It's amazing to look back and see how the public support built up for this over last 40 something years. I am not sure how many more years before this country follows Canada or Uruguay.
It's also amazing how the drug wars banished it in traditionally Marijuana countries as well (like India) where it's now going to be an uphill battle to re-legalize it. It all feels so unnecessary.
I think it's pretty transparently clear that even if you hate the drug itself, there have been no obvious disasters in the legalized states. Tax revenue plus no hugely obvious negative effects is a hard argument to deny.
On a broader level, this is exactly what federalism is about - states being able to try things to experiment, without committing the entire country irrevocably.
The data is still coming in. There was a recent report done by insurance companies that in the states where it's been legalized for recreational use, accident reports are up ~5-6% and everyone's rates in those states are going up to reflect that. http://fortune.com/2018/10/18/legal-marijuana-car-accidents-...
Insurance companies notice a correlation, so increase rates to compensate. (Since insurance companies are in the business of spotting and correcting for correlations more than causes.) Therefore a correlation between states which legalize marijuana and increases in accidents cause an increase in car insurance costs. Marijuana doesn't need to cause accidents for this to be the case.
What that analysis doesn't take into account is whether the next state to legalize marijuana will also have to deal with increased accident rates and insurance costs. This is IMO the more important question.
I don't think correlation is even necessary to raise rates if there is a 5-6% increase in accidents.
Also - in the states that went legal, there is an active population boom, but just as likely is being caused by tech startups. Population increases are more likely to cause an accident rate to increase.
We just won't know (for sure) if pot or jobs are the cause for the population increases. Maybe it's pot jobs?
I hear this so often without any other evidence to refute an argument..
Causation requires correlation. It's certainly not enough to prove causation, but it's actually a necessary starting point.
Speaking of driving and marijuana, I've noticed a large increase in pot smoke coming from cars in traffic since marijuana was legalized in CA. I expect some of that to come from passengers, but people driving while high is no joke.
The study incorporated many more variables than whether marijuana was legal in each state, including demographic factors, so this amounts to a controlled experiment.
At least with Colorado the rate of increase in accidents was lower than the rate of increase in population resulting from new residents moving there. So per-capita accident rates actually fell.
I can even excuse being personally disinterested in Cannabis, but you would have to be pretty entrenched in misinformation to hate cannabis itself. What societal harm is there?
The biggest complaint I ever hear that isn't based on a non-truth is "it smells bad".
Smells bad can itself be a big deal. Some people also have migraines that result from inhaling second hand marijuana smoke. Moreover, many people don’t want to smell the stuff in their daily commute- and the smell definitely lingers longer, than say, tobacco, in an open space.
I’m not opposed to legalization, but saying that there’s no societal harm is pretty misinformed too. Seemingly minor things like ‘smells bad’ can easily make one hate cannabis.
> Seemingly minor things like ‘smells bad’ can easily make one hate cannabis.
I think an individual hating something doesn't necessarily elevate that thing to the level of "societal harm".
For example, durian smells bad. Many people hate it because of its smell. However, I've never heard somebody go on about the harm durian is causing to society.
Durian is banned in the Singapore metro (with a sign alerting to the prohibition that has gone viral) because of its smell.
Calling for keeping marijuana strictly illegal based on its smell is silly. Still, the smell is just as noxious as cigarette smoke to many people. I found walking around downtown Montevideo annoying. Legalization should come with some measures against smoking in public, just like those being applied to tobacco in many places around the world.
I smell this every day in Amsterdam metro when I commute from work (the other way around not so much). I'm currently a non-smoker.
If you 'smell it' you subconsciously feel like you are forced 'smoking it' akin to involuntary second hand tobacco usage. Whether that is true or not I do not know.
As a former tobacco and former casual marihuana smoker I dislike either of these smells. I consciously quit both, both for very good personal reasons.
There are obvious health related risks to abstain smoking tobacco but for me I have autism and marihuana can make me over-sensitised and get me into a psychosis. This occurred numerous times.
Yes, there are benefits to marihuana and specifically CBD. My uncle had terminal cancer and hash oil helped him against this pain (he was AFAIK never pro-drugs or pro-marihuana before he got cancer). And there are disadvantages as well. I'm a proponent of education and regulation, just like with alcohol.
I also feel like when I smell someones body odor that I have unconsciously been forced to ingest their bacterial waste. Living amongst other people, we have to accept that there will be things we don't like about it.
There's this social norm where you don't cause discomfort such as noise or pollution for other people. Some people overdo it with way too much perfume; those are equally annoying.
The difference however is that although such might over-sensitise someone with e.g. (undiagnosed) autism your example is not proven to be harmful for the lungs, nor does it make you stoned.
What's the latest consensus on secondhand smoke and cancer/COPD issues? I thought the "I smelled cigarette smoke on the street" exposure was largely found to have negligible health effects. (I think the "my partner smokes and i live in a smokers house" exposure still causes issues)
But they are not all equally so, right? Seems like dose response would be important to understand when evaluating for possible policy/intervention determination.
Cannabis smokers have less qualms about driving under the influence than drinkers (in my experience) and from an enforcement perspective, it's harder to test for the presence of the drug because it stays in your system much longer (up to a month iirc?).
Experience cannabis users are far less impaired than experienced drinkers though. Evidently once you get used to driving under the influence your brain adjusts. It doesn't work that way with alcohol.
I tried it for 5 minutes during my college days when I was "experienced" and... no fucking way. Maybe there are people who aren't as impacted but that is a very big and dangerous assumption. Please stop perpetuating this idea unless you have a study to back it up.
There's not a lot of great studies on this but if you look around at the nih.gov link there's plenty of related studies that would support the parent's claim.
> Cannabis smokers have less qualms about driving under the influence than drinkers (in my experience) and from an enforcement perspective, it's harder to test for the presence of the drug because it stays in your system much longer (up to a month iirc?).
There are so many substances that people can take that would impair their ability to drive. Many of them are available over the counter. Alcohol is the only one that's tested directly; it's the exception, not the norm.
I learned a lesson about this back when I was a land surveyor doing a lot of public road work and layout years ago. I had to walk a lot, sometimes in thick weeds, on the shoulder of many public roads and highways. In many places in the US at least, there's always at least some litter and much of it was alcohol bottles, needles, and prescription drug bottles. It made me realise how many people drive while drugged on some substance.
Really, I find the opposite to be true. Drinkers will always deny the impact, "I'm fine, I'm not drunk" Where almost everyone I know when stoned usually says, "whoa I'm fucked up."
> The biggest complaint I ever hear that isn't based on a non-truth is "it smells bad".
Why should you send someone to jail based on their smell?
You can legally cook pungent meals, burn smelly incense, slow cook meat over a stinking smoker, smoke fetid home rolled cigarettes, take one shower every month, have terribly foot fungus or a really bad case of farts.
All smelly but legal things.
Here in the Canadian town I live, you are not allowed to smoke or vape it on any public land. If you rent, your landlord has to agree to it. You can legalize it and still control it.
To be honest, the smells decreased since it was made legal. Police would tolerate it so nobody called for "pot smell". That was a bad waste of resources. Now that it's up to the landlord to enforce it, people are more willing to call.
I would never call the police on my neighbors for a smell. If I knew that someone went to jail over personal use because of me, I would feel really bad.
However, I would ring the landlord in a heartbeat if their action was not allowed in the lease.
I know people whose use of cannabis has been a crutch for problems in their lives, who have achieved less than they likely would have because it is so easy to do nothing, and stagnate, when drugs come easy. I also know people whose cannabis use has (unproveably, but likely) triggered latent schizophrenia.
There are tradeoffs in everything, of course, and everyone is entitled to their own choices and ambitions, and these risks don't harm everyone who tries them, but put yourself in the shoes of the friends and family that see their loved one become a burnout. There can be real and justified hate of the drug when it has measurably damaged your family.
There was an episode of South Park that addressed pot in a similar way- it is dangerous because it is so much fun you don't want to do anything else.
Mobile site doesn't load on desktop, try [0] if you're on desktop.
Addressing this study, it was a N=1038, cohort study that seems to only have adjusted for education. Further, there's a link on your cited article to [1], which is a response that suggests that the determining factor may have been personality, rather than cannabis use.
There are other studies that indicate a similar conclusion, but I'm not clear how it's any different than any of a dozen socially accepted factors. The developing brain is very fragile. Playing football, or not getting enough exercise, can do similar damage.
The biggest complaint I have seen and read are MRI studies denoting reduced gray matter in the "orbitofrontal cortex" or that area of the brain which effects decision making.
My parents are conservative and against legalization. I disagree with them hard but have gotten a better grasp of the conservative view.
They also dislike alcohol use, especially due to drunk driving causing accidents. In the same way, they think allowing another substance to be legally consumed will increase impaired driving rates (even tho DUI is illegal).
They think alcohol being legal has made it easier for high school students to obtain it. They think the same will happen with cannabis. They don't want substances (alcohol or otherwise) near their grandkids' brains.
Alcohol has a breathalyzer test. There is no such spot test for cannabis intoxication. Which makes regulating drivers hard.
>I think it's pretty transparently clear that even if you hate the drug itself, there have been no obvious disasters in the legalized states. Tax revenue plus no hugely obvious negative effects is a hard argument to deny.
As someone who supports legalization, it's still way too early to definitively say that. Marijuana is not a harmless substance. There will very definitely be some negative effects, and acting like it's a magical panacea will not be helpful. Marijuana addiction is very real, although it only affects a small subset of users (~9% is often quoted). There have been zero long term studies with regard to a population's lifetime health outcomes having regular access to highly potent, legal marijuana. Only time will tell, although on the net I have no doubt these negatives will balance to an overall positive.
I support legalizing... well nearly everything. Some things might be actually dangerous and need to only be used within controlled settings.
Having said that, I'd really prefer if everyone that wanted marijuana would use the ediables rather than smoking it in various ways. Living in a state where it's legal, I absolutely detest the smell, it's smoke is even more potent and disgusting than tobacco. On the same note, I hate tobacco smoke and want use of such products to be limited to negative-draw scrubbed exhaust environments.
In Ontario, smoking tobacco or marijuana is illegal at anywhere in any business that the public has regular access to, including outdoor patios, as well as a buffer area around playgrounds.
That mostly eliminates being forced to endure other peoples smoke more than in passing - unless your neighbors smoke heavily in their yard.
I supported various decriminalization and legalization pushes on the principle that the criminal justice system is a poor avenue for addressing things that are public health problem, which is a principle I still believe in. But I've got some considerable buyer's regret; I don't want to smoke myself, and as far as I can tell, it's shockingly common that smokers of either tobacco or cannabis are (a) pretty bad at realizing how others experience it (and how far the experience travels) and/or (b) not particularly considerate about the fact that others haven't signed up for it. It's particularly galling in living situations where people will smoke on balconies or just outside an entryway apparently heedless of the fact that smoke will travel in other people's windows; and even smoking indoors travels through both windows and ventilation systems.
For a while I thought this might be something that could be solved via education and etiquette, but there are too many entitled smokers. I don't think this is a problem that's going to be fixable without at least minor citations/fines to back up the right behavior. And we might need to see if there's a relationship with production that's neither full-on industrialized nor necessarily driven underground.
Have you tried complaining to your neighbors? They might not be aware that you can smell it. The further upside of legalization is all the advancements in e-pens, the smell of which really does not travel at all. Ask your neighbors to use a pen at home.
One of the places I hate it most is while driving, but also while walking... pretty much ALL public places should be non-smoking of anything.
However yes, it does extend to balconies, and from a surprising distance away. I'm not kidding when I say it should be legally confined to areas which must have both negative draw (a high inward air pressure difference so that leaks go inside instead of out) and scrubbed exhaust (so that everything gets filtered out, often by water percolation to soak up the vaporized tar and other particles).
Smoke is in play in this discussion. Not just smoke, but smoke of products that are chosen for their bioactive nature. Tobacco smoke in particular is all kinds of problematic, but cannabis is not harmless and even wood smoke is hazardous. This is not merely a discussion about scent-related experiences, it's a discussion of exporting health hazards into other's environments on top of exporting a smell that's widely considered unpleasant.
But even assuming health issues weren't in play, there might well be a case that being an acceptable neighbor involves keeping many forms of sensory exports to a minimum. Loud music can be rude. Loud music or construction projects after 9pm are rude. Storing your asafoetida on the balcony would be pretty rude too, even if it can be used to make some super tasty food. Fish in the microwave will make you unpopular at some offices. So... yeah, we can go "by this logic" if you like, it's just not where the case stops.
Edibles often take a couple hours or more to take noticeable effect which leads to overconsumption among some consumers. I'd argue that it's actually the most dangerous type of cannabis consumption because it's so easy to overconsume.
(Can't comment on the smell of smoke due to anosmia since birth!)
I live in Colorado (the first state to legalize recreational use) and I never smell weed on the streets. When I was traveling to the bay area for work (while it still wasn't legalized), everywhere I walked I would smell dank ganja. And I don't mean that as a compliment.
Terms like skunk when describing weed aren't thrown around without reason.
Here in CO most people I know that still smoke have moved from bud and use vaporizers much like e-cigarettes to "vape" concentrates.
The concentrates smell nothing like their burnt bud cousins... it smells lightly floral if at all.
I'm not so sure areas like the bay really set a proper example as you are probably smelling some shwag from the homeless dude walking down the street rather than what the legal market is providing.
Or maybe people in Colorado are just more conscientious of others.
As a side note, regarding weed smoke:
> it's smoke is even more potent and disgusting than tobacco
That's just not true. While the dankest bud might be more objectionable to the nose, most tobacco is grown in conventional soil where it is essentially a sponge for metals like arsenic and cadmium. Weed is much the same type of plant, but being grown in controlled environments in man-made soil (and often soilless growth mediums), it isn't exposed to anywhere near the same levels of toxins and therefore doesn't assimilate the same toxicity as stuff like tobacco.
Alcohol is obviously way worse. I'm just saying the whole euphoric "weed is awesome" mentality will fade as legalization comes about and more and more people start having troubles with it. Alcoholics Anonymous was founded in 1935; 2 years after the repeal of prohibition. The reality is that it's just another drug which can cause addictive behavior, and lauding its' large scale industrialization seems no different than supporting big tobacco at this point.
> Alcohol is obviously way worse
> more and more people start having troubles with [weed]
The latter case is not a guarantee - the potential negative effect is (IMO and through my experience) likely closer to that of coffee addiction than alcohol. The difference is weed addicts can get help for it rather than be thrown in jail - the industry is/was already there, but having it above board can allow for much better outcomes.
Well, keeping marijuana illegal hasn’t stopped anyone who wanted it from easily getting it. What it has done is led to selective enforcement and prosecution of the poor and minorities.
Anything that takes a weapon out of the hand of the “Justice system” like making it legal is a net positive.
The issue is that because banks operate on an interstate level they won't risk getting their hands dirty with weed money until congress legalizes it full stop. This creates a situation that all these businesses need to operate in cash like 1980's drug dealers or find some credit union that solely operates in the state.
During my visit of Portland the cashier of one the dispensaries described to me all the additional security measures they had to take including building a bank vault in the store. During tax season they have to hire private security and armed guards with armored vehicles to transfer duffel bags full of cash to the department of revenue who then penalizes them an additional fee for paying in large sums of cash. This is ironic because the department of state then has to go on a hiring spree and needs to purchase equipment to count out this massive amount of cash (probably millions once add up all the dispensaries).
Its a big waste of money since all the hires and equipment are unnecessary once you realize that 99% of all other businesses just pay via wire or check. I also can't imagine how much money is spent by the business trying to keep track of all the loose cash.
I didn't say that?
I merely state that there options were use petty cash or rely on a credit union that does NOT perform interstate commerce which is pretty rare.
I just hope we don't end up like California and keep hundreds in fines for smoking in public, open containers in cars, having more than 30 grams, etc. People should be allowed to possess any amount they want, grow as many plants as they want, etc. What's the point of legalization if a police officer can still stop you and search to make sure you have under 30 grams? What's the point of legalization if smoking weed still prevents you from buying a gun or holding down a federal job?
I like Larry Sharpe's viewpoint here - Marijuana should be regulated like onions.
> I just hope we don't end up like California and keep hundreds in fines for smoking in public, open containers in cars, having more than 30 grams, etc.
I don't see why we should treat marijuana more leniently than we treat alcohol. Drinking in public is already illegal in most places.
> What's the point of legalization if a police officer can still stop you and search to make sure you have under 30 grams?
Police officer cannot stop and search you without a probable cause.
> I like Larry Sharpe's viewpoint here - Marijuana should be regulated like onions.
Maybe, but let's regulate marijuana like alcohol first, and then, when we regulate alcohol like onions, we can move on to do the same with marijuana.
1. Drinking in public in California is a $100 fine, smoking marijuana in public is $250.
2. Probable cause - "our drug dog is trained to detect over 30 grams of Marijuana.", "I smelled marijuana and suspected an open container, asked to see the open container to verify it was legal, open container held over 30 grams."
3.You're right about alcohol... fun fact - it's still federally illegal to distill spirits.
> it's still federally illegal to distill spirits.
Without a distillery license. Which is not especially expensive, and is wholly reasonable considering the significantly higher technical and safety threshold of operating a distillery. Bathtub gin used to kill people.
1. As far as the fines - it is kind of silly to fine people for doing those things. It's what they might to AFTER that should put them in jail. I DO think that "accident" should be considered "malice" when intoxicated in both cases (and other forms of mind alterations knowingly applied to oneself).
2. That's what I was going to point out about probable cause, that it's kind of laughable. Thanks!
DC's legalization effort has been incomplete due to Congress undemocratically stepping in and overriding local laws, but the legalization measure specifically changed the definition of reasonable suspicion so that "smell of marijuana" cannot by itself be used to effect a search. Makes sense since part of the point of legalization was to reverse the unequal enforcement of drug laws against people of color. Seems like other places could easily adopt a similar rule.
>Maybe, but let's regulate marijuana like alcohol first, and then, when we regulate alcohol like onions, we can move on to do the same with marijuana.
But that leads to stupid laws around public consumption and possession, which make sense for alcohol but not for marijuana. It should be treated exactly like tobacco.
Definitely we should ban all tobacco. There are just too many negatives to its production and consumption. Tobacco farmers should receive tail-out subsidies to convert to a different crop, or just retire, but the cultivation and sale of it must eventually be outlawed.
Absolutely, as long as that cannabis is distributed in non-smokable form (vaping oil, edible supplements, whatever), and then only to those 21 and over.
Tobacco is commonly subject to many laws (or standard leases) around public and even private consumption. Look at how few places in e.g. Finland or Hong Kong you can smoke a cigarette in compared to just two-three decades ago. In some countries, you may not be able to smoke in your own home or car if children are present or could be present (since toxins linger); if you rent, there are virtually no landlords left who will let you smoke inside; if you live in a block of flats with other people, you cannot light up on your balcony; parks may ban smoking, etc.
Personally I'm a big fan of laws that restrict where you're allowed to smoke. Tobacco smoke smells like death, so please keep it out of my public spaces.
Many people, me included, disagree with laws preventing the open consumption of alcohol. I just don't see it as much different than a nice cup of coffee. Sure you might get drunkards in the streets, but to me, it's worth it for the additional freedom.
Alcohol regs are terrible. There are state stores, Sunday black outs, ABV limits, home distilling prohibitions, restaurant licensing based on food served or outright bans in neighborhoods, three tier distribution requirements, shipping restrictions, etc. It is no model for regulation.
Vermont legalized but set up no tax structure. Legal to grow and gift, but not sell. There was a lot of pressure to get it legal, a veto from the governor, and apparently no consensus on how to tax/license it.
DC is in a similar boat for slightly different reasons: possession and use were legalized by citizen initiative with the expectation that the city would create a regulatory apparatus for production and sale, and then they were forbidden from spending any of their money to do so by Congress, which has veto power over their budget. So now it's in a weird quasi-legal gray area.
It has been my experience in Colorado that a lot of additional people will try or occasionally use cannabis over time after legalization. First it becomes normal to try it, people realize it's not that big of deal, they become occasional users. Also, there's a big barrier to entry when you have to find a dealer to buy illegal drugs from, it's just not worth it for most casual users to maintain the relationship in order to use infrequently.
I'm pro-legalization though. I don't think more people occasionally using cannabis is a big deal.
This is exactly my experience in Oregon. There are of course still people who don't partake at all, but I know plenty of non smokers who have now become occasional users. Having said that, they seem to use it in place of alcohol.
I don't use it nor if it were legal tomorrow, I highly doubt that would change (I don't drink either, for that matter).
That being said, with one of the major knocks (or at least scapegoats) against it being crime, if they'd look historically at prohibition how organized crime benefited from the prohibition of alcohol and ending the prohibition was a sizable blow to crime, I don't see why they'd be so against it.
Dunno. Taxing it would be good. Regulating it should be okay. I really don't see the cons of legalizing it when you have alcohol legalized (which I'm not advocating for it not to be).
Last time this was in the up for a vote in California my memory (could be faulty) was three of the biggest opponents of marijuana legalization were pharmaceutical industry, alcohol industry and the prison industrial complex. There is not a citizen push to keep it illegal, it's businesses trying to limit competition.
There are plenty of things to be concerned about but that fight has been lost. Here I will quote a scientist. Personally I have plenty of friends and my brother as examples what over use of pot can do to ruin lives.
> Now, as a scientist, I’m unimpressed with many of the widely used arguments for the legalization of marijuana.
1) “It’s natural!” So is arsenic.
2)“It’s beneficial!” The best-documented medicinal effects of marijuana are achieved without the chemical compound that gets users high.
3) “It’s not addictive!” This is false, because the brain adapts to marijuana as it does to all abused drugs, and these neural adjustments lead to tolerance, dependence and craving — the hallmarks of addiction.
Conclusion:
Still, I’m not against legalization. I simply object to the astounding lack of skepticism about pot in our current debate. Whether or not to legalize weed is the wrong question. The right one is: How will growing use of delta-9-THC affect individuals and communities?
Though the evidence is far from complete, wishful thinking and widespread enthusiasm are no substitutes for careful consideration. Instead of rushing to enact new laws that are as nonsensical as the ones they replace, let’s sort out the costs and benefits, using current scientific knowledge, while supporting the research needed to clarify the neural and social consequences of frequent use of THC. Perhaps then we’ll avoid practices that inure future generations to what’s really important.
> Whether or not to legalize weed is the wrong question. The right one is: How will growing use of delta-9-THC affect individuals and communities?
strongly disagree. the only question we should be asking about cannabis (and other drugs) is "do they harm people who haven't freely decided to consume them?". if not, there is nothing left to talk about wrt the law.
edit: unless i misunderstand your post and you are making a point outside of legality?
Well I could make the point that pot isn't harmless. Heck smartphones aren't harmless and alcohol is responsible for 6% of all deaths. I see hundreds of kids every week at work where parents are disengaged with their kids and super engaged with their phone.
I think we have an issue with the questions we ask as humans. I am just making the point that we need to look past our individual lenses but that's really never going to happen to our community as a whole.
PS I am a life long abstainer of all vices minus my addiction to sugar.
I also believe that marijuana is addicting and harmful and yet I am pro-legalization. When use is criminalized there is no good legal approach to fighting the addiction. It funnels money into organized crime. I'd much rather see sales of marijuana controlled, taxed; addicts being helped; every little pack of this stuff slapped with a warning about health hazards.
1) It seems to do less personal harm than alcohol. I've known potheads and alcoholics, and the latter was far more disruptive to their personal lives and health.
2) It seems to do less societal harm than alcohol. Alcohol consumption is strongly correlated with violent crime, but weed consumption seems correlated with annoyances (like "let's all sneak into this pool and go swimming when we're not supposed to").
3) Alcohol is legal. Given that it's at least as bad as pot in every way I can imagine, and often much worse, I can't think of a single continued justification for laws allowing me to go buy a fifth of whiskey but not possess a few joints. It just makes no sense to me.
You must not live in a conservative area. Where I live (Utah) is certainly an outlier, but skepticism is all I hear without any talk of the benefits of legalization.
I believe that marijuana was wrongfully criminalized. If marijuana were legal today, would you support an initiative for making it controlled?
I think the discussion about marijuana is tainted by its current status as a controlled substance. It's currently treated as if it had no medicinal benefits, and that's clearly not the case. In fact, it's pretty clear that it's less bad than alcohol and tobacco, yet it's banned. If we can't come up with a rational reason to ban it, it should be legalized and controlled to the extent that it causes harm.
I get extremely paranoid on marijuana, and if I don't it just makes me feel lazy and tired. Not sure if it's genetic or what but have never been able to enjoy it.
I am one of the founding members of New South Botanicals, which sells CBD oil exclusively because we're not in a marijuana state. Our average customer is aged 55-60 years old.
Or neurochemically it just doesn't have the typical effect. Sensitivities to substances and actually in-vitro effects vary widely from person to person.
Try to use less. A lot less. Like a whole lot less. One puff only. MJ can intoxicate you and its effects are nasty and very non enjoyable in high doses. Try one puff and wait for 10 minutes and if you want more try another one. Once buzzed learn its effects. Don't look for more unless experienced. Also, i remember when i first started using it, it took me a month of smoking to get to enjoy it fully. Same goes with alcohol. Remember the first time you got drunk? Im sure it came with some consequences...
This is a good idea. You can easily have too much, especially with the stronger consumption methods we have today.
Also, think up some things you'd like to try while under the influence... Do you have a favorite album or movie? Many things may be found to be invigorating and enjoyable in a way you couldn't have described before.
I get this way (paranoid, tired, etc) on one puff. It's all so strong now. When I was a semi-regular user in the late 90's, the potency was dramatically less. At least what I got was.
That said, I can tolerate low-dose edibles. And, I believe most people who are in my shoes could enjoy it that way. Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible for most of us on the Eastern part of the US. The edibles I tried were brought back from people who went to Colorado.
To me it’s not a question about whether it’s good or bad that people consume marijuana. It’s about whether taxpayers are currently getting anything near what they pay for from the practice of enforcing prohibition. If 2x the people start using marijuana but we get to cut the DEA’s budget by a factor of 10, then let’s try diverting that money into initiatives that help people out. Throwing people in jail clearly isn’t working.
Seeing the rapid tipping point (look at the past 20 years) gives me hope that we me see decriminalization of all substances in more countries (even the US) during my lifetime.
I believe that prohibition just represents an emotional cognitive bias (drugs are bad! drug users are bad!) as any rational evidence based analysis comes to the conclusion that not only does prohibition not work for decreasing drug use, it actually increases both the negative person effects of that use and contributes to externalities like increasing the power/funds of violent drug cartels in various parts of the world.
Portugal was a great experiment. It worked. Let's push for full legalization or at least decriminalization across the board.
The big negatives in Portugal is the fact stuff isn't actually legalized. Walking around Lisbon at night you're constantly accosted by thuggish groups of dealers offering cocaine, hash, marijuana, and other drugs.
If you watch them from a bar or something you'll see people interact with them and suddenly there are four of them around and they demand more and more money after the person had already paid the agreed upon price.
I even saw someone get jumped by a group of these guys after he protested that they had agreed to 20 euros for some weed and then wanted however much more.
They should make that studf legal so drug users can go buy quality drugs from the pharmacist or whatever and cleanup the streets of all the semi-violent and aggressive drug gangs that roam their cities.
I never saw the police do a single thing and the gangs seem to focus exclusively on foreigners which seems to be most of the people partying in Lisbon while I was there.
I really hope the legalization of Cannabis is going to make some progress in Germany. If you are German and sympathizing with this - then please support Deutscher Hanfverband (https://hanfverband.de/unterstuetzen). They (and especially Georg Wurth who is heading this organization) are doing a fantastic job promoting this request.
For me Cannabis legalization is a symbol for science and reason based politics and legislation. And I am so sick of the fear mongering FUD-based reasoning of CDU and AfD.
My personal theory for why right-wing politicians (except for those of the extreme libertarian fraction) are so passionately against legalization of Cannabis is because of group formation reaching back to their youth. You identify with a group also by rituals, habits and enemies. And I guess they just developed a bias against this other group of "hippies" who used to smoke joints. And they carry this resentment with them into their adulthood and agenda.
128 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 162 ms ] threadAt least two more years.
On a broader level, this is exactly what federalism is about - states being able to try things to experiment, without committing the entire country irrevocably.
This does not parse.
What that analysis doesn't take into account is whether the next state to legalize marijuana will also have to deal with increased accident rates and insurance costs. This is IMO the more important question.
Also - in the states that went legal, there is an active population boom, but just as likely is being caused by tech startups. Population increases are more likely to cause an accident rate to increase.
We just won't know (for sure) if pot or jobs are the cause for the population increases. Maybe it's pot jobs?
Causation requires correlation. It's certainly not enough to prove causation, but it's actually a necessary starting point.
Speaking of driving and marijuana, I've noticed a large increase in pot smoke coming from cars in traffic since marijuana was legalized in CA. I expect some of that to come from passengers, but people driving while high is no joke.
The biggest complaint I ever hear that isn't based on a non-truth is "it smells bad".
Smells bad can itself be a big deal. Some people also have migraines that result from inhaling second hand marijuana smoke. Moreover, many people don’t want to smell the stuff in their daily commute- and the smell definitely lingers longer, than say, tobacco, in an open space.
I’m not opposed to legalization, but saying that there’s no societal harm is pretty misinformed too. Seemingly minor things like ‘smells bad’ can easily make one hate cannabis.
I think an individual hating something doesn't necessarily elevate that thing to the level of "societal harm".
For example, durian smells bad. Many people hate it because of its smell. However, I've never heard somebody go on about the harm durian is causing to society.
Calling for keeping marijuana strictly illegal based on its smell is silly. Still, the smell is just as noxious as cigarette smoke to many people. I found walking around downtown Montevideo annoying. Legalization should come with some measures against smoking in public, just like those being applied to tobacco in many places around the world.
If you 'smell it' you subconsciously feel like you are forced 'smoking it' akin to involuntary second hand tobacco usage. Whether that is true or not I do not know.
As a former tobacco and former casual marihuana smoker I dislike either of these smells. I consciously quit both, both for very good personal reasons.
There are obvious health related risks to abstain smoking tobacco but for me I have autism and marihuana can make me over-sensitised and get me into a psychosis. This occurred numerous times.
Yes, there are benefits to marihuana and specifically CBD. My uncle had terminal cancer and hash oil helped him against this pain (he was AFAIK never pro-drugs or pro-marihuana before he got cancer). And there are disadvantages as well. I'm a proponent of education and regulation, just like with alcohol.
The difference however is that although such might over-sensitise someone with e.g. (undiagnosed) autism your example is not proven to be harmful for the lungs, nor does it make you stoned.
Both of these apply to a not insignificant amount of the population when it comes to perfumes and flowers too.
We should make Abercrombie cologne illegal; I sneeze at least twice when walking through the mall and sometimes get headaches.
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29487531
There are so many substances that people can take that would impair their ability to drive. Many of them are available over the counter. Alcohol is the only one that's tested directly; it's the exception, not the norm.
It's not a non-truth, its highly personal what smells good, or bad.
Why should you send someone to jail based on their smell?
You can legally cook pungent meals, burn smelly incense, slow cook meat over a stinking smoker, smoke fetid home rolled cigarettes, take one shower every month, have terribly foot fungus or a really bad case of farts.
All smelly but legal things.
Here in the Canadian town I live, you are not allowed to smoke or vape it on any public land. If you rent, your landlord has to agree to it. You can legalize it and still control it.
To be honest, the smells decreased since it was made legal. Police would tolerate it so nobody called for "pot smell". That was a bad waste of resources. Now that it's up to the landlord to enforce it, people are more willing to call.
I would never call the police on my neighbors for a smell. If I knew that someone went to jail over personal use because of me, I would feel really bad.
However, I would ring the landlord in a heartbeat if their action was not allowed in the lease.
There are tradeoffs in everything, of course, and everyone is entitled to their own choices and ambitions, and these risks don't harm everyone who tries them, but put yourself in the shoes of the friends and family that see their loved one become a burnout. There can be real and justified hate of the drug when it has measurably damaged your family.
There was an episode of South Park that addressed pot in a similar way- it is dangerous because it is so much fun you don't want to do anything else.
Brain damage in young adults.
> "Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife"
http://m.pnas.org/content/109/40/E2657.full (2012)
Addressing this study, it was a N=1038, cohort study that seems to only have adjusted for education. Further, there's a link on your cited article to [1], which is a response that suggests that the determining factor may have been personality, rather than cannabis use.
There are other studies that indicate a similar conclusion, but I'm not clear how it's any different than any of a dozen socially accepted factors. The developing brain is very fragile. Playing football, or not getting enough exercise, can do similar damage.
[0] http://www.pnas.org/content/109/40/E2657.full [1] http://www.pnas.org/content/110/11/E979
https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/nida-notes/2016/09/reg...
They also dislike alcohol use, especially due to drunk driving causing accidents. In the same way, they think allowing another substance to be legally consumed will increase impaired driving rates (even tho DUI is illegal).
They think alcohol being legal has made it easier for high school students to obtain it. They think the same will happen with cannabis. They don't want substances (alcohol or otherwise) near their grandkids' brains.
Alcohol has a breathalyzer test. There is no such spot test for cannabis intoxication. Which makes regulating drivers hard.
Trust me, it couldn’t get any easier for high school students to get marijuana than it currently is.
Case-in-point: me.
I'm still in favour of its legalisation but I'm not naive enough to believe there are no downsides to the substance.
I've experienced many of them myself by abusing it for years.
As someone who supports legalization, it's still way too early to definitively say that. Marijuana is not a harmless substance. There will very definitely be some negative effects, and acting like it's a magical panacea will not be helpful. Marijuana addiction is very real, although it only affects a small subset of users (~9% is often quoted). There have been zero long term studies with regard to a population's lifetime health outcomes having regular access to highly potent, legal marijuana. Only time will tell, although on the net I have no doubt these negatives will balance to an overall positive.
Having said that, I'd really prefer if everyone that wanted marijuana would use the ediables rather than smoking it in various ways. Living in a state where it's legal, I absolutely detest the smell, it's smoke is even more potent and disgusting than tobacco. On the same note, I hate tobacco smoke and want use of such products to be limited to negative-draw scrubbed exhaust environments.
That mostly eliminates being forced to endure other peoples smoke more than in passing - unless your neighbors smoke heavily in their yard.
I supported various decriminalization and legalization pushes on the principle that the criminal justice system is a poor avenue for addressing things that are public health problem, which is a principle I still believe in. But I've got some considerable buyer's regret; I don't want to smoke myself, and as far as I can tell, it's shockingly common that smokers of either tobacco or cannabis are (a) pretty bad at realizing how others experience it (and how far the experience travels) and/or (b) not particularly considerate about the fact that others haven't signed up for it. It's particularly galling in living situations where people will smoke on balconies or just outside an entryway apparently heedless of the fact that smoke will travel in other people's windows; and even smoking indoors travels through both windows and ventilation systems.
For a while I thought this might be something that could be solved via education and etiquette, but there are too many entitled smokers. I don't think this is a problem that's going to be fixable without at least minor citations/fines to back up the right behavior. And we might need to see if there's a relationship with production that's neither full-on industrialized nor necessarily driven underground.
However yes, it does extend to balconies, and from a surprising distance away. I'm not kidding when I say it should be legally confined to areas which must have both negative draw (a high inward air pressure difference so that leaks go inside instead of out) and scrubbed exhaust (so that everything gets filtered out, often by water percolation to soak up the vaporized tar and other particles).
But even assuming health issues weren't in play, there might well be a case that being an acceptable neighbor involves keeping many forms of sensory exports to a minimum. Loud music can be rude. Loud music or construction projects after 9pm are rude. Storing your asafoetida on the balcony would be pretty rude too, even if it can be used to make some super tasty food. Fish in the microwave will make you unpopular at some offices. So... yeah, we can go "by this logic" if you like, it's just not where the case stops.
Edibles often take a couple hours or more to take noticeable effect which leads to overconsumption among some consumers. I'd argue that it's actually the most dangerous type of cannabis consumption because it's so easy to overconsume.
(Can't comment on the smell of smoke due to anosmia since birth!)
I live in Colorado (the first state to legalize recreational use) and I never smell weed on the streets. When I was traveling to the bay area for work (while it still wasn't legalized), everywhere I walked I would smell dank ganja. And I don't mean that as a compliment.
Terms like skunk when describing weed aren't thrown around without reason.
Here in CO most people I know that still smoke have moved from bud and use vaporizers much like e-cigarettes to "vape" concentrates.
The concentrates smell nothing like their burnt bud cousins... it smells lightly floral if at all.
I'm not so sure areas like the bay really set a proper example as you are probably smelling some shwag from the homeless dude walking down the street rather than what the legal market is providing.
Or maybe people in Colorado are just more conscientious of others.
As a side note, regarding weed smoke:
> it's smoke is even more potent and disgusting than tobacco
That's just not true. While the dankest bud might be more objectionable to the nose, most tobacco is grown in conventional soil where it is essentially a sponge for metals like arsenic and cadmium. Weed is much the same type of plant, but being grown in controlled environments in man-made soil (and often soilless growth mediums), it isn't exposed to anywhere near the same levels of toxins and therefore doesn't assimilate the same toxicity as stuff like tobacco.
If we intend to keep pot illegal, alcohol should follow.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articl...
The latter case is not a guarantee - the potential negative effect is (IMO and through my experience) likely closer to that of coffee addiction than alcohol. The difference is weed addicts can get help for it rather than be thrown in jail - the industry is/was already there, but having it above board can allow for much better outcomes.
Anything that takes a weapon out of the hand of the “Justice system” like making it legal is a net positive.
During my visit of Portland the cashier of one the dispensaries described to me all the additional security measures they had to take including building a bank vault in the store. During tax season they have to hire private security and armed guards with armored vehicles to transfer duffel bags full of cash to the department of revenue who then penalizes them an additional fee for paying in large sums of cash. This is ironic because the department of state then has to go on a hiring spree and needs to purchase equipment to count out this massive amount of cash (probably millions once add up all the dispensaries).
Its a big waste of money since all the hires and equipment are unnecessary once you realize that 99% of all other businesses just pay via wire or check. I also can't imagine how much money is spent by the business trying to keep track of all the loose cash.
I like Larry Sharpe's viewpoint here - Marijuana should be regulated like onions.
I don't see why we should treat marijuana more leniently than we treat alcohol. Drinking in public is already illegal in most places.
> What's the point of legalization if a police officer can still stop you and search to make sure you have under 30 grams?
Police officer cannot stop and search you without a probable cause.
> I like Larry Sharpe's viewpoint here - Marijuana should be regulated like onions.
Maybe, but let's regulate marijuana like alcohol first, and then, when we regulate alcohol like onions, we can move on to do the same with marijuana.
2. Probable cause - "our drug dog is trained to detect over 30 grams of Marijuana.", "I smelled marijuana and suspected an open container, asked to see the open container to verify it was legal, open container held over 30 grams."
3.You're right about alcohol... fun fact - it's still federally illegal to distill spirits.
Without a distillery license. Which is not especially expensive, and is wholly reasonable considering the significantly higher technical and safety threshold of operating a distillery. Bathtub gin used to kill people.
2. That's what I was going to point out about probable cause, that it's kind of laughable. Thanks!
3. I did not know that, crazy.
But that leads to stupid laws around public consumption and possession, which make sense for alcohol but not for marijuana. It should be treated exactly like tobacco.
All mind altering substance is not for kids.
Heck, even tobacco should be 21+
I think it's going to be increasingly difficult for states facing budget shortfalls to ignore this as a potential new source of tax revenue.
We just aren't wasting any more effort policing something no one cares about.
... But you are still correct.
I'm pro-legalization though. I don't think more people occasionally using cannabis is a big deal.
Seems like a wash, if not a net positive to me.
That being said, with one of the major knocks (or at least scapegoats) against it being crime, if they'd look historically at prohibition how organized crime benefited from the prohibition of alcohol and ending the prohibition was a sizable blow to crime, I don't see why they'd be so against it.
Dunno. Taxing it would be good. Regulating it should be okay. I really don't see the cons of legalizing it when you have alcohol legalized (which I'm not advocating for it not to be).
> Now, as a scientist, I’m unimpressed with many of the widely used arguments for the legalization of marijuana.
1) “It’s natural!” So is arsenic.
2)“It’s beneficial!” The best-documented medicinal effects of marijuana are achieved without the chemical compound that gets users high.
3) “It’s not addictive!” This is false, because the brain adapts to marijuana as it does to all abused drugs, and these neural adjustments lead to tolerance, dependence and craving — the hallmarks of addiction.
Conclusion: Still, I’m not against legalization. I simply object to the astounding lack of skepticism about pot in our current debate. Whether or not to legalize weed is the wrong question. The right one is: How will growing use of delta-9-THC affect individuals and communities?
Though the evidence is far from complete, wishful thinking and widespread enthusiasm are no substitutes for careful consideration. Instead of rushing to enact new laws that are as nonsensical as the ones they replace, let’s sort out the costs and benefits, using current scientific knowledge, while supporting the research needed to clarify the neural and social consequences of frequent use of THC. Perhaps then we’ll avoid practices that inure future generations to what’s really important.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/0...
strongly disagree. the only question we should be asking about cannabis (and other drugs) is "do they harm people who haven't freely decided to consume them?". if not, there is nothing left to talk about wrt the law.
edit: unless i misunderstand your post and you are making a point outside of legality?
I think we have an issue with the questions we ask as humans. I am just making the point that we need to look past our individual lenses but that's really never going to happen to our community as a whole.
PS I am a life long abstainer of all vices minus my addiction to sugar.
1) It seems to do less personal harm than alcohol. I've known potheads and alcoholics, and the latter was far more disruptive to their personal lives and health.
2) It seems to do less societal harm than alcohol. Alcohol consumption is strongly correlated with violent crime, but weed consumption seems correlated with annoyances (like "let's all sneak into this pool and go swimming when we're not supposed to").
3) Alcohol is legal. Given that it's at least as bad as pot in every way I can imagine, and often much worse, I can't think of a single continued justification for laws allowing me to go buy a fifth of whiskey but not possess a few joints. It just makes no sense to me.
You must not live in a conservative area. Where I live (Utah) is certainly an outlier, but skepticism is all I hear without any talk of the benefits of legalization.
I believe that marijuana was wrongfully criminalized. If marijuana were legal today, would you support an initiative for making it controlled?
I think the discussion about marijuana is tainted by its current status as a controlled substance. It's currently treated as if it had no medicinal benefits, and that's clearly not the case. In fact, it's pretty clear that it's less bad than alcohol and tobacco, yet it's banned. If we can't come up with a rational reason to ban it, it should be legalized and controlled to the extent that it causes harm.
Our legislatures are old enough to have written Reefer Madness.
Also, think up some things you'd like to try while under the influence... Do you have a favorite album or movie? Many things may be found to be invigorating and enjoyable in a way you couldn't have described before.
That said, I can tolerate low-dose edibles. And, I believe most people who are in my shoes could enjoy it that way. Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible for most of us on the Eastern part of the US. The edibles I tried were brought back from people who went to Colorado.
I believe that prohibition just represents an emotional cognitive bias (drugs are bad! drug users are bad!) as any rational evidence based analysis comes to the conclusion that not only does prohibition not work for decreasing drug use, it actually increases both the negative person effects of that use and contributes to externalities like increasing the power/funds of violent drug cartels in various parts of the world.
Portugal was a great experiment. It worked. Let's push for full legalization or at least decriminalization across the board.
If you watch them from a bar or something you'll see people interact with them and suddenly there are four of them around and they demand more and more money after the person had already paid the agreed upon price.
I even saw someone get jumped by a group of these guys after he protested that they had agreed to 20 euros for some weed and then wanted however much more.
They should make that studf legal so drug users can go buy quality drugs from the pharmacist or whatever and cleanup the streets of all the semi-violent and aggressive drug gangs that roam their cities.
For me Cannabis legalization is a symbol for science and reason based politics and legislation. And I am so sick of the fear mongering FUD-based reasoning of CDU and AfD.
My personal theory for why right-wing politicians (except for those of the extreme libertarian fraction) are so passionately against legalization of Cannabis is because of group formation reaching back to their youth. You identify with a group also by rituals, habits and enemies. And I guess they just developed a bias against this other group of "hippies" who used to smoke joints. And they carry this resentment with them into their adulthood and agenda.