78 replies to this topic

[MissMelsWell]

I would absolutely NEVER advocate for the recreational legalization of cocaine (although cocaine is techically legal for medical use. It's a Schedule II narcotic and certain types of pharmacies actually dispense it in pure form) So essentially, it's on par with a Percocet or Ritalin.

As a non-user, my really big problem with the Feds is that Marijuana doens't even meet their own criteria for being a schedule I narcotic! This is the point I hope Colorado and Washington force on the Feds and make the rest of the country aware of. The United States created the international ban on a pretty darn harmless and sometimes useful and helpful plant. It's time we un-do the wrong we did.

[preacherman76]

MissMelsWell, on 11 November 2012 - 07:03 PM, said:

I've NEVER heard him say that. I've always understood that he'd side with the feds on state run pot distribution.

He said he wouldn't "use Justice Department resources to try and circumvent state laws about medical marijuana." Thats word for word. So obviously he lied.

Then after confronted he said.

What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana. I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana ...

Edited by preacherman76, 13 November 2012 - 10:50 AM.

[Babe Ruth]

MissMelsWell, on 13 November 2012 - 07:28 AM, said:

I would absolutely NEVER advocate for the recreational legalization of cocaine (although cocaine is techically legal for medical use. It's a Schedule II narcotic and certain types of pharmacies actually dispense it in pure form) So essentially, it's on par with a Percocet or Ritalin.

As a non-user, my really big problem with the Feds is that Marijuana doens't even meet their own criteria for being a schedule I narcotic! This is the point I hope Colorado and Washington force on the Feds and make the rest of the country aware of. The United States created the international ban on a pretty darn harmless and sometimes useful and helpful plant. It's time we un-do the wrong we did.

I do advocate for the legalization of all the currently illegal drugs, simply because logic demands that it is the prohibition that is harming our society, no matter how many drugs happen to be on the prohibited list.

Which is to say that a drug's toxicity or potential for abuse cannot be the controlling factor for its legal status.  If toxicity were the standard, then aspirin, alcohol and tobacco would be at the top of the list.

It is the prohibition that harms, hence LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.

[OverSword]

I voted no on I-502 (missmellswell, who knows me is possibly shocked at that) because I was watching a debate where a hidden agenda was addressed.  They plan on regulating not only the production and sale of pot for legal use but also plan on limiting the potency of legal pot to about 15% THC.  Current typicaly grown pot is about 70%.  If you want to get stronger than 15% you will have to go through black market chanels which will then be subject to much harsher penalties than are currently the norm.  I-502 was voted through by people who just couldn'd wait to have legal pot and didn't really examine the initiative in thier rush to have it.

PS. I know the MMW does not smoke pot and her heart was in the right place.

PPS.  Last night I informed my mother (who also voted yes on 502) that I voted against the legalization of recreational marajuana and for gay marriage and she wanted to know what I did with her son.

[MissMelsWell]

OverSword, on 13 November 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

I voted no on I-502 (missmellswell, who knows me is possibly shocked at that) because I was watching a debate where a hidden agenda was addressed.  They plan on regulating not only the production and sale of pot for legal use but also plan on limiting the potency of legal pot to about 15% THC.  Current typicaly grown pot is about 70%.  If you want to get stronger than 15% you will have to go through black market chanels which will then be subject to much harsher penalties than are currently the norm.  I-502 was voted through by people who just couldn'd wait to have legal pot and didn't really examine the initiative in thier rush to have it.

PS. I know the MMW does not smoke pot and her heart was in the right place.

PPS.  Last night I informed my mother (who also voted yes on 502) that I voted against the legalization of recreational marajuana and for gay marriage and she wanted to know what I did with her son.

Hahaha! I LOVE your mother!

And no, believe it or not, I assumed you would vote "no" on it for those reasons and maybe even some others. In fact, most of the medical users I know voted against it as well.

I voted yes on it because I want it to be heard that there's a changing attitude, I actually don't believe that we'll see any state run pot stores in a year. I think the Feds are going to throw a hissy fit and do whatever is in their power to stop it. I've always thought that.

At one time in Washington, you couldnt sell alcohol above 3.5% or whatever it was... but the law has been ammended several times and now we have no limits on precentage of alcohol by volume in this state. You can walk out to 711 and buy a 10% beer and you can go to QFC and buy a fifth of vodk as of 6 months ago. These laws are subject t change and ammending. The language that's in there was to get it passed in the first place. It won't stay as written, they never do.

But in the end, I don't think we'll see legal state run pot sales anyway.

Edited by MissMelsWell, 13 November 2012 - 04:51 PM.

[keithisco]

Marijuana, and Cocaine are both mind altering drugs...overuse leads to periods of psychosis and the long - term effects can lead to impotency, psychotic behaviour, self - harming, and withdrawal from society at large. I will not tell you how I know this, but I have older children, and am still picking up the pieces.

This is NOT Cheech and Chong humorous movies, this is reality!!!

[MissMelsWell]

That's funny, I know a LOT of pot smokers. They are regular, daily users who have been partaking for 30+ years. They're as normal today as they were 35 years ago. In fact, I probably only know one person in all my years that shouldn't have been smoking pot. He did get a little nutty... I'm going to take a shot at the reason why... he was an unmedicated paranoid schizophrenic. Pot escalated that condition.

Edited by MissMelsWell, 13 November 2012 - 05:02 PM.

[Babe Ruth]

OverSword, on 13 November 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

I voted no on I-502 (missmellswell, who knows me is possibly shocked at that) because I was watching a debate where a hidden agenda was addressed.  They plan on regulating not only the production and sale of pot for legal use but also plan on limiting the potency of legal pot to about 15% THC.  Current typicaly grown pot is about 70%.  If you want to get stronger than 15% you will have to go through black market chanels which will then be subject to much harsher penalties than are currently the norm.  I-502 was voted through by people who just couldn'd wait to have legal pot and didn't really examine the initiative in thier rush to have it.

PS. I know the MMW does not smoke pot and her heart was in the right place.

PPS.  Last night I informed my mother (who also voted yes on 502) that I voted against the legalization of recreational marajuana and for gay marriage and she wanted to know what I did with her son.

Thanks for that info.  That is a perfect example of a regulation that was not thought through all the way.  Allowing only 15% THC content is just asking for a black market to eventually materialize.

[OverSword]

Babe Ruth, on 13 November 2012 - 07:10 PM, said:

Thanks for that info.  That is a perfect example of a regulation that was not thought through all the way.  Allowing only 15% THC content is just asking for a black market to eventually materialize.

You don't have to wear a tinfoil hat to see the conspiracy here.  They figured out a way to tighten controls that currecnt prohibition wasn't accomplishing.

[jugoso]

OverSword, on 13 November 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

I voted no on I-502 (missmellswell, who knows me is possibly shocked at that) because I was watching a debate where a hidden agenda was addressed.  They plan on regulating not only the production and sale of pot for legal use but also plan on limiting the potency of legal pot to about 15% THC.  Current typicaly grown pot is about 70%.  If you want to get stronger than 15% you will have to go through black market chanels which will then be subject to much harsher penalties than are currently the norm.  I-502 was voted through by people who just couldn'd wait to have legal pot and didn't really examine the initiative in thier rush to have it.

PS. I know the MMW does not smoke pot and her heart was in the right place.

PPS.  Last night I informed my mother (who also voted yes on 502) that I voted against the legalization of recreational marajuana and for gay marriage and she wanted to know what I did with her son.

Not exactly sure where you got your figures from. My understanding is that in the early 70´s the THC content in Marijuana was 2-3% and over the last few decades has increased to as much as 20%+. I don´t know why anyone would need marijuana with a THC content of 70%. A THC content of 15% is more than enough to for a user to get the effects they want.

There is a good chart here

http://www.briancben...ta/thc-content/

Stronger cannabis products aren't "more dangerous" -- they're just stronger, which means less product is required to get the same effect. It's quite similar to the range of alcohol products between beer and whiskey. Whiskey may be "10 times stronger" than beer, but the drug in question (alcohol) is still the same thing.

[OverSword]

jugoso, on 13 November 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

Not exactly sure where you got your figures from. My understanding is that in the early 70´s the THC content in Marijuana was 2-3% and over the last few decades has increased to as much as 20%+. I don´t know why anyone would need marijuana with a THC content of 70%. A THC content of 15% is more than enough to for a user to get the effects they want.

There is a good chart here

http://www.briancben...ta/thc-content/

Stronger cannabis products aren't "more dangerous" -- they're just stronger, which means less product is required to get the same effect. It's quite similar to the range of alcohol products between beer and whiskey. Whiskey may be "10 times stronger" than beer, but the drug in question (alcohol) is still the same thing.

My figures are based on the debate about I-502 I was watching on the CSPAN of the state of Washington prior to the election.  The percentages I quoted came from a retired police officer who was arguing the con side of the debate, and while I don't recall all of the exact numbers he said I am positive that he stated that when he was in the Washinton state patrol in the 1970's the THC content was 15%.  Again I don't know about the accuracy of his numbers, this is just what he said.

edit for:  After looking at your charts I've got to point out that the hydroponic pot grown in the pacific northwest was for decades stronger than other pot.  When I was a kid my nieghbors blend won best bud in high times 5 years in a row and was finally defeated by someone else in this state.  Back in the 80's on the occassion that we would partake with people from other parts of the country they were consistently impressed with the quality.

Edited by OverSword, 13 November 2012 - 10:39 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

jugoso, on 13 November 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

Not exactly sure where you got your figures from. My understanding is that in the early 70´s the THC content in Marijuana was 2-3% and over the last few decades has increased to as much as 20%+. I don´t know why anyone would need marijuana with a THC content of 70%. A THC content of 15% is more than enough to for a user to get the effects they want.

There is a good chart here

http://www.briancben...ta/thc-content/

Stronger cannabis products aren't "more dangerous" -- they're just stronger, which means less product is required to get the same effect. It's quite similar to the range of alcohol products between beer and whiskey. Whiskey may be "10 times stronger" than beer, but the drug in question (alcohol) is still the same thing.

Not true. Cannabis has two drugs in it. One is THC the other is an anti-psychotic.; The super skunk varieties have increased the THC content which has the side effect of reducing the anti-psychotic. Hence super Skunk is more likely to induce psychosis.

Br Cornelius

[OverSword]

Br Cornelius, on 13 November 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

Not true. Cannabis has two drugs in it. One is THC the other is an anti-psychotic.; The super skunk varieties have increased the THC content which has the side effect of reducing the anti-psychotic. Hence super Skunk is more likely to induce psychosis.

Br Cornelius

LOL!  Really?  Well that expklains alot about my friends then!

[Kafkaesque]

questionmark, on 11 November 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

if pot gets legalized it will be just a question of time for the rest.

This is very flawed logic.

Having something statistically safer than Alcohol legalized, like Marijuana, will not give every one the option to legally become Meth addicts.

That is very presumptuous...

[Darkwind]

I didn't know how much good it was doing for my pain until I lost my source and quit.  It wasn't hard to quit, but my pain ramped up, so I do miss it. There is nothing I get from the doctor that works as well. Opiates do nothing they might as well be candy.  I wish they would  legalize to to grow for your own use. Even if I could buy it in the store I really couldn't afford it.