But still in Schedule I with cocaine, heroin, methadone, morphine & opium.
Isn't this kind of silly at this point? I'm not into weed (it's always weird to feel the need to append this disclaimer) but for God's sake at this point I think pretty much everyone recognizes where it lies on the harm spectrum and we still treat it like a deadly narcotic.
The baby stepping toward doing something that seems to extraordinarily black-and-white - particularly in countries that have laws that allow cigarettes and alcohol - is really quite absurd.
>The 27 with a brain would best ignore this UN committee entirely. And stop any funding to it too.
Anyone with a brain realized it's best to ignore the UN as an entity quite some time ago.
I guess this time around the strongly worded letters will be what? In support of asking people to perhaps (please) reconsider their legislative approach to or classification of cannabis?
I tend to be pretty interested in opinions that go against the grain when they're interesting, but when it's just "anyone with a brain"--that's just rhetoric and not even very artful rhetoric at that.
The trope of the UN and their strongly worded letters has existed and been popularized for at least as long as I can remember. Is it really "against the grain" to simply make a call to their ineffectual, flaccid and outright farcical nature?
And if one really wants to debate their farcical nature, one need only look at their most recent candidates for election to the Human Rights Council.
Or their recent Universal Periodic Review where some of the worst modern assailants on human rights lined up for the 2 minutes hate in the name of virtue toward the USA.
If someone is willing to defend the UN and prove they're anything but a farce, I'm all ears.
From what I have gathered from Wikipedia, East Timor has not been governed by the UN since 2002. However the UN still governs the Cyprus Buffer Zone, part of the Golan Heights, and Kosovo. In the past they have also governed Western New Guinea, Cambodia, and part of what is today eastern Croatia.
Their administration of Cambodia in the early 90s seems particularly full fledged:
> The United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC)[3] was a United Nations peacekeeping operation in Cambodia in 1992–93 formed following the 1991 Paris Peace Accords. It was also the first occasion on which the UN had taken over the administration of an independent state, organised and run an election (as opposed to monitoring or supervising), had its own radio station and jail, and been responsible for promoting and safeguarding human rights at the national level.
'Governs' Golan Heights and Cyprus buffer zone? Come on, man. A few blue helmets to discourage shooting across the ceasefire is a great idea and all but it's not government.
I didn't know about Cambodia, that's another case, thanks.
> The 27 with a brain would best ignore this UN committee entirely.
Several of the 27 (sufficient to deny any of them a majority) voted against other loosening recommendations on marijuana, so I'm not sure that voting to move it from “like heroin” to “like cocaine” means much.
Drug classification does not depend on the harm they do, but on a complex net of economic and political causes. There are very harmful drugs that are legal and regulated (like alcohol) and also many substances that are not explicitly regulated, regardless of how harmful they may be.
That’s not quite it either as opioids and pot have medical uses. The list is in effect arbitrary.
(a) Schedule I shall consist of the drugs and other substances, by whatever official name, common or usual name, chemical name, or brand name designated, listed in this section. Each drug or substance has been assigned the DEA Controlled Substances Code Number set forth opposite it.
(b) Opiates. Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any of the following opiates, including their isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters and ethers, whenever the existence of such isomers, esters, ethers and salts is possible within the specific chemical designation (for purposes of 3-methylthiofentanyl only, the term isomer includes the optical and geometric isomers):
The poster you're responding to is addressing how these drugs get put into the categories, not what the categories actually say they're for.
American drug enforcement is tied as much to racism (marijuana with hispanic immigrants, crack cocaine with black americans) and politics (like hallucinogenics with the anti-war movement) as it is to science. Far more so.
Are you saying it doesn't in theory or in practice? I agree that in practice, it's mostly a joke, with Cannabis having a higher rank than Cocaine and Meth. In theory though, the definition explicitly says it's about addictiveness and harm.
There was a story some time ago about a high-profile politician in my country. She had shared a link to a parody newspaper article about teenagers at a party who died from "marijuana overdose". From her comment it was obvious that she didn't understand that the article was a fake, didn't understand that nobody ever died from a marijuana overdose.
Contrary to poular belief, you can get "marijuana" (cannabidiol) overdose, albeit it's rare. It manifests with vomiting, abdomen cramps and feeling of serious sickness, which could be fatal (other drugs that can cause a fatal overdose often are not fatal by itself but by the secondary effect of suffocating with vomit or other). I'm speaking from experience.
(Not that I'm for recreational drug legalization, I may get downvoted to death¹ but I don’t actually think Prohibition was necessarily a bad idea, perhaps just badly implemented — it should have been phased in over decades like the Founding Fathers had hoped to do with slavery, and a local issue.)
¹Edit: interesting, about ten minutes after my higher post and 4 after this, this still has 1 point but its parent lost ⅓ of its peak 6.
> it should have been phased in over decades like the Founding Fathers had hoped to do with slavery
The founding fathers were a mix of people who thought slavery today, tomorrow, and forever was the plan, people that wanted it gone ASAP, and everything in between. The compromise they came up with was to lock on it for a few decades absolutely plus give enormous power advantages to the people that economically depended on it to protect it going forward; there might have been some who hoped, or at least expected, it would be phased out over time after the lock in period, but for the most part even they would have been hoping future generations might overcome the barriers they set up that made they difficult, it's not like they built any foundation for it.
I don't know about the rare part. I have a very close friend who works as a emergency room doctor and she said that she is really tired of all the cases where people can't handle marijuana, its all the same symptoms, extreme sickness, vomiting, belligerent behavior etc. I asked her what caused it (overdose?) and she said its a few things, a part of the population has a hard time dealing with large amounts of the compounds in marijuana, also she said that THC content in alot of strains being sold today is really high. So some overdose, some genetic/biology involved. Strange thing is the media/news does not report on this at all. And she said its an almost multi-daily occurrence(lives near a medium sized metro area).
>Isn't this kind of silly at this point? I'm not into weed (it's always weird to feel the need to append this disclaimer) but for God's sake at this point I think pretty much everyone recognizes where it lies on the harm spectrum and we still treat it like a deadly narcotic.
Not many people realize this yet, but weed is already legal in the US. With the legalization of "industrial hemp" [0], you can now buy cannabis sativa flower in all 50 states 100% legally. The law requires that it contain less than 0.3% THC by mass, so the strains you can get are selectively bred for that, but it actually isn't a big deal. CBD, and all the other cannabinoids in cannabis that aren't THC still absolutely get you high. You can also create extracts and cook with it for all the same effects as "regular" (high THC) weed. It's essentially like being able to buy beer but not liquor at this point.
More like the difference between beer and kombucha, no? Liquor would be more akin to THC concentrates. I don’t think the effects of CBD are comparable to THC with respect to getting “high”, though I don’t know much about the other cannabinoids. Are you speaking from firsthand experience?
>"I don’t think the effects of CBD are comparable to THC with respect to getting “high”, though I don’t know much about the other cannabinoids."
It's not just about CBD. CBD is one of hundreds of cannabinoids contained in whole-flower cannabis sativa. The synergistic effect of them is what causes the effects of marijuana. THC is just one of many.
>"Are you speaking from firsthand experience?"
Absolutely, from someone who used medicinally for years in California.
I've tried CBD before and it mainly made me tired and slightly headachey. I can confirm Delta-8-THC at least will definitely get you very high. It feels slightly different than D9 but it is honestly hard to describe exactly how. Some describe it as being better for people that get anxious on d9 but I have also heard the opposite. I have seen some reports of people having really bad times from eating a ton of candies. Similar problems as with normal edibles, so regulators will feel compelled to step in. Mixing in a little bit of cbd or other cannabinoids seems to enhance the experience and make it more like normal flower.
I discovered delta 8 a couple of weeks back and tried it. My first thought was pretty much "Oh man, they made a huge oversight."
Many people that have tried it, say that they prefer it because it is not taxed as marijuana so they get around paying a lot. I mean you can buy an entire ounce of 95% pure Delta-8-THC distillate for $100ish. To give perspective, it is a sizable jar and you literally can scrape out about the size of a rice grain of this hard/sticky substance and get ripped. There is a whole thriving market emerging with vape cartridges/pens, candies and different blends of various cannabinoids to elicit different desired effects.
Hopefully they will just pass the MORE act and we'll have full legalization across the board, but at least it will be harder to change the law with respect to just hemp derived products now.
>My first thought was pretty much "Oh man, they made a huge oversight."
The entire Farm Bill was really clever. Republicans in congress and red state legislatures had pushed back against "medicinal" legalization over and over for years. But frame it as something to support rural farmers, and all of the sudden they're on board. I don't think they understood at all the actual reality of what it meant to legalize "industrial hemp". The floodgates are open and there's basically no stopping it now.
I can't argue that it isn't self-experimentation. However we are not talking about synthetic chemicals on the same order as Spice/K2. Delta 8 does exist in Marijuana naturally, just at lower concentrations than that of D9. So at least on some level humans have used it as long as they have used cannabis. D8 is sourced from hemp. There is a chemical extraction process similar to that used with d9. There have also been medical studies on d8. Israel did a study in the 90s showing efficacy for treating chemotherapy induced nausea and has been known to chemists since the 70s.
Point taken though that everyone needs to consider the potential negatives before trying it themselves. Especially since some people react very negatively with regular cannabis. As always, it is important to know your body and know your drug.
It's slipping and sliding faster and faster.
I'm keen to see the end of this stupid episode in history. The plant has so many positive and environmentally-friendly uses that it is completely absurdity to keep it banned.
> Wednesday's vote therefore does not clear U.N. member nations to legalize marijuana under the international drug control system. Canada and Uruguay have legalized the sale and use of cannabis for recreational purposes, but many countries around the world have decriminalized marijuana possession.
I’ll add that Canada has faced zero consequences for ignoring this useless committee. I encourage all other countries to do the same.
That's an interesting - and to me unsurprising - side effect. Weed is such a generally low-key anodyne that is basically tantamount to alcohol in effect.
Take away the mystique of its illegality and it suddenly becomes a lot less interesting to teenagers.
I was in Uruguay when cannabis for recreational use was legalized. The result was that downtown Montevideo was drenched in the smell of smoke, sometimes enough to make a passerby start coughing. Generally the smell of cannabis products doesn't bother me, but I know that many people find it rank and would prefer to avoid it.
I did think it was odd that while some countries are gradually attempting to wipe out tobacco smoking in public – you can smoke somewhere theoretically, but not in the park, on your balcony in a block of flats, or (if children could be present) in your own home or car – a change had been made in Uruguay that only increased the amount of public smoking.
I can attest to one thing though. Thanks to that legalization if I ride my bike on lakeshore trail sometime on a nice still evening I can't literally breathe in spots so high is the concentration.
I am all for legalization though. Just fucking limit this smoking to some less public spots.
It's so refreshing to have it completely normalized in Canada now. Like gay marriage (legal since 2005), it's just another thing that is perfectly common everyday, and nobody thinks it's a big deal or has to expend energy constantly fighting for the right.
> It's so refreshing to have it completely normalized in Canada now.
Is it really completely normalized? Like are senior members of society such as judges, doctors, military officers, teachers, politicians, etc completely comfortable smoking cannabis in public or would that still cause some surprise if they were that casual about it?
Because I don't think that is even the case with tobacco - people shamefully hide that even though it's always been legal - let alone cannabis?
I think the only drug which is completely normalized is alcohol. They serve alcohol at state dinners and expect most people will want it. I doubt they serve cannabis.
It's really a lot more normal than I expected it would be so soon. It's very common to see people standing in public smoking weed, while it's almost always illegal to drink alcohol in public.
Friends in Toronto don't even buy a bottle of wine for a Friday night dinner with friends anymore, they buy weed.
Just the other day I was with a group of people who went out of their way to hide the beer cans they were walking with as a Police car drove past. They were openly smoking a joint the entire time.
> Like are senior members of society such as judges, doctors, military officers, teachers, politicians, etc completely comfortable smoking cannabis in public or would that still cause some surprise if they were that casual about it?
I don't think it's common to see people like that drinking alcohol in public, and weed feels kind of the same now.
From a legal standpoint, anywhere you can smoke a cigarette, you can smoke weed.
I doubt there's a recent photo of him smoking a joint? Let alone smoking a joint while working and representing the country? What about finishing off a meal with an edible?
I imagine your Parliament has an official bar on premises for members? Does it serve cannabis or just alcohol?
If the smoke is the only issue then presumably you can also get an edible with your meal in family restaurants alongside your beer? No? Not normalised then is it?
I always posit that the proper analogy for "smoking weed" is not "consuming alcohol" but rather "getting drunk" because relatively few people smoke weed without intending to get high (yes, this is an unpopular view; hit the downvote button and move on). If you can buy that, then then there's no inconsistency between serving alcohol at a state dinner (provided getting slammed is taboo) and not serving cannabis.
You've got a point, but of course there's a gradient on the weed end as well. It's just that there's a sharper cutoff on the low end for what constitutes interesting.
Not that I'm aware of. It is now treated - country wide - like alcohol.
Plenty of jobs mean you can't show up to work intoxicated, but it's perfectly fine to have consumed days prior then be fit and healthy for work on Monday morning. Same for weed and alcohol.
>> there is a huge market and billions to be made in this industry.
What canada has found is that this giant market is illusionary. Overall cannabis use has not increased after legalization. The same amount of money is being spent now as before. Yes, there is a slight tax income, but the reality is that people are getting it from the same people they used to. Everyone buys from friends and family just as before. So the government, and all those investors, are not seeing the predicted profits.
"the reality is that people are getting it from the same people they used to"
I've read that the Canadian government mandated that legal cannabis be limited in potency, so that in order to get high potency cannabis people are forced to go to the black market.
Could such potency limits be what's keeping the Canadian black market alive?
No idea. Never been in the market myself. I do hear that the commercial stuff is too expensive. And why pay full price for a plant, a weed, you can grow in a closet? Everyone just knows someone who grows more than they can use themselves. They then sell it to friends for next to nothing.
The thinking goes that cocaine has use as a medicine for end of life care (milk of the poppy and all that). I worked with a guy who used to be a pharmacist that would mix it for end of life patients. They got raided by the DEA once, despite being above board and not breaking any laws.
Marijuana is seen as having no medically accepted use, therefore it’s more illegal than cocaine.
This just happens to work out for those with more money who are more likely to do cocaine than they are schedule 1 drugs like marijuana and crack (which is basically refined cocaine)
Marijuana is seen as having no medically accepted use, therefore it’s more illegal than cocaine.
Except at this point it's obvious to even the most arrogant "evidence-based" medicine advocate that marijuana is indeed medically useful, and moreover that it is neither highly addicting nor dangerous, and that Schedule 1 classification for it makes absolutely no medical or legal sense.
Sorry but I'm having a hard time understanding this. It's been removed from schedule IV, but remains in schedule I.. Schedule I seems to me to be the strictest category. AFAICT they just removed it from schedule IV, which.. doesn't seem to be the strictest drug category?
* appears to just duct tape it to existing tobacco laws, and
* reinvests the funds in communities disproportionately effected by the "war on drugs"
just passed the House Rules Committee and goes up for vote in the house some time this week. The question is whether this will ever get through the senate
> The question is whether this will ever get through the senate
Is it really though? I assumed it was 100% for show, to have something they can use in campaign ads. I see 0% probability of it coming to the senate. So the House is just passing a bunch of laws that look good on their resume.
FYI its great you are passionate about something, but this Congress has passed a historically low number of bills due to its ideological dysfunction, while having a historically high backlog of bills.
Everything in committee gets erased in 30 days, and will need to be reintroduced which requires your representative to: still be in the next session and still care about it instead of something relevant at that point in time.
Yes. And note that this was introduced by Kamala Harris who was voting and releasing bills based on setting herself up for a presidential run.
This specific bill — which she knew would never even reach the floor of the Senate — was to counter her conservatism on drugs and incarceration as CA Attorney General.
She had one of — if not the — most "progressive" voting records in the Senate, but that's not to say she'll push these policies as VP or that they reflect what a Democratic majority would vote on (let alone pass.)
If I was established in the cannabis industry or looking to start something in the space, I'd pay attention to the countries that don't currently have federal legalization but voted to remove it: https://jedgar.netlify.app/pics/weed.jpeg
Nitpick: federal only applies to countries like the US or Germany, which are federations, I think the term you were looking for is national.
As to your other claim I'm not so sure I agree with you: Italy has decriminalized all drug use a long time ago, but legalization of cannabis seems at least a decade away. In the current political climate it's ok to say that addicts should not be jailed, but there is still a lot of moral panic around distribution.
Recreational marijuana use is a net negative on society. I've seen so many people in my life become addicted to it. It hurts to see it portrayed as cool in modern pop culture and it hurts to see people who want to legalize it ignore the long term down sides. It may not cause liver damage like alcohol, but it still has the same dark impact on your psyche.
I don't really disagree with you that it can have its downsides but I think that attaching legal consequences to its use doesn't help people who need help. Imagine if you had to go to jail if you were an alcoholic.
101 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 139 ms ] threadIsn't this kind of silly at this point? I'm not into weed (it's always weird to feel the need to append this disclaimer) but for God's sake at this point I think pretty much everyone recognizes where it lies on the harm spectrum and we still treat it like a deadly narcotic.
The baby stepping toward doing something that seems to extraordinarily black-and-white - particularly in countries that have laws that allow cigarettes and alcohol - is really quite absurd.
This “vote” was 27-25.
The 27 with a brain would best ignore this UN committee entirely. And stop any funding to it too.
Anyone with a brain realized it's best to ignore the UN as an entity quite some time ago.
I guess this time around the strongly worded letters will be what? In support of asking people to perhaps (please) reconsider their legislative approach to or classification of cannabis?
The trope of the UN and their strongly worded letters has existed and been popularized for at least as long as I can remember. Is it really "against the grain" to simply make a call to their ineffectual, flaccid and outright farcical nature?
And if one really wants to debate their farcical nature, one need only look at their most recent candidates for election to the Human Rights Council.
Or their recent Universal Periodic Review where some of the worst modern assailants on human rights lined up for the 2 minutes hate in the name of virtue toward the USA.
If someone is willing to defend the UN and prove they're anything but a farce, I'm all ears.
This committee exists to take away people’s rights, not to give them any.
I look forward to a UN vote on mandatory mask requirements (will never happen).
I'm pretty sure East Timor is the only case of their stepping in for a government. Could be wrong? Other examples?
Their administration of Cambodia in the early 90s seems particularly full fledged:
> The United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC)[3] was a United Nations peacekeeping operation in Cambodia in 1992–93 formed following the 1991 Paris Peace Accords. It was also the first occasion on which the UN had taken over the administration of an independent state, organised and run an election (as opposed to monitoring or supervising), had its own radio station and jail, and been responsible for promoting and safeguarding human rights at the national level.
I didn't know about Cambodia, that's another case, thanks.
Several of the 27 (sufficient to deny any of them a majority) voted against other loosening recommendations on marijuana, so I'm not sure that voting to move it from “like heroin” to “like cocaine” means much.
"contains the substances considered the most addictive and harmful."
> Drug classification does not depend on the harm they do
I'm telling you that's explicitly the opposite of how they intend to classify drugs.
(a) Schedule I shall consist of the drugs and other substances, by whatever official name, common or usual name, chemical name, or brand name designated, listed in this section. Each drug or substance has been assigned the DEA Controlled Substances Code Number set forth opposite it.
(b) Opiates. Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any of the following opiates, including their isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters and ethers, whenever the existence of such isomers, esters, ethers and salts is possible within the specific chemical designation (for purposes of 3-methylthiofentanyl only, the term isomer includes the optical and geometric isomers):
American drug enforcement is tied as much to racism (marijuana with hispanic immigrants, crack cocaine with black americans) and politics (like hallucinogenics with the anti-war movement) as it is to science. Far more so.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482175/
¹Edit: interesting, about ten minutes after my higher post and 4 after this, this still has 1 point but its parent lost ⅓ of its peak 6.
The founding fathers were a mix of people who thought slavery today, tomorrow, and forever was the plan, people that wanted it gone ASAP, and everything in between. The compromise they came up with was to lock on it for a few decades absolutely plus give enormous power advantages to the people that economically depended on it to protect it going forward; there might have been some who hoped, or at least expected, it would be phased out over time after the lock in period, but for the most part even they would have been hoping future generations might overcome the barriers they set up that made they difficult, it's not like they built any foundation for it.
Is it new research?
I have read previously in many places (including NIH's webpage) that a link between marijuana OD and death is not (yet?) clearly established. Example:
> Overall, the committee identified no study in which cannabis was determined to be the direct cause of overdose death.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425742/#_NBK425742_pub...
This is a few years older than what you linked, so maybe my knowledge is outdated. But I'm not sure "popular belief" is the right description.
Not many people realize this yet, but weed is already legal in the US. With the legalization of "industrial hemp" [0], you can now buy cannabis sativa flower in all 50 states 100% legally. The law requires that it contain less than 0.3% THC by mass, so the strains you can get are selectively bred for that, but it actually isn't a big deal. CBD, and all the other cannabinoids in cannabis that aren't THC still absolutely get you high. You can also create extracts and cook with it for all the same effects as "regular" (high THC) weed. It's essentially like being able to buy beer but not liquor at this point.
[0] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/12/14/the-farm-bi...
It's not just about CBD. CBD is one of hundreds of cannabinoids contained in whole-flower cannabis sativa. The synergistic effect of them is what causes the effects of marijuana. THC is just one of many.
>"Are you speaking from firsthand experience?"
Absolutely, from someone who used medicinally for years in California.
According to other commenters, Delta-8 or CBG may.
Hopefully they will just pass the MORE act and we'll have full legalization across the board, but at least it will be harder to change the law with respect to just hemp derived products now.
The entire Farm Bill was really clever. Republicans in congress and red state legislatures had pushed back against "medicinal" legalization over and over for years. But frame it as something to support rural farmers, and all of the sudden they're on board. I don't think they understood at all the actual reality of what it meant to legalize "industrial hemp". The floodgates are open and there's basically no stopping it now.
How much human use has there been of this drug throughout history?
If the answer is "not much", then you are basically experimenting on yourself.
Point taken though that everyone needs to consider the potential negatives before trying it themselves. Especially since some people react very negatively with regular cannabis. As always, it is important to know your body and know your drug.
Yes. Fortunately we're almost there. In the US we have majority support (68%) and is just a matter of time before it's fully legalized.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-...
Nobody can expect the “UN Committee of Narcotic Drugs” to be anything but a political tool.
I’ll add that Canada has faced zero consequences for ignoring this useless committee. I encourage all other countries to do the same.
Take away the mystique of its illegality and it suddenly becomes a lot less interesting to teenagers.
I did think it was odd that while some countries are gradually attempting to wipe out tobacco smoking in public – you can smoke somewhere theoretically, but not in the park, on your balcony in a block of flats, or (if children could be present) in your own home or car – a change had been made in Uruguay that only increased the amount of public smoking.
I am all for legalization though. Just fucking limit this smoking to some less public spots.
Is it really completely normalized? Like are senior members of society such as judges, doctors, military officers, teachers, politicians, etc completely comfortable smoking cannabis in public or would that still cause some surprise if they were that casual about it?
Because I don't think that is even the case with tobacco - people shamefully hide that even though it's always been legal - let alone cannabis?
I think the only drug which is completely normalized is alcohol. They serve alcohol at state dinners and expect most people will want it. I doubt they serve cannabis.
Friends in Toronto don't even buy a bottle of wine for a Friday night dinner with friends anymore, they buy weed.
Just the other day I was with a group of people who went out of their way to hide the beer cans they were walking with as a Police car drove past. They were openly smoking a joint the entire time.
> Like are senior members of society such as judges, doctors, military officers, teachers, politicians, etc completely comfortable smoking cannabis in public or would that still cause some surprise if they were that casual about it?
I don't think it's common to see people like that drinking alcohol in public, and weed feels kind of the same now.
From a legal standpoint, anywhere you can smoke a cigarette, you can smoke weed.
Huh? Canada has bars, pubs, restaurants, with people drinking in them in public all the time.
> I don't think it's common to see people like that drinking alcohol in public,
Here's Trudeau publicly drinking alcohol at an official function.
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2017/11/08/the-wednesday-news-br...
I doubt there's a recent photo of him smoking a joint? Let alone smoking a joint while working and representing the country? What about finishing off a meal with an edible?
I imagine your Parliament has an official bar on premises for members? Does it serve cannabis or just alcohol?
Nonsense.
Bars, pubs and restaurants are private places. Parks and sidewalks are public.
I can walk down the public sidewalk in the middle of town openly hitting a 6 ft bong. I can't drink even one can of beer like that.
Do any Canadians have to pass drug tests which test for cannabis use before they can get certain jobs?
I know in the US, even in states like California that have effectively legalized cannabis, many employers still test for cannabis use.
This is employment discrimination, so cannabis use won't be normalized until such tests are done away with.
Plenty of jobs mean you can't show up to work intoxicated, but it's perfectly fine to have consumed days prior then be fit and healthy for work on Monday morning. Same for weed and alcohol.
At the end of the day, the rulers realized that there is a huge market and billions to be made in this industry.
What canada has found is that this giant market is illusionary. Overall cannabis use has not increased after legalization. The same amount of money is being spent now as before. Yes, there is a slight tax income, but the reality is that people are getting it from the same people they used to. Everyone buys from friends and family just as before. So the government, and all those investors, are not seeing the predicted profits.
I've read that the Canadian government mandated that legal cannabis be limited in potency, so that in order to get high potency cannabis people are forced to go to the black market.
Could such potency limits be what's keeping the Canadian black market alive?
Based on perusal on the drug categories before this change one could get prescription of cocaine but not cannabis. This is absolutely hilarious.
Marijuana is seen as having no medically accepted use, therefore it’s more illegal than cocaine.
This just happens to work out for those with more money who are more likely to do cocaine than they are schedule 1 drugs like marijuana and crack (which is basically refined cocaine)
Except at this point it's obvious to even the most arrogant "evidence-based" medicine advocate that marijuana is indeed medically useful, and moreover that it is neither highly addicting nor dangerous, and that Schedule 1 classification for it makes absolutely no medical or legal sense.
“Milk of the poppy” is obviously a stand-in for opiates (derived from the opium poppy), not cocaine.
But, yes, There is a history of cocaine being used with opiates as a pain treatment, especially in end-of-life cases.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brompton_cocktail
Still, having Cannabis at Schedule IV is funny.
* decriminalizes marijuana,
* removes it from the schedule system entirely,
* appears to just duct tape it to existing tobacco laws, and
* reinvests the funds in communities disproportionately effected by the "war on drugs"
just passed the House Rules Committee and goes up for vote in the house some time this week. The question is whether this will ever get through the senate
Is it really though? I assumed it was 100% for show, to have something they can use in campaign ads. I see 0% probability of it coming to the senate. So the House is just passing a bunch of laws that look good on their resume.
As a country, we are not there yet. 2022 Senate races are far too important to be trying to get ahead of where the country is. You lose suburban moms.
I think it's more of a generational thing.
Everything in committee gets erased in 30 days, and will need to be reintroduced which requires your representative to: still be in the next session and still care about it instead of something relevant at that point in time.
Your bill is dead in the water.
This specific bill — which she knew would never even reach the floor of the Senate — was to counter her conservatism on drugs and incarceration as CA Attorney General.
She had one of — if not the — most "progressive" voting records in the Senate, but that's not to say she'll push these policies as VP or that they reflect what a Democratic majority would vote on (let alone pass.)
Many of the drug dealers just move on from marijuana to other illegal drugs. They don’t try to establish themselves with the drug they are selling.
Watch Hassan minhaj patriot act on the marijuana business. None of the benefits that marijuana legalization supporters rant about occurred.
If any benefit happens, it’s more people use the drug and that doesn’t benefit anyone.
“Ever” being sharply limited because the current Congress ends in a month and a day.
Also, no, it won't. Nor would it likely be signed into law even if it did.
A similar bill in the next Congress might have better prospects, maybe.
As to your other claim I'm not so sure I agree with you: Italy has decriminalized all drug use a long time ago, but legalization of cannabis seems at least a decade away. In the current political climate it's ok to say that addicts should not be jailed, but there is still a lot of moral panic around distribution.
my guess is that it got flagged to death.