# Instant pot- California style



## OliverNuther (Jan 2, 2018)

I see on the news that marijuana has now been legalised for recreational use in California, apparently the 6th US state to do so. The reporting was pretty matter of fact; not much colour or background info so Im interested in peoples opinions. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? What do the locals think? What does everyone else think?

The news report said that it was being sold for about US $180 per ounce. That seems expensive. Is it?

Disclosure. My last joint was about 30 years ago and my personal opinion is that an individual can put what they like into their bodies so long as they dont become antisocial so my interest is purely academic. Marijuana is illegal here in Australia. Even medical marijuana is a grey area so its a fairly novel issue here.


----------



## Yet-Another-Dave (Jan 2, 2018)

The legality is a little murky here too, since it is still against US Federal law.

The only significant real problem I see is that there isn't a effect breathalizer test for THC intoxication. (Yet.) We have a significant, though declining, drunk driver problem and until we can prove they're stoned I fear stoned drivers will be a mess.

As for the fears of legalization, prohibition wasn't working. I figure it is time to try something else and I hope we can get the laws sorted out and tuned quickly, so this is better. We tried prohibition of alcohol and it didn't go well. I'm hoping a legalize pot and manage the problems approach also helps with our drug problem.


----------



## chinacats (Jan 2, 2018)

Legal here as well though not available for retail sale as of yet. I am a med card holder so it doesn't affect me...that said I believe it's a good thing. Why criminalize a behavior that is less intoxicating than alcohol (which I also enjoy)?

On the med side, we have a major opioid problem here in the states and I personally find it much better for relieving pain than the highly addictive pills that tend to be prescribed.

As to cost $180/oz for high grade pot is not very expensive but I'm guessing that price may be more likely to be 1/2 oz vs oz. Taxes are fairly high which is a good thing...you can always grow your own if you prefer.


----------



## TheCaptain (Jan 2, 2018)

To the best of my knowledge, as Yet-another-Dave mentioned, there is no breathalizer *OR* blood test that can measure THC impairment. I don't care what you do in your spare time, but when you get behind the wheel and put others at risk it sets me off. 

I don't smoke pot (can't stand the smell) so it's not really a thing for me, but I understand THC has a very long half life as far as staying in the system and can be detected up to a month after the last use. I don't know how you reconcile testing/charging someone with a DUI if you can't measure actual impairment.

So does everyone who uses pot get charged with a DUI if THC is detected, even if they weren't impaired? Or do they get a free pass because it can't be measured accurately? I do't have an answer for this but it is, IMHO, a pretty serious item that is not well addressed.

The US drug policy has limited legitimate testing/studies on pot, which is a shame as there are many legitimate uses for it. I do think it should be better studied and understood before we legalize it.

Finally, the pot of today is not the same stuff your parents smoked back in the 60's. It's a LOT more potent that it was back then, so much so that it's now triggering psychotic episodes in some. 

So I'm mixed.


----------



## chinacats (Jan 2, 2018)

TheCaptain said:


> Finally, the pot of today is not the same stuff your parents smoked back in the 60's. It's a LOT more potent that it was back then, so much so that it's now triggering psychotic episodes in some.



This is really just propaganda...the best strains today are no stronger than the best strains of yesteryear...around 20 percent THC. Skunk 1 was bred in California in the 60's from landrace strains originating in Columbia and Afghanistan. That said, there are some concentrates nowadays that weren't around back then (dabbing?) but that is somewhat different.

As to testing for dui, impaired is impaired no matter the substance; can you pass a roadside test? If our laws weren't so archaic we could have answers to all your questions through legit scientific research but they want to treat pot like heroin and say there is no valid use? Makes me mad as hell.

As to worrying about stoned drivers...do you think people are just starting to smoke pot? Plenty of stoned drivers in states without legal weed...and for all practical purposes weed had been legal in Cali for a very long time...only difference is now the state takes a cut, when will uncle Sam catch on and want his share?


----------



## Yet-Another-Dave (Jan 2, 2018)

TheCaptain said:


> To the best of my knowledge, as Yet-another-Dave mentioned, there is no breathalizer *OR* blood test that can measure THC impairment. I don't care what you do in your spare time, but when you get behind the wheel and put others at risk it sets me off.
> 
> I don't smoke pot (can't stand the smell) so it's not really a thing for me, but I understand THC has a very long half life as far as staying in the system and can be detected up to a month after the last use. I don't know how you reconcile testing/charging someone with a DUI if you can't measure actual impairment.
> 
> So does everyone who uses pot get charged with a DUI if THC is detected, even if they weren't impaired? Or do they get a free pass because it can't be measured accurately? I do't have an answer for this but it is, IMHO, a pretty serious item that is not well addressed.



That's one side and the one I'm most worried about right now. The flip-side is stories of "trained experts" detecting "signs of impairment", testifying, and getting B.S. convictions. In one (alleged) case the absence of THC in a blood sample reportedly wasn't evidence enough to avoid conviction. I don't really know if these are true or urban legend, but the possibility is also concerning.




TheCaptain said:


> ... The US drug policy has limited legitimate testing/studies on pot, which is a shame as there are many legitimate uses for it. I do think it should be better studied and understood before we legalize it.
> 
> Finally, the pot of today is not the same stuff your parents smoked back in the 60's. It's a LOT more potent that it was back then, so much so that it's now triggering psychotic episodes in some.
> 
> So I'm mixed.



One of the theoretical, and I hope actual, advantages of legal pot is a more accurate representation of dosage.

I recall a report on a study (in England?) of heroin addition. The premises were addicts only get clean when they want to and inconsistent strength of street drugs was responsible for ODs. What they did was provide controlled dosages, with clean needles etc, and what they found was heroin addicts were able to manage their addiction and lead productive lives. (At a very real cost to their health, much like functional alcoholics.) More positive, many/most of the test subjects entered programs and got clean after an average of two years. The key was not killing them during their addicted period.

As you say, more careful unbiased study is needed.


----------



## Yet-Another-Dave (Jan 2, 2018)

chinacats said:


> ... As to testing for dui, impaired is impaired no matter the substance; can you pass a roadside test? If our laws weren't so archaic we could have answers to all your questions through legit scientific research but they want to treat pot like heroin and say there is no valid use? Makes me mad as hell.



On roadside tests, see my reply above.

I'm not convinced heroin couldn't also have some medical use, if we studied it enough to understand it better. (BTW- I'm not claiming that's one of better uses of research dollars either. I'm happy to leave this one as an open question.  ) E.g. one of the reports on the current opioid crisis said one of the drug companies promoted their opioid as less addictive while suppressing their study data showing it was more addictive than heroin. (They did pain management studies at one dose and addiction studies at another much lower dose. It's all good unless you're in pain and want the drug to work without becoming addicted.)


----------



## Chicagohawkie (Jan 2, 2018)

For those people who dont think all this marijuana hype wont be monetized by local, state, federal govt, its coming. The tests are being beta tested already in Illinois and the fines will be as massive as a DUI. My lawyer friends say this will be a bigger payday than when the intoxaction limit went from .10 to .08!


----------



## OliverNuther (Jan 2, 2018)

TheCaptain said:


> I don't know how you reconcile testing/charging someone with a DUI if you can't measure actual impairment.
> 
> So does everyone who uses pot get charged with a DUI if THC is detected, even if they weren't impaired? Or do they get a free pass because it can't be measured accurately? I do't have an answer for this but it is, IMHO, a pretty serious item that is not well addressed..



Likewise here. The various tests can only determine the presence of THC or meth etc, not the level of impairment so a person is charged if ANY illicit substance is detected. If I was a drug user Im sure I would be up in arms over this but I have to admit that Im able to close my eyes to the issue of presence in system vs level of impairment. Double standard I know particularly when as a regular drinker I am quite happy to have 0.05 BAC safety net of impairment. 

A bigger issue here recently is codeine based prescription medication. From 1 February any codeine based medication must be prescribed by a doctor. Previously they were available over the counter at pharmacies. Apparently Australia is second only to the US when it comes to over prescription of codeine based medication and ODs from prescription medication is now outstripping ODs from illicit drugs. 

Seems strange that one country is legalising a previously illicit recreational substance while another restricts access to a legal therapeutic substance. Kinda blurs the lines on the whole good for you / bad for you debate.


----------



## chinacats (Jan 2, 2018)

OliverNuther said:


> Seems strange that one country is legalising a previously illicit recreational substance while another restricts access to a legal therapeutic substance. Kinda blurs the lines on the whole good for you / bad for you debate.



Makes perfect sense, codeine bad, pot good. Again, as to impairment it doesn't really matter the source...though alcohol and opiates seem to be more dangerous in my experience.


----------



## StonedEdge (Jan 2, 2018)

Pot is harmless and should not be a schedule 1 in US. 

Anything over 10$/g after tax is theft


----------



## cheflivengood (Jan 2, 2018)

I'm not going to get scientific but i'll share my personal experience since I get high on that THC pretty much everyday. Buzzed on weed Im actually more focused and relaxed so I sometimes train (boxing) a little high. I couldn't do this after a couple beers. When you are shitfaced (alcohol) you tell yourself "i can drive no problem" just like you tell yourself you can dance, but if im blasted (super high) I actually know I can't drive, in fact I know that i don't want to cause that would not be relaxing. I'm not condoning driving high but Its really not as impairing as one beer (I've never driven on a public street drunk). And I agree with China that people have been driving high for forever and if there was a large percentage of fatalities associated with it this would be a different conversation.


----------



## cheflivengood (Jan 2, 2018)

StonedEdge said:


> Pot is harmless and should not be a schedule 1 in US.
> 
> Anything over 10$/g after tax is theft



your username is making more sense


----------



## StonedEdge (Jan 2, 2018)

cheflivengood said:


> your username is making more sense


Muahahaha

It's a secret


----------



## Paraffin (Jan 2, 2018)

I'm in Washington state USA, the first state to legalize recreational use (2012). I can't say the impact has been very noticeable, except for seeing things like mailers in my mailbox touting the local pot dispensary. As an old Hippie who smoked the stuff back in my teens and twenties, it's been interesting to see the cultural shift. My wife and I don't partake now, we're more wine drinkers these days. But I'm starting to research it, just to prepare for any medical use we might want, down the road. 

As a purely anecdotal note, I haven't noticed any huge increase in traffic accidents here in my corner of WA since it was legalized for recreational use a few years ago. It would be interesting to see some stats, I don't have a reference handy. I do think there needs to be a reliable test for DUI, but it doesn't look like we're there yet.


----------



## malexthekid (Jan 3, 2018)

cheflivengood said:


> I'm not going to get scientific but i'll share my personal experience since I get high on that THC pretty much everyday. Buzzed on weed Im actually more focused and relaxed so I sometimes train (boxing) a little high. I couldn't do this after a couple beers. When you are shitfaced (alcohol) you tell yourself "i can drive no problem" just like you tell yourself you can dance, but if im blasted (super high) I actually know I can't drive, in fact I know that i don't want to cause that would not be relaxing. I'm not condoning driving high but Its really not as impairing as one beer (I've never driven on a public street drunk). And I agree with China that people have been driving high for forever and if there was a large percentage of fatalities associated with it this would be a different conversation.


I will say that is for you. The problem with any drug is that it affects how we think and react, and it affects everyone differently.

I have never been a user but have many friends that are and from what I have seen Pot is no better or worse than alcohol when it comes to impairment. And the big key here isn't just what you think but how long it takes to react. And like alcohol in small doses undoubtedly effects may be minimal but once you exceed your "limit" consequences can be catastrophic.

The issue with pot is that there is currently to research/test that can reveal what is deemed acceptable. With alcohol the numbers exist, with some variances across countries, and are widely accepted as having a direct correlation to impairment.

Research needs to be done to assist in this... perhaps there may be a shift back to cognitive testing for impairment...


----------



## malexthekid (Jan 3, 2018)

StonedEdge said:


> Pot is harmless and should not be a schedule 1 in US.
> 
> Anything over 10$/g after tax is theft


Sorry but this is BS and what harms pot legalisation more than helps it.

Pot isn't harmless but can be used without causing serious harm in appropriate doses for most individuals. In a small but not insignificant proportion of the population it can have serious mental repercussions. 

Much like alcoholism.


----------



## Chicagohawkie (Jan 3, 2018)

malexthekid said:


> Sorry but this is BS and what harms pot legalisation more than helps it.
> 
> Pot isn't harmless but can be used without causing serious harm in appropriate doses for most individuals. In a small but not insignificant proportion of the population it can have serious mental repercussions.
> 
> Much like alcoholism.



+1 so true.


----------



## labor of love (Jan 3, 2018)

I could care less how harmful/harmless pot is. I would like to keep it prohibited as long as possible for 2 reasons: 
1) I dont want to live in a world full of doped up zombies(we sorta already do).
2) Its already so accessible. Id rather keep the profits in the streets over the tax man anyday.


----------



## chinacats (Jan 3, 2018)

Timothy Leery (later in life) said the same about LSD...that while its an incredible thing for some people that it's not for everyone. He is the person credited for "turn on, tune in and drop out" and while it worked really well for some, it likely did serious harm to others. Pot is relatively harmless and most helpful to some/many but definitely not for everyone. So send me yours if it doesn't work for you and I'll take care of disposing of it for you

Also important to note is that the greatest amount of money spent fighting against legalization is the pharmaceutical industry with the alcohol industry a close second.


----------



## labor of love (Jan 3, 2018)

@china, for sure. LSD, mushrooms and pot...its all really great stuff for the right person. Not really addictive like pills. And its all really easy to acquire (even for people that dont work in kitchens &#128512.


----------



## StonedEdge (Jan 3, 2018)

malexthekid said:


> Sorry but this is BS and what harms pot legalisation more than helps it.
> 
> Pot isn't harmless but can be used without causing serious harm in appropriate doses for most individuals. In a small but not insignificant proportion of the population it can have serious mental repercussions.
> 
> Much like alcoholism.



I straight up don't believe that. 

I could mayyyybe see this being true for teenagers whose brains haven't matured completely. But for healthy adults I don't see how recreational weed use would cause nearly the same kind of negative behavior as alcoholism or the abuse of other, much stronger drugs.

Have you seen what happens to people who drink way too much? We all have and it's not pretty.

Now have you seen someone who's smoked too much weed in an evening? They usually lie down, fall asleep and wake up with no ill effects. Maybe they wake up hungry in between but you get the idea. 

Weed compared to cigarettes and alcohol should be considered harmless


----------



## StonedEdge (Jan 3, 2018)

malexthekid said:


> Sorry but this is BS


No


----------



## Paraffin (Jan 3, 2018)

labor of love said:


> I could care less how harmful/harmless pot is. I would like to keep it prohibited as long as possible for 2 reasons:
> 1) I dont want to live in a world full of doped up zombies(we sorta already do).
> 2) Its already so accessible. Id rather keep the profits in the streets over the tax man anyday.



One big problem with the "War On Drugs" approach applied to a relatively harmless substance like weed, is that the criminal consequences are suffered disproportionately by those with lower economic status, and by those in minority racial communities. It's not equitable or fair treatment.


----------



## cheflivengood (Jan 3, 2018)

StonedEdge said:


> I straight up don't believe that.
> 
> I could mayyyybe see this being true for teenagers whose brains haven't matured completely. But for healthy adults I don't see how recreational weed use would cause nearly the same kind of negative behavior as alcoholism or the abuse of other, much stronger drugs.
> 
> ...



I agree. Dabbing if anything should be regulated as its ultra concentrated and if your tolerance isn't high it will render you pretty useless, but as you said you wont turn into some puking twat on the subway getting into fights.


----------



## StonedEdge (Jan 3, 2018)

Thank you, as adults we all are entrusted with the expectation to act on good judgement and common sense. People can abuse Listerine and turn into strange, aggressive dimwits too.

I've seen alcohol divide families and destroy long friendships. I can't say I've seen the same with marijuana. 

If anything, more and more people, many the type of person you'd least expect to use it (parents, politicians, media figures, ...) are turning to it ( or maybe no longer hiding the fact that they use) it as a recreational, harmless way of destressing after slaving away all day. If it helps people relax in this crazy non-stop day and age we find ourselves in, I say it's a good thing. 

Not sure if I'm the only who's noticed but North America seems to be suffering from a mental health crisis. I highly doubt weed has any cause in that.


----------



## labor of love (Jan 3, 2018)

Paraffin said:


> One big problem with the "War On Drugs" approach applied to a relatively harmless substance like weed, is that the criminal consequences are suffered disproportionately by those with lower economic status, and by those in minority racial communities. It's not equitable or fair treatment.



Or you could just not break the law.


----------



## cheflivengood (Jan 3, 2018)

StonedEdge said:


> Thank you, as adults we all are entrusted with the expectation to act on good judgement and common sense. People can abuse Listerine and turn into strange, aggressive dimwits too.
> 
> I've seen alcohol divide families and destroy long friendships. I can't say I've seen the same with marijuana.
> 
> ...



It will help everyone's mental health haha


----------



## dwalker (Jan 3, 2018)

Just FYI, impairment and having a measurable amount of a substance in your system are two completely different issues. Weather the substance is illegal to possess is a third issues. A person can be DUI/DWI with a blood alcohol content of less than .08 % If they can be shown to be "less safe" or impaired. The .08% is a statutory limit that means , in some cases, impairment need not be proven if this amount or more is detected. A person can be DUI on over the counter cough medicine if it impaired their ability to drive, even they took the correct recommended dose printed on the bottle. There are LOTS of intoxicants and pot is no worse or no better than any when it comes to imparing one's ability to drive safely. 

BTW, I don't smoke pot but I think it should be legal everywhere.


----------



## StonedEdge (Jan 3, 2018)

Huge +1 dwalker


----------



## cheflivengood (Jan 3, 2018)

labor of love said:


> Or you could just not break the law.



so when you were ten years old did your local gang banger put a gun to your head and tell you to sell his drugs or die? That happens, happened to a couple of my employees, everyone's situation is different.


----------



## labor of love (Jan 3, 2018)

cheflivengood said:


> so when you were ten years old did your local gang banger put a gun to your head and tell you to sell his drugs or die? That happens, happened to a couple of my employees, everyone's situation is different.



With all due respect here, that is the nature of a criminal enterprise. If weed was legal that situation wouldnt change. The gang would simply use children to push another illegal drug.


----------



## cheflivengood (Jan 3, 2018)

labor of love said:


> With all due respect here, that is the nature of a criminal enterprise. If weed was legal that situation wouldnt change. The gang would simply use children to push another illegal drug.



thats why the first step is decriminalization of weed, then onto the next ones.


----------



## labor of love (Jan 3, 2018)

cheflivengood said:


> thats why the first step is decriminalization of weed, then onto the next ones.



Ill agree to disagree with you.


----------



## StonedEdge (Jan 3, 2018)

Lol because the war on drugs was such a success. Ok.


----------



## labor of love (Jan 3, 2018)

StonedEdge said:


> Lol because the war on drugs was such a success. Ok.



I agree. Definitely unsuccessful.


----------



## chinacats (Jan 3, 2018)

I'll give the war on drugs two things...first I really like their music and second that pot was a gateway drug for me...once I found out how bad a lie it was that pot was dangerous I figured I had to try everything else for myself because they were likely lying about other drugs too.


----------



## malexthekid (Jan 3, 2018)

StonedEdge said:


> Thank you, as adults we all are entrusted with the expectation to act on good judgement and common sense. People can abuse Listerine and turn into strange, aggressive dimwits too.
> 
> I've seen alcohol divide families and destroy long friendships. I can't say I've seen the same with marijuana.
> 
> ...


It is a but hard to compare pot to alcohol given how wide spread alcohol use is and therefore the rate of incidence is going to appear a lot higher when statistically it may be smaller... one won't know until studies are actually done.

Also it is funny you choose to compare "safe" use of pot vs abuse of alcohol...

I have also seen many many families that can safely consume several drinks a day without any issues... isn't that your argument about pot? It is safe for me and my mates, so far, so it must be safe...

As I said I believe in most adult individuals, like alcohol, consuming an appropriate amount is perfectly fine... yes alcohol may have a lower threshold for binging... however both have significant anti-social outcomes with overuse... they are just on the opposite spectrum (and yes alcohol can lead to violent issues however I also believe that is a bigger societal issue, given most people don't bash someone when drunk). Doesn't mean both aren't causing significant issues inside our brains.

Also perhaps you should do some reading on the correlation between marijuana and serve psychotic episodes in those that have a susceptibility to it.

And I have seen the situation where pot destroy families, marriages. Makes mental health problems significantly worse. Yes most times there are underlying mental health issues, which is much the same with alcohol abuse... sorry alcohol doesn't make you pick a fight, it just reduces inhibitions so you are more prepared to do it.

Pot doesn't have an aggressive effect like alcohol appears to have, it has a psychotic and paranoid effect when it goes bad generally.

I'm not arguing against legalising. I think pot should be legal, as in my experience it is the equivalent of alcohol... no better or no worse... but to call either of the safe is just wrong. Both have serious side affects that can cause major issues.

Legalising it may be the step to minimise it as doses can be controlled and regulated. It means research will be less taboo. Heck it may prove you are right and that it is safer.. it may prove it is a bigger cancer risk than cigarettes... I don't know.... but it doesn't have the carte blanche tag of "safe".


----------



## malexthekid (Jan 3, 2018)

dwalker said:


> Just FYI, impairment and having a measurable amount of a substance in your system are two completely different issues. Weather the substance is illegal to possess is a third issues. A person can be DUI/DWI with a blood alcohol content of less than .08 % If they can be shown to be "less safe" or impaired. The .08% is a statutory limit that means , in some cases, impairment need not be proven if this amount or more is detected. A person can be DUI on over the counter cough medicine if it impaired their ability to drive, even they took the correct recommended dose printed on the bottle. There are LOTS of intoxicants and pot is no worse or no better than any when it comes to imparing one's ability to drive safely.
> 
> BTW, I don't smoke pot but I think it should be legal everywhere.


Yep with alcohol there appears to be a general consensus that there is a correlation between blood alcohol level and impairment. 

But like all things, humans aren't the same so not everyone reacts the same, which is also why there are variances such as the US setting at 0.08 and Aus at 0.05.

It isn't a precise relationship and it varies between person to person but it generally works.

Lets hope research can reveal a solution for pot... or as i suggested maybe roadside testing for impairments may move back to cognitive testing... so actually working on an individuals impairment.... but that is also still a long way off


----------



## Mucho Bocho (Jan 3, 2018)

Human have a reception for the THC molecule. In order for a such complex protein structure to exist, and DNA created to code for, hundreds, thousands of years of breeding must occur. Sure impose your Modern moralities and come to judge, but the wise one looks further back in time.


----------



## Nemo (Jan 3, 2018)

Mucho Bocho said:


> Human have a reception for the THC molecule. In order for a such complex protein structure to exist, and DNA created to code for, hundreds, thousands of years of breeding must occur. Sure impose your Modern moralities and come to judge, but the wise one looks further back in time.


 FWIW, humans have a receptor for opiates as well.

The fact that a drug operates on an endogenous hormomal or neurotransmitter system doesn't automatically mean its without problems to supplement the bodies natural hormones and neurotransmitters.


----------



## chinacats (Jan 3, 2018)

Just an observation but seems as if the Aussies tend to take somewhat more of a hardline on this than Americans. Percentage of people now in the states who feel it should be legal is over 50. Just curious what that number is in Australia?

Along the line of what Mucho said, humans have been trying to change one's mental state through chemistry in one form or another for about as long as we've been around...seems just wrong of a government to try to impede that. And just liked prohibition with alcohol, not very successful


----------



## Paraffin (Jan 3, 2018)

One reason why a 1:1 comparison with alcohol doesn't work, is that there does seem to be some medical benefit to marijuana for things like nausea control during chemotherapy, and mild relief of pain from arthritis and other debilitating conditions without going to more addictive opioids. With alcohol, no doctor is writing prescriptions for booze.

This is actually an argument for full legalization, because when it's only _partially_ legalized for medicinal use (which we tried here in WA before full legalization), you get people pestering their doctors for prescriptions when they're going to use it for recreation. Remove the illegal stigma, and both doctors and medical research can proceed to tell us how well this actually works in a medical context, or not.


----------



## Nemo (Jan 4, 2018)

chinacats said:


> Just an observation but seems as if the Aussies tend to take somewhat more of a hardline on this than Americans. Percentage of people now in the states who feel it should be legal is over 50. Just curious what that number is in Australia?



Not sure what support for legalization is like in Aus. Legal medicinal use is currenly on the agenda (with fairly strict criteria I think) but I don't get the feeling that recreational use legalization is. I don't think there are many prosecutions for personal use, though. 

FWIW, I was personally previously in favour of legalization (although I have no interest in using the stuff myself). Two things have given me cause for thought about this and now I am ambivolent:

1) Every psychyatrist that I have discussed this with is deeply concerned about the clear association between regular pot use and psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia. Sure, it's only an association, but it's a pretty significant one. You could argue that it's because these people are self- medicating but it's a much stronger association with cannibis than with other commonly used drugs.

2) The opiate crisis essentially came about because we thought that we could treat chronic pain with opiates. We thought that we could manipulate a finely tuned neurohumeral system without causing problems. We were very very wrong. We are now aware of a problem called opiate induced hyperalgesia whereby in the long term, opiates cause worsening of pain and degradation of quality of life. We understand even less about the cannabinoid neurohumeral system than we did about the opioid one 10 years ago. We have no idea what mucking around with it in the long term will do. One thing that is clear is that almost all regular heavy cannabis users have difficulty controlling pain (for example after surgery) so I don't think it can be said that there are no consequences to its use.

I don't personally think that personal use should be criminalized and I am well aware that prohibition usually doesn't work and generates a black market but I am a little concerned about giving people the idea that using cannabis, especially heavy regular use, is perfectly safe. So for me, it's not a clearcut yea or nay to legalization.


----------



## Paraffin (Jan 4, 2018)

Nemo said:


> I don't personally think that personal use should be criminalized and I am well aware that prohibition usually doesn't work and generates a black market but I am a little concerned about giving people the idea that using cannabis, especially heavy regular use, is perfectly safe. So for me, it's not a clearcut yea or nay to legalization.



Well, whatever we all think about legalization, we're experiencing a huge expansion of legalized use right now in the USA, regardless of the hard-on the current Federal DOJ leadership has about criminalizing it. 

As of January 1, recreational use of cannabis is legal in the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and the District of Columbia. That's the entire West Coast and a fair chunk of the NE. Voters in Arkansas, Florida, Montana and North Dakota approved or expanded medical marijuana laws in their states, so they may be next.

I don't see this trend being reversed. Whatever the large-scale effects are, pro or con, we'll know them before long. And as I said earlier, living in the first state (WA) that legalized recreational use a few years ago, I'm just not seeing widespread mayhem as a result. Life goes on as usual. It's just that the people who have been into weed for years up here, are just more open about it now.


----------



## malexthekid (Jan 4, 2018)

I'm with nemo and parafin...

I am not against legalisation but I an against the rhetoric that canabis is "safe". It should be legal, controlled and have the rhetoric same safety rhetoric as cigarettes and alcohol.


----------



## StonedEdge (Jan 4, 2018)

Either way the government's failure to legalize it early on led to a very thoroughly established black market for the stuff. This means it will never be regulated not controlled furthermore the government's obvious single impetus for legalizing is money. It's all a cash grab. Long time users simply will not go to a store where they have to pay more for less and go through all the BS they will ultimately put in place to keep you "safe".

If I want to smoke a joint or twenty I don't have to ask the government for their opinion on if it's safe or not. They've already established a great framework for me finding it at any hour of day or night at extremely reasonable prices (from some pretty legit and stand up sellers too). So in the end legal or not, safe or not, it really doesn't matter as net effect will remain the same IMO. 

brb while I go develop adult onset paranoid schizophrenia hahaha


----------



## Chef Doom (Jan 6, 2018)

Yet-Another-Dave said:


> The only significant real problem I see is that there isn't a effect breathalizer test for THC intoxication. (Yet.) We have a significant, though declining, drunk driver problem and until we can prove they're stoned I fear stoned drivers will be a mess.



I faintly remember a study performed a decade or so ago that showed that experienced smokers drive better when they are high. It was new weed smokers that had not yet learned to compensate. 

On another note, its one major step closer to ending the harmful pointless destructive war on drugs.


----------



## malexthekid (Jan 6, 2018)

Chef Doom said:


> I faintly remember a study performed a decade or so ago that showed that experienced smokers drive better when they are high. It was new weed smokers that had not yet learned to compensate.
> 
> On another note, its one major step closer to ending the harmful pointless destructive war on drugs.


Drive better than what?

Isn't that just like alcoholics can function better with alcohol in their system. Doesn't mean they aren't impaired.


----------

