View Full Version : Marijuana
So I was interested to hear that the President said he doesn't think marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol (http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/20/health/marijuana-versus-alcohol/?hpt=hp_inthenews). I would agree with this sentiment, but around here I think people have gotten the idea that marijuana has *no effects* which is not true....unless you've tried to conduct business with different potheads than I have >8) I'm not sure I've read a study that showed this, but anecdotal evidence on my part would indicate a deficit in short-term memory among heavy users. I tend to doubt that light to moderate use has lasting effects, and like alcohol, may have mild beneficial effects. There's another interesting article about that (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/). Current studies have been hampered by a variety of issues, such as a lack of light to moderate users who would be willing to "out" themselves in the name of science. This is one of the things that I hope the legalization movement will improve. Since I think the drug war has failed on pretty much every single front and since I hope my tax money can get used for far more useful things, I voted for CO's amendment. I have not done pot in this century, but there are a whole host of reasons I think legalizing/regulating is a good idea:
-when I was in college, it became apparent that high school kids had an easier time getting pot than alcohol due to lack of regulation
-the drug cartels in Mexico may lose some of their power structure
-hemp, illegal to grow in the US although tacitly now legal in CO and maybe WA, is incredibly useful and more drought-resistant than corn, which could help farmers in the West in particular
-I'd hate for police to totally ruin a young person's life for driving while high but I also don't want to get hit by a high driver (or drunk driver, or any driver) so clarifying laws surrounding high driving could be helpful
-cigarettes and alcohol are as addictive, or more addictive and alcohol leads to more acute deaths
-the pain issue
-pot is not without its effects (but neither is caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, etc including mild pain killers such as acetaminaphen) but a schedule I narcotic? Above *cocaine* as a danger to society? Nope. Jailing people for this is a crime against humanity, IMO.
-now I have a gift idea for my mom's birthday ;)
Anyway, this was discussed a while ago, but I thought the health article was interesting. Since it's more of a policy issue than a specific health issue, I figured it belongs here but feel free to move it.
new2oregon
1-21-14, 12:19am
I think there is less side effects than other prescription medication. Its legal here if you have it prescribed and you don't even have to smoke it because you can use it in food form. It does help people that can't eat because of cancer treatments etc. When you buy from a legal place its like going to a pharmacy so you are not dealing out on the street. Not the worse thing in the world.
As long as people don't harm others while they are under the influence, or expect society to pay for the long-term consequences to their own health, I really don't care what substances they choose to entertain themselves with. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
I will say that almost every call I have been on over the past year or so that involved violent subjects also involved alcohol or some serious drugs, not a single pot user in the crowd.
It seems like same sex marriage and gay acceptance has progressed more than marijuana legislative change. Which, again makes me believe the root of the resistance is in $$.
I fully support the rights of gay married couples to smoke weeds and own assault rifles :-)
I have to say I'm in agreement with Rosie and Bae on this one.
I will say, as an elected official in the State of Washington, I am considering leasing some of my jurisdiction's land to pot farmers...
Its part of my past, and probably my future, so experience tells me that yes, there is a decided effect from smoking pot. That's why we did it. I am fully behind legalization for all the reasons listed above and just because its idiotic to do otherwise IMO. The only part I'm waiting to see is how the under the influence while driving aspect shakes out. I would not be able to drive with the same reaction time and I would not be as aware of my surroundings if I were stoned compared to being straight. I'm just not sure where those chips (Doritos?) will fall.
Its part of my past, and probably my future, so experience tells me that yes, there is a decided effect from smoking pot. That's why we did it. I am fully behind legalization for all the reasons listed above and just because its idiotic to do otherwise IMO. The only part I'm waiting to see is how the under the influence while driving aspect shakes out. I would not be able to drive with the same reaction time and I would not be as aware of my surroundings if I were stoned compared to being straight. I'm just not sure where those chips (Doritos?) will fall.
And there's also the issue of drug testing in the workplace and THC's tendancy to remain in the body longer than alcohol. There are a host of safety regulations which must be adhered to and it will be interesting to see how many people's employment is adversely affected by their legal usage.
Drug testing was always a gross invasion of privacy. If someone is impaired, there are always performance tests.
I agree that pot isn't more harmful than alcohol and all the other positives. Like alcohol, if it's used responsibly, it has it's own recreational value. And I agree that it should be legal. Another positive I would add is the tax revenue, some of which is earmarked for schools and education. I think the tax rate for recreational MJ in Colorado is 35%, so this could be very big.
The biggest negative I can think of is that there is going to be a faction of users, enabled by it's legalization, that will abuse it and put others in harm's way. Whether it is driving under the influence, maybe skiing out of control, or working around hazardous equipment or machinery while impaired. There are enough bozos on this bus without adding more. Hopefully other states with follow suit so tourists don't flock to Colorado for the pot experience and then do silly things that infringe upon others.
...it will be interesting to see how many people's employment is adversely affected by their legal usage.
I think that will probably be a fascinating test of constitutional law. The standard drug tests shouldn't apply due to the lingering nature of THC that you mentioned. In the case of Colorado I'm not sure employers have many options regarding employee pot use until some type of standardized performance test is implemented. It seems that, unless someone is caught consuming pot red handed, any action taken by an employer is a law suit waiting to happen. One of them will surely make it to the CO Supreme Court and maybe beyond.
Aren't most states in the USA still employment-at-will, Gregg? I don't see much of a constitutional issue there to hang your hat on, pot smokers are not a protected class.
I have to say, as a liberal-ish adult, that I don't oppose legalization, but I would also say, as a parent of a teenager and a soon-to-be-teenager, that I oppose legalization. I don't want my kids smoking pot, and I don't want my kids drinking alcohol, and part of the reason for that is I know what ridiculously dangerous situations I got myself into from about eighth grade on. I managed to keep my grades up, and my life didn't crash to the ground, but I could have been in a serious automobile accident.
It's hard enough to focus on alcohol, and the fact that adults can drink it legally, and that, yes, I occasionally buy a bottle of wine. I don't also want to deal with yes, now marijuana is legal too - especially with the added argument that it's not as bad as alcohol.
iris lilies
1-22-14, 12:35am
Drug testing was always a gross invasion of privacy. If someone is impaired, there are always performance tests.
Spoken by someone who doesn't have to fund the entire program that trains, and carries out, tests that would only be imperfeclty administered at best.
I say, don't wanna lose your job for smoking pot? don't smoke then.
DH worked in the tree and lawn industry where the operators of large vehicles are required by the feds to take regular drug tests. The tree climbers are a macho bunch who also, as a general group, like to smoke dope. There were many an employee placed on leave for a bad test, then when the wait period was up, came back on duty. It's very difficult to hire highly skilled tree surgeons, especially if they have climbing skills.
Also, Dh mentioned a few new hires who would take the required drug test and never come back to work because they knew they hadn't passed.
I have to say, as a liberal-ish adult, that I don't oppose legalization, but I would also say, as a parent of a teenager and a soon-to-be-teenager, that I oppose legalization. I don't want my kids smoking pot, and I don't want my kids drinking alcohol,...
My concern is not so much the smoking of pot, but the other forms it will now be sold in in my state - soft drinks, baked goods, syrups, candies, and whatnot. At our medical training a few months ago, they showed us a mind-boggling array of packaging and product.
My concern is not so much the smoking of pot, but the other forms it will now be sold in in my state - soft drinks, baked goods, syrups, candies, and whatnot. At our medical training a few months ago, they showed us a mind-boggling array of packaging and product.
I didn't even think of that. That's all our strung out society needs, THC laced Red Bull.
My understanding from friends with kids is that pot is/was readily available to teens and young adults through whatever black market underground channels exist. Possibly the legalization might add some validity to it's use, but maybe not a big change in availability to the younger age groups.
Also, it seems like dispensaries for medical patients already existed in virtually every neighborhood. Rumors I got were that most anyone who seriously persued it could find a doctor to write a prescription for minor or imagined illnesses or pains. This included access to edibles. And procession of smaller quantities for non medical patients was already legal or a low priority misdemeanor.
So legalization of recreational MJ, at least as it went here in Colorado, may have been a big step philosophically, but practically speaking maybe a much smaller change.
The part of CO that we lived in was a resort area. Procuring pot, or just about anything else, never seemed to be an issue for anyone regardless of what the regulatory environment was. In that town the new law simply moves the transaction from the back door to the front door and insures some of the revenue will provide a playground in addition to the dealers new Range Rover.
You're right about the employment at will issue, bae. Constitutional issue or not, I do think the ability of an employer to limit an employee's off-the-clock consumption of a legal substance is going to open up some interesting debates, not the least of which are privacy issues with possible ramifications well beyond getting stoned at home.
gimmethesimplelife
1-22-14, 12:46pm
And there's also the issue of drug testing in the workplace and THC's tendancy to remain in the body longer than alcohol. There are a host of safety regulations which must be adhered to and it will be interesting to see how many people's employment is adversely affected by their legal usage.I expect some interesting lawsuits in Colorado and Washington State in regards to this issue - legal pot use vs. employer's right to drug test pre-employment/randomly during employment/testing during employment after accidents and such. This just screams lawsuit heaven as this is taking place in the United States. Rob
Far as I can tell, Colorado courts have already settled the basics of the issue, though I'm sure there will be some refinements. Basically all the cards are in the employer's hand and an employee can be fired for off-the-job use even if the person is not impaired at work. People who were required to undergo drug testing previous to legalization probably won't see any change and their hiring or employment will still be contingent on being drug free.
"Nothing in the law will "affect the ability of employers to have policies restricting the use of marijuana by employees," the amendment states.That includes getting high at work or even after hours, according to legal experts and judicial rulings.
Tests can't determine exactly when pot was ingested. Marijuana metabolites can remain in the human body for weeks, so employers don't know whether a positive test resulted from on- or off-duty use. Nor do they care, if they have a strict no-drug policy."
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23104820/colorado-appeals-court-oks-firing-off-duty-marijuana
Spoken by someone who doesn't have to fund the entire program that trains, and carries out, tests that would only be imperfeclty administered at best.
I say, don't wanna lose your job for smoking pot? don't smoke then.
DH worked in the tree and lawn industry where the operators of large vehicles are required by the feds to take regular drug tests. The tree climbers are a macho bunch who also, as a general group, like to smoke dope. There were many an employee placed on leave for a bad test, then when the wait period was up, came back on duty. It's very difficult to hire highly skilled tree surgeons, especially if they have climbing skills.
Also, Dh mentioned a few new hires who would take the required drug test and never come back to work because they knew they hadn't passed.
I had to take a drug test once. I had to list all the supplements I took, etc. I passed, natch, then went to work in an office where the lead guy was a raging alcoholic. Such irony. I don't think performance tests (which I understand are something like a computer game) would be an onerous burden on the employer. You'd only need one unit, and it would be a writeoff.
Funny how we don't drug test most of the higher-ups in this country--just the peons. Thankfully, I don't have to report to anyone, so I can use marijuana as soon as it's available here.
Calif can drug test before hiring but can only drug test after a person is employed if they exhibit behavior of drug or alcohol intoxication or if their job is one that requires occasional drug testing (those in usually hazardous positions or who are entrusted with the safety of others like a school bus driver or who work with heavy machinery, etc...). Drivers who are suspected of DUI of either drugs (including marijuana) or alcohol and don't pass a field sobriety test can choose either a urine or blood test. The urine test will be positive for marijuana use over an longer period of time but a blood test will only be positive if it's been used recently - like that day.
Calif employer drug testing law: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-laws-drug-testing.html
Calif drug DUI law:
Driving under the influence:
It is unlawful to drive while under the influence of marijuana (or alcohol or any other drug) by Vehicle Code 23152. "Under the influence" is not specifically defined in the statute, but is interpreted to imply some degree of impairment. Therefore the mere fact of having taken a toke of marijuana does not necessarily mean one is DUI. For evidence of impairment, officers may administer a field sobriety test. Arrestees may also be required to submit to their choice of a urine or blood test under Vehicle Code 23612. Since marijuana is detectable for much longer periods in urine than in blood (several days vs. several hours), a positive urine test constitutes much weaker proof of recent use and impairment than a positive blood test.
In a previous life, I and my team were told we were going to be asked to be drug tested, if our company got a particular government contract. As we were software and hardware engineers, we politely declined, refusing to work on the project, offering to go work down the street at a competitor if need be. Management decided to pull out of the deal.
In my current life, I am subjected to mandatory drug testing several times a year during our medical screenings, and after *any* incident involving vehicle damage or injuries to others. But in *this* job, I can sort of understand that, though of course I'd prefer a performance-based approach - guys who show up in the middle of the night for a call and are sleep-deprived are often just as dangerous. We have a pretty good culture of people waving off if they don't feel fit that instant, and their team-mates calling them on it, constructively, if they don't bow out.
Well we always had to burn some of that evil weed off the back of the ship and inhale it to make sure all those bales really were M.J. making our mandatory drug tests pretty useless :-)! For some reason they wouldn't let us do "inhale" any cocaine we picked up to test it - had to do a chemical test for that. Shucks!
I had mandatory random drug testing for my civilian job too but I knew that would be a requirement of the job before I was hired.
I see here that cannabinoids are neuroprotective--at least in MS. Interesting:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21420365
My understanding from friends with kids is that pot is/was readily available to teens and young adults through whatever black market underground channels exist. Possibly the legalization might add some validity to it's use, but maybe not a big change in availability to the younger age groups.
I would suspect that for the same reason that pot has reportedly easier for teens to get than alcohol (no regulation/enforcement/concern from sellers about the purchaser's age) that with pot legal the black market channels that were so easy for teens to access will likely dry up somewhat.
I see here that cannabinoids are neuroprotective--at least in MS. Interesting:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21420365
This is most interesting to me since I have MS..... I wish they would at least legalize medical marijuana here! My doctor would write me a script in a minute...
I see here that cannabinoids are neuroprotective--at least in MS. Interesting:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21420365
I don't know anything about medical marijuana but I do know that the average stuff the regular person buys on the street is something like 10 times more powerful(more concentrated levels of THC) than it was back in the 1970's (when Cheech and Chong were trying to find Dave - who wasn't there man :-)!). I wonder if the medical grade stuff is higher then the street level stuff. Maybe more like hash was back then. Unfortunately pot has so many other chemicals in it that I imagine it can be bad for overall health if used long term even if it helps relieve pain. I don't partake of the stuff myself (tried it back in the day of course but didn't like it or any mind altering drugs) so don't know how strong the effects are now a days. People I know who do get high seems to be totally stoned and out of it though after just a small amount. Whoa...the colors man!
Apparently, they're growing specialized strains to treat different illnesses:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/health/charlotte-child-medical-marijuana/
I hope most of the country will at least embrace medical use of marijuana; so many could benefit.
Apparently, they're growing specialized strains to treat different illnesses:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/07/health/charlotte-child-medical-marijuana/
I hope most of the country will at least embrace medical use of marijuana; so many could benefit.
My objection to just legalizing medical marijuana is that basically if you're honest and don't have some medical condition that could putatively be treated with marijuana, you get screwed. Unless you are an employer, who really cares if you're taking a little pot now and then as long as you don't drive on it?
As for the amounts of THC, yes they are *much* higher than in the past. People used to smoke basically low-level ditch weed, but once the crackdowns occurred in the 80s, growers wanted it to be worth their while to take the risk, and had to bring everything inside. Thus, hydroponic growing was born, and pretty much only enthusiasts were involved in the growing so they got it more and more concentrated with different strains and such. It's really a great example of capitalism and inventiveness....sort of like how the mob perfected organized crime and money laundering during Prohibition. The way the growing works now, there's tracking from seed to sale. I do not know if sellers give buyers some idea of the level of THC in a particular strain or batch. This is generally required with alcohol, but I haven't tried to buy pot at this point. Some of my coworkers have, so I suppose I can ask them....
I would suspect that for the same reason that pot has reportedly easier for teens to get than alcohol (no regulation/enforcement/concern from sellers about the purchaser's age) that with pot legal the black market channels that were so easy for teens to access will likely dry up somewhat.
A couple of young people I know are excited to turn 21 so they can buy pot. My personal experience is that it was far easier to get pot underage than alcohol, especially for younger teens. IE, I didn't have any problem getting alcohol at 20, but at 16 I would not have known where to start other than my parents' liquor cabinet. My brother helped himself until they wised up; I observed some extremely negative effects of drinking in my teens that led me to believe I was better off without it. The worry with legal pot to some degree is parents having it and being too casual with it. Like anything else, it depends on the child. This is also a major issue with prescription painkillers, though, as well as some types of cough syrup, paint, whipped cream and the list goes on. My hope is that it will get more difficult for young teens to get pot and that it will be seen as something adults can do but teens should wait on, similar to alcohol, cigarettes and sex. I'm not under any illusions that there will be no chance for teens to get it, but if it's seen as something they can get "some day" and regulations make it more difficult to get (or quantities become much smaller) then that will be a win, IMO. I don't pretend to know how to talk to teens, but there are some studies indicating that pot increases the risk of mental illness, especially schizophrenia, when used by teens. The risk seems to decrease/disappear by early adulthood, so that may be a talking point when discussing drug use with teenagers. A blanket "don't use drugs, you'll wind up crazy/dead/in prison" is a falsehood teens can see through, especially if they observe adults who are partaking. However, "wait til 21 because your brain won't be as messed up" may at least delay use a few crucial years.
I read that it can cost $400/ounce to buy pot in Colorado at a legal vendor. Seems pretty prohibitive to both the young and the old :-)! Wonder if black market and illegal trafficking of MJ will increase due to the high cost and heavy taxation - both by consumers and manufacturers?
I read that it can cost $400/ounce to buy pot in Colorado at a legal vendor. Seems pretty prohibitive to both the young and the old :-)! Wonder if black market and illegal trafficking of MJ will increase due to the high cost and heavy taxation - both by consumers and manufacturers?
From what I read, the regulations that a recreational vendor must follow are pretty restrictive and the paperwork to get licensed is quite cumbersome, much more so than for a medical license, so there really are not a huge numbers of stores so far. I think something like 40 for the whole state, but that number will grow for sure. I imagine it will be a sellers market until there are more vendors and I'll bet the tourists in the ski areas are going soaked. But you might be right about it pushing sales back to the black market. It all seems like a big experiment.
There are a couple of recreational vendors not too far from my house. They are seedy looking little cubby holes of a store with small overhead. I don't know what a grow operation involves but I bet the profit margin is either large or very large. I've wondered if or how many millionaires have been made already from these little operations.
We have a friend who has been a licensed grower in CO for 3 or 4 years now. He has a manageable sized operation (security quickly becomes an issue if you get very big). He has also re-invested almost all his profits into better equipment so has had to live very frugally for the past few years. Now that the capital expenditures are behind him he says his income should be around $100K. A nice living, but certainly nothing exceptional and right in line with reasonable expectations for any small business with his level of gross sales. Getting a grower's license is not akin to hitting the lottery.
And yes, the reports from our old ski resort stomping ground say that $400/oz. is about the going rate. A lot more than the $40 we paid in the late 70's for "Mexican Brown". But then again there's at least 10x the THC in this stuff compared to our high school hits so in a way the bang for the buck from 2014 legal weed is identical to that of 1979 contraband. Doesn't sound like a bad deal to me.
Doesn't sound like a bad deal to me.
I guess the bad deal comes from not letting you grow your own plant(s) in your own garden, something that I am given to understand is not rocket science.
Heck, the BATF lets us produce a certain amount of wine and beer at home for personal use (though not distilled spirits...), something that requires a bit of skill and equipment, yet we are forbidden to place a plant seed in dirt.
I guess the bad deal comes from not letting you grow your own plant(s) in your own garden, something that I am given to understand is not rocket science.
Heck, the BATF lets us produce a certain amount of wine and beer at home for personal use (though not distilled spirits...), something that requires a bit of skill and equipment, yet we are forbidden to place a plant seed in dirt.
Lunacy to be sure, I could not agree more. And I also understand that growing marijuana is not particularly difficult. Some have even said that it grows like a weed. (bada bing)
My mother, an avid gardener, watered the pretty plants that were volunteering in the back yard. Right under my sibling's window. You guessed it; Mom was an early pot farmer (if unaware).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.