patrick.net

A capitalist hippie can dream...

I never thought our war on drugs made a ton of sense. However, I've always been a good little girl and never indulged in anything illegal. So, to be honest, I don't know much about the subject. If marijuana were to be totally legal everywhere for recreational use:

1) Would people have to worry about second hand smoke? Could you accidentally get high talking to people who are smoking pot out in the open?

2) Proponents of legalization say that it's less harmful than tobacco. But isn't there a risk in lighting anything on fire and breathing it in? I would think that you could get lung cancer from anything you lit on fire and smoked. People don't chain smoke pot probably because it's so expensive and the act has to be hidden. But if it were legal, wouldn't the price go down causing people smoke more frequently, thus increasing their risk of lung cancer.... making it not all that different than cigarettes?

Don't jump on me. I'm genuinely asking these questions. I judge no one!

turtledove says

Could you accidentally get high talking to people who are smoking pot out in the
open?

Probably not high; more likely to get a headache if anything. Indoors at a party, one might ingest enough to not pass a surprise urine test the next week or two. Drug screens test for carboxy-THC, which is the inactive metabolite after the first pass through the liver; it accumulates in fatty tissue and is detectible for weeks. It is wrong to think people are still under the influence when they fail a "pot drug screen." Cocaine and alcohol, on the other hand, are not detectible 1 or 2 days out.

turtledove says

Proponents of legalization say that it's less harmful than tobacco.

Fair question. Smoke is not good for the lungs, no arguing there. The thing is, cannabis is VERY different from tobacco! Nicotine binds to one class of cholinergic neurons, which have numerous functions. It is a powerful vasoconstrictor, which aggravates emphysema and promotes aging and skin wrinkling to name a few. Tobacco smoke produces far more radicals in the body. Some studies note that mineral fertilizers required by tobacco subsidies introduce radionuclides into the tobacco and thus smokers' lungs.

Cannabis on the other hand is a powerful vasodilator, making it ironically a useful treatment for emphysema caused by tobacco. The more potent the cannabis, the less must be smoked for desired effect. Heavy smokers (what??) may have bronchitis, but lung cancer is a tobacco disease. Some studies suggest elevated risk of head and neck cancers with cannabis smoking. Vaporizers and concentrates mitigate these risks to near zero, but the law makes any quantity of concentrated cannabis a felony.

Automan Empire says

promotes aging and skin wrinkling to name a few

You just stumbled upon the biggest reason I never took up the habit ;). Forget cancer... That's just too far out in the future. Now, if it makes you ugly (stained teeth, wrinkled skin, & smelly hair)... that's a reason to avoid something.

Thanks for the info. One more question about second hand smoke. Would this pose a particular danger to children? For example, marijuana is now legal, would parents risk harming their children (healthwise) smoking pot in the living room while watching a family movie? There might already be rules about this in states that have legalized it. But I would imagine that in several years, when it's no longer a big deal and legalized for recreational use... it would seem that kids would be exposed to it... Like they are when their parents have a glass of wine or smoke a cigarette.

turtledove says

One more question about second hand smoke. Would this pose a particular danger to children? For example, marijuana is now legal, would parents risk harming their children (healthwise) smoking pot in the living room while watching a family movie? There might already be rules about this in states that have legalized it. But I would imagine that in several years, when it's no longer a big deal and legalized for recreational use... it would seem that kids would be exposed to it... Like they are when their parents have a glass of wine or smoke a cigarette.

Just saute the herb in some oil and use the oil in a batch of brownies. No problems with smoke and as far as the kids know its just a tasty treat. Haven't tried it myself, I'm a teetotaler but friends swear by it.

(Yes of course the kids get their own THC free batch).

New Renter says

Just saute the herb in some oil and use the oil in a batch of brownies. No problems with smoke and as far as the kids know its just a tasty treat.

If it were completely legal here in CA, would you try it? I've never been the type to try things that are illegal. Just never wanted to risk the possible consequences. As a person who doesn't care for smoking, I think I'd be more inclined to try the edibles. I think if it were legal, I'd try it. Find out what all the hub-bub is about.

If Obama does this, all Republicans who support the move will immediately oppose it.

turtledove says

New Renter says

Just saute the herb in some oil and use the oil in a batch of brownies. No problems with smoke and as far as the kids know its just a tasty treat.

If it were completely legal here in CA, would you try it? I've never been the type to try things that are illegal. Just never wanted to risk the possible consequences. As a person who doesn't care for smoking, I think I'd be more inclined to try the edibles. I think if it were legal, I'd try it. Find out what all the hub-bub is about.

Sure, why not? Call me when you whip up your first batch of brownies :)

If you are pot curious, go ahead, try it, but don't blame us when you wind up homeless, in rags, covered in your own vomit, shaking a tin cup for handouts, being set upon by ruthless biker thugs, and sold into slavery by creepy hippy nouveau communes.

After all, it much less harmful than alcohol.

You're welcome.

The thing about eating it is, the onset of effects is delayed and sometimes lasts longer than when smoking. People tend to get impatient and think, "They're not working" and eat more. Then you end up being TOO high, and it keeps coming on stronger before diminishing. This often happens to novice users unfamiliar with the effects and averse to smoking, and I think is the main basis for "marijuana emergency room visits."

When smoked, the effects appear and reach full strength quickly, making it easy to titrate the dose to the desired effect, without going over.

For the neophyte user, I would recommend smoking a small amount of higher potency stuff before trying edibles.

turtledove says

would parents risk harming their children (healthwise) smoking pot in the living
room while watching a family movie?

I'm very pro-hemp but this does not sit well with me. I don't think it's ethical to smoke anything inside a building shared with others outside of 100% mutual consenting adults. It's better to go to the back porch and smoke; it can be blown up and away, instead of wafting out of all the leeward windows at nose level and annoying the neighbors.

I've known a number of hippie families where the parents will smoke in front of the kids; I believe in taking it out of their sight. On a side note, many of the hippie kids grew up to be anti-drug straight edge types, though a subset of these were big cigarette smokers and/or drinkers.

Ceffer says

If you are pot curious, go ahead, try it, but don't blame us when you wind up homeless, in rags, covered in your own vomit, shaking a tin cup for handouts, being set upon by ruthless biker thugs, and sold into slavery by creepy hippy nouveau communes.

After all, it much less harmful than alcohol.

You're welcome.

Were you raped by a pot plant at a young age?

Relax, ma'am, the big weed bud hiding under your bed, can't hurt you anymore

Ceffer says

If you are pot curious, go ahead, try it, but don't blame us when you wind up homeless, in rags, covered in your own vomit, shaking a tin cup for handouts, being set upon by ruthless biker thugs, and sold into slavery by creepy hippy nouveau communes.

After all, it much less harmful than alcohol.

You're welcome.

Ah the prison industrial complex propoganda. Must be shaking in their boots if this were to happen-how many of their jobs and pensions go into jeopardy if drugs were decriminalized??

This is what happens when a whole industry springs up around arresting people, throwing them in prison for personal choices. The industry is dependent on the continuation of the arrest, jail, parole, rearrest cycle. What a sad way to live-ruining lives of millions and making sure they never get ahead-because they will have a record and so will never be able to get a decent job-all because they wanted to ingest/smoke something.

Will ingesting pot, cause the munchies, if you already had a 3 course meal?

Rin says

Will ingesting pot, cause the munchies, if you already had a 3 course meal?

So long as you are ingesting it with a fat, as the THC is fat soluble, then yes.

Ingesting pot all by itself won't do much of anything.

Rin says

Will ingesting pot, cause the munchies, if you already had a 3 course
meal?

Probably not. This effect is rather variable between individuals; it doesn't affect my appetite either way at all, personally, to the point I wonder if this is urban legend or something.

ETA, I think the fat soluble aspect is irrelevant for all users regarding appetite.

Obama supporters are frustrated alot.

turtledove says

18 Congressmen Ask Obama to Reschedule Marijuana

One republican and the rest are democrats, that figures. Republicans like the numbers of black and brown people that are arrested because of the placement of pot as schedule 1, otherwise they wouldn't have went to the trouble to begin with to put pot there. The reults are as intended or better by the republicans, that's why it was created.
Let's not even touch the area of the banks and money laundering and how those same banks are protected by the very same republicans.

If pot wasn't such a high percentage of the total amount of drugs, maybe. But the arrests and imprisonment of people of color and the for-profit prison industry will be protected by the right. As it is, when a republican gets elected to president, all bets could be off and massive enforcement of current laws could be imposed, and probably will because that would be their dream come true.

CaptainShuddup says

Obama supporters are frustrated alot.

You are the poster boy for frustration on this forum so you must be the biggest Obama supporter here!

Here's the thing, in the future, a lot of ppl won't have work due to expert systems/automation and robotics.

The end result is that if mainstream society is not doped up, there will be a lot of unrest out there.

Therefore, I think this getting ppl high, is a first step towards the full blown sponsorship state, where ppl are sitting around, listening to classic rock or metal & getting high all of the time, while robots go about doing all the work.

Rin says

Here's the thing, in the future, a lot of ppl won't have work due to expert
systems/automation and robotics.

If that occurs, isn't it only a matter of time until the governmet passes a "temporary" one child policy in the united states?

dublin hillz says

If that occurs, isn't it only a matter of time until the governmet passes a "temporary" one child policy in the united states?

Given the current investment in automated drones, that may not even be necessary, as ppl who venture outside of their living parameters (a.k.a two miles from their housing projects), will be shot down as trespassers.

Rin says

dublin hillz says

If that occurs, isn't it only a matter of time until the governmet passes a "temporary" one child policy in the united states?

Given the current investment in automated drones, that may not even be necessary, as ppl who venture outside of their living parameters (a.k.a two miles from their housing projects), will be shot down as trespassers.

Not so much drones as oligarch helicopter hunting expeditions.

Might be a good time to get in on the ground floor of a taxidermy business.

New Renter says

Rin says

dublin hillz says

If that occurs, isn't it only a matter of time until the governmet passes a "temporary" one child policy in the united states?

Given the current investment in automated drones, that may not even be necessary, as ppl who venture outside of their living parameters (a.k.a two miles from their housing projects), will be shot down as trespassers.

Not so much drones as oligarch helicopter hunting expeditions.

Might be a good time to get in on the ground floor of a taxidermy business.

This is a little extreme an a sure fire recipe for a revolution the elite who control the nation do NOT desire. Everything is pacification, instead. They'd dearly love to take guns from the populace as this would be a huge step towards that goal. However, they can't, this would also cause a revolution at current time. So instead they give us mindless entertainment, set unattainable but flashy and meaningless goals (you too can be famous!), and look the other way with hemp use. The only reason it's illegal is purely economic. The prison guards union strongly opposes legalization, for instance, because they'd lose a ton of jobs.

Markets tend to eventually correct via P/E ratios so if the earnings are not there, eventually a stock where people were banking on growth gets hammered. The question is will people adapt to new reality of automation and produce fewer offsprings so as not to cause them a life of hardship?

donjumpsuit says

However, going above 65mph on a California freeway is technically illegal.

Have you done that?

Sure. I've also jay-walked. But these aren't felonious acts. I wouldn't want to get a ticket, but it hardly inspires the same fear as serving jail time.

New Renter says

Call me when you whip up your first batch of brownies :)

Will do. And with Automan's excellent tips, we should be good to go.

upisdown says

people that are arrested because of the placement of pot as schedule 1

That really is the point. Why is marijuana schedule 1 when cocaine is schedule II? Most people would agree that cocaine is more dangerous than pot. At the very minimum, it seems that it's been criminalized to an absurd degree. As schedule one, I believe that also limits the abilities for scientists to study it here in the US.

Rin says

Therefore, I think this getting ppl high, is a first step towards the full blown sponsorship state, where ppl are sitting around, listening to classic rock or metal & getting high all of the time, while robots go about doing all the work.

Okay... Put the Aldous Huxley novel down. (I know you have it ;).

Couldn't the same thing be said about alcohol? People could be sitting around half drunk all the time... It's a lot cheaper than drugs.... Why wouldn't alcohol have the same risk of leading down that slippery slope to full-blown state sponsorship?

I hope the President will proceed towards rescheduling marijuana, and ultimately legalizing it, but we should acknowledge that the drug war has made objective data difficult to find. "When war is declared, truth is the first casualty." The prison industrial complex has tended to exaggerate the risks, while advocates for legalization have sometimes understated them, and ultimately in my opinion the role of government should be to make objective information available rather than trying to save you from yourself.

The risk of cannabis causing injury to third parties (including children) is almost certainly lower than alcohol and nicotine, and a long list of other things by which reckless parents injure their children.

OTOH, there are some risks. Excessive consumption can exacerbate or cause paranoid or even schizophrenic symptoms in susceptible persons. Compared to a baseline risk of 1% in the general population, heavy users of cannabis have a 2% risk of schizophrenia, and as prohibition has led to higher THC concentrations, the risk has climbed to 4%. I did not believe cannabis could be addictive until I saw a very bright friend slide into a cycle of "treating" his anxiety with cannabis, which brought temporary relief but then worse symptoms; he became paranoid schizophrenic. That does not happen to ordinary recreational users, nor even most long term users, but I would hesitate to recommend cannabis as a chronic "treatment." As for Jamaica having a lower rate of cancer, that might be due to having a higher risk of getting shot; everybody dies of something.

Alcohol and cigarettes have risks too, including cirrhosis and cancer, and I've known people who've died of both.

Government can't save people from themselves. Alas government power tends to get captured by financially motivated parties, including the military industrial complex, the prison industrial complex, and the medical industrial complex, all of which derive some of their revenue and power from the endless "drug war". I hope re-scheduling cannabis might lead ultimately to ending the war and resurrecting a search for objective truth. Government can support research and provide accurate information to help people make their own healthy choices.

There's no reason why alcohol should be legal while mary jane is illegal. Marijuana is a much milder substance. Alcohol is one of the most destructive chemicals to the body out of all the "drugs." However, certain things to keep in mind:

Smoking a joint will have a greater psychological effect vs having "1 drink."

However, drinking heavily during the day will affect you much more than smoking heavily. Most smokers actually know when to stop.

Smokers get paranoid that people "know that they are high." Drinkers on the other hand have an inflated sense of self confidence - i.e. "no one knows that I am drunk." "I can drive 60 miles easy."

All in all though alcohol has much more harm potential physically. However, marijuana may result in a more frequent habitual use because it is milder on the body, by far.

Still, no reason for mary jane to be illegal while acohol is legal.