have FDA approved clinical trials they will probably reschedule. One of the problems with cannabis was that the FDA and DEA kept passing the buck to each other because there were no approved clinical trials because no lab could source it in the quantities needed. Bolded is my question, I'm not aware of anything that makes the DEA have to even pay attention to the FDA/AMA and I sure as hell don't expect them to do anything except ignore it. Is there anything that requires them to even listen seeing as they can ignore the medical community when 'emergency' scheduling anything. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
So, should I be sure to buy that sweet vaporizer I've had my eye on before Jan. 20, or are we reasonably sure those manufacturers will be safe?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Dmitri-9 posted:There was no NIDA research embargo on the other Schedule 1 drugs just cannabis. I'm sure you need a DEA license and everything The first chapter or two of Rick Stassman's decent book DMT: The Spirit Molecule does a pretty good job laying out the hoops he had to jump through to legally administer DMT to humans. It's a good read for anyone with an interest in the subject, even if the end result of the work described was completely losing his pure-science perspective and then going on to write another book speculating as to whether or not DMT might actually allow communication with some kind of cosmic alien hive mind. (To be fair, I think this just shows the perils of trying to pin down ontology with chemistry in a lab setting; some of these questions have no answer. My own takeaway from DMT was "that was loving weird, intense, and 'real', I have no idea what it means, and I'm not in a hurry to try it again even though I feel like I benefitted from the experience").
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:So, should I be sure to buy that sweet vaporizer I've had my eye on before Jan. 20, or are we reasonably sure those manufacturers will be safe? that poo poo ain't illegal. it's only after it's been used that it becomes paraphernalia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
GonadTheBallbarian posted:that poo poo ain't illegal. it's only after it's been used that it becomes paraphernalia. just don't refer to it as an "herb pipe" or "bong"
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Excellent. I used to follow MAPS attempts at getting it approved years ago but hadn't followed up. The Federal government keeps a tight grip on the rest of the schedules too. They don't have to do anything but if it's an effective medicine they probably wont object to doctors dispensing it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
radical meme posted:So what's the level of concern here, if any, that our new law and order President is going to unleash AG Sessions to crack down on all these people violating Federal law? Has Trump ever offered an opinion on marijuana one way or another?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Has Trump ever offered an opinion on marijuana one way or another? http://www.businessinsider.com/where-donald-trump-stands-on-weed-legalization-2016-11 "Marijuana is such a big thing. I think medical should happen — right? Don’t we agree? I think so. And then I really believe we should leave it up to the states.""
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:35 |
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Has Trump ever offered an opinion on marijuana one way or another? "let the states decide" but also "colorado is a mess"
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 21:15
|
|