78 replies to this topic

[jugoso]

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

I am  confused by your statement that there are two drugs in marijuana. There are over 400 chemicals in marijuana with THC being the one causing the main psycho-active effects. Which is the anti-psychotic you refer to?


My main point was that marijuana with a 70% THC content just doesn´t exist to the best of my knowledge.

http://original-ssc....is-strains.html

Edited by jugoso, 14 November 2012 - 01:01 AM.

[DieChecker]

What is the percentages based on? Weight? If so, then 70% would seem to be impossible, unless the finished product was highly processed. Even when dried out, plant matter would seem to require more then 30% of its mass to be used for non-THC functions.

[ColoradoParanormal]

I am not sure whom posted about the Federal Government closing banks that had these Marijuana businesses as customers, but this is simply not the case. I know this because Colorado has had Marijuana legalized for a number of years now. Not to this degree, but it has been legal in a "medical" form. We have dispensaries on every street corner literally and the Fed's are yet to step in and do anything.

[DieChecker]

I've been firmly Anti-Pot in the past, and still am. When people ask if I would make Liquor/Alcohol and Tobacco illegal, I always say YES. If I thought it was possible to implement and have people do so, I'd make those illegal too.

I've always been of the opinion of if we have trouble with alcohol and tobacco now... why do we then need to toss pot in on top of that? If you have two health/social problems that are not controllable, why add more?

The social problem is not people sitting at home and smoking one every now and then, just as people taking a brandy, or drinking a couple beers, or a bottle of wine... in their home, is not an issue. It is these kids that go out, and drive around stoned on pot, who "know" they are better drivers while stoned, and end up causing problems.

The problem is not pot, it is keeping it out of the hands of kids... which cannot be done.... just like alcohol and cigarrettes.

Since many 12 year olds want to Drink and Smoke, I guess we might just as well make those legal for them to do??? Where do we say, "This the public can't have, to protect those who would misuse it."? For me that includes pot.

End rant.

[Orcseeker]

DieChecker, on 14 November 2012 - 02:44 AM, said:

I've been firmly Anti-Pot in the past, and still am. When people ask if I would make Liquor/Alcohol and Tobacco illegal, I always say YES. If I thought it was possible to implement and have people do so, I'd make those illegal too.

I've always been of the opinion of if we have trouble with alcohol and tobacco now... why do we then need to toss pot in on top of that? If you have two health/social problems that are not controllable, why add more?

The social problem is not people sitting at home and smoking one every now and then, just as people taking a brandy, or drinking a couple beers, or a bottle of wine... in their home, is not an issue. It is these kids that go out, and drive around stoned on pot, who "know" they are better drivers while stoned, and end up causing problems.

The problem is not pot, it is keeping it out of the hands of kids... which cannot be done.... just like alcohol and cigarrettes.

Since many 12 year olds want to Drink and Smoke, I guess we might just as well make those legal for them to do??? Where do we say, "This the public can't have, to protect those who would misuse it."? For me that includes pot.

End rant.

The problem with that is, making it illegal doesn't stop the problem, in fact it makes it worse.

I will outline reasons why:
- If it is illegal, shops cannot sell it, those who sell on the streets don't need to confirm to any age law restrictions.
- You say keep it out of the hands of kids. What happens when kids start to grow up? They get rebellious. So in turn will look to illegal things. One of which, Marijuana.
- Since alcohol is sold in stores and generally at a price the black market cannot compete with due to production on a larger scale and better quality/security of content. It meant that alcohol that we saw in the prohibition era to be bootlegged, made no sense to do so. It is easier to buy an illegal, prohibited substance than the same one, this time legal, in a shop. (ie. not selling alcohol to underage kids)
- I have seen many kids turned to crime over the illegal distribution and production of marijuana. Due to the high demand of the substance it means a higher amount of these kids become involved with such.
- Because alcohol is legal for people at a certain age to buy and consume, does it mean those not allowed will all drink it and hop in a car to drive while intoxicated?

Since you focus mostly on younger people I will summarise the key problems as a result of illegality:
- Easy avaliability
- Illegality encouraging use
- Little to no regulation
- Stigma attached
- Introduction to crime
- Lack of education

I have read some stories where people have been at risk of death due to their friends not wanting to be incriminated after taking substances and dropping off a friend to a hospital and not telling the doctors or anyone anything. Resulting in administered medicine being potentially lethal when combined with the induced substance.

When I was first intoxicated from alcohol, I was 16. I am not an alcoholic now, I don't drink often at all, at most once maybe every few months these days. I'm not irresponsible, I don't start fights or anything of the like. Much like this, which is even a lot less than in moderation, you can take many substances an not be a risk to people if do so responsibly. Which means, don't drink if you are prone to violence, much like don't smoke if there are any mental ailments that may be worsened as a result.

The amount of problems that arise from making Marijuana illegal just simply don't justify what the intended purpose for illegality is.

Marijuana is also the biggest profit turnover for Mexican cartels. They have also started using children as hitmen. Not to mention innocent civilians being killed in the crossfire and young youths is impoverished areas turned to the drug trade to make money.

Make weed legal, without any little exploitations and just simply a fair and safe system. And we will see an immense drop in crime and death.

Can you justify why we should keep this illegal? The problems I just outlined, how do you think they will get any better or cease to exist?

[Br Cornelius]

jugoso, on 14 November 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

I am  confused by your statement that there are two drugs in marijuana. There are over 400 chemicals in marijuana with THC being the one causing the main psycho-active effects. Which is the anti-psychotic you refer to?


My main point was that marijuana with a 70% THC content just doesn´t exist to the best of my knowledge.

http://original-ssc....is-strains.html

Quote

A certain marijuana compound known as cannabidiol (CBD) can treat schizophrenia as well as antipsychotic drugs, with far fewer side effects, according to a preliminary clinical trial.

http://psychcentral....enia/39803.html

If I was religiously inclined such a fact could be used to support the existence of a grand designer.


Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 14 November 2012 - 07:53 AM.

[DieChecker]

Orcseeker, on 14 November 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

The problem with that is, making it illegal doesn't stop the problem, in fact it makes it worse.

....

Can you justify why we should keep this illegal? The problems I just outlined, how do you think they will get any better or cease to exist?

Yeah. I understand all that, but I think there needs to be another solution other then just creating Different problems. Kids get alcohol and drugs anyway, so should we go ahead and make Drinking legal at age 13, or 15?

I get it, I do. I personnally think that it is mostly just an excuse. We have the same issues with alcohol and hard drugs with kids, but for some reason, because pot Might not Hurt young kids... we are going to say it is OK.

I said I don't care what adults do in their own house. If we want to make pot a prescription drug... I'd be OK with that. Maybe prescribe for anxiety, or stress, or fatigue, or appitite... whatever. But, I think simply making it Open Season to do whatever people want is going to cause as much trouble as it is supposed to solve. And so I don't see the reason to put another problem on top of the existing ones... at least as far as kids are concerned.

Probably most occational users would say they don't use it around their kids. But, really, if they are using it every day... how can they not use it around their kids? No one that smokes tobacco really can believe they can hide it for long from their spouse or kids, and the same would apply here.

[Orcseeker]

DieChecker, on 14 November 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

Yeah. I understand all that, but I think there needs to be another solution other then just creating Different problems. Kids get alcohol and drugs anyway, so should we go ahead and make Drinking legal at age 13, or 15?

I get it, I do. I personnally think that it is mostly just an excuse. We have the same issues with alcohol and hard drugs with kids, but for some reason, because pot Might not Hurt young kids... we are going to say it is OK.

I said I don't care what adults do in their own house. If we want to make pot a prescription drug... I'd be OK with that. Maybe prescribe for anxiety, or stress, or fatigue, or appitite... whatever. But, I think simply making it Open Season to do whatever people want is going to cause as much trouble as it is supposed to solve. And so I don't see the reason to put another problem on top of the existing ones... at least as far as kids are concerned.

Probably most occational users would say they don't use it around their kids. But, really, if they are using it every day... how can they not use it around their kids? No one that smokes tobacco really can believe they can hide it for long from their spouse or kids, and the same would apply here.

Wait, so you stand for illegalising alcohol?

The war on drugs will fail and is failing. It is an endless cycle that will always exist. The only thing that can stop it is to legalise them. I believe you think everyone would then start lighting up a smoke and everyone would be stoned 24/7?

Some countries which decriminalised at the very least Marijuana noticed a drop in use.

What I am saying is that a bottle shop owner cannot sell alcohol to a child or they will receive a monstruous fine. Other people purchasing alcohol on behalf of them also can get slapped with a huge fine as well. Whereas a drug dealer can sell to any age and only faces the conviction of dealing drugs and they get away with it 99% of the time. Whereas shop owners don't get that same percentile of success. So why not legalise it, price it to a price and quality that can't be competed with on the streets and sell it in shops?

Because quite frankly the damage it is doing to our society and of course the children as you put it due to this illegality and all that couples with it, I don't see it as justifiable at all. It's like a problem you simply don't want to deal with so you just try to exterminate it and it turn make things tenfold worse. I could liken it to putting an insane person into mainstream prison as opposed to a mental hospital.

Parents need a double check. People can make their own decisions but the problem here isn't the drugs but the parents. I know parents who are pro weed and others who are anti weed.

The medicine you store in your cupboard isn't good for kids either if they get a hold of it. May as well illegalise everything because we go off the basis that all parents are complete failures these days.

Tobacco has addictive properties, Marijuana does not have addictive properties. A friend of mine who smokes a lot tested himself of he could stop smoking for a month. The first few days he just had to get over the habit but otherwise he is fine. I think such self control could easily be applied to parenting, much more than alcoholism and addicts to tobacco.

Edited by Orcseeker, 14 November 2012 - 11:53 AM.

[jugoso]

Br Cornelius, on 14 November 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

http://psychcentral....enia/39803.html

If I was religiously inclined such a fact could be used to support the existence of a grand designer.


Br Cornelius

Thanks for the link. Anybody with a predisposition for schizophrenia is making a huge mistake if they use marijuana irregardless of the THC content. It´s a recipe for disaster.  I´m sure you´re not suggesting that people who fall in this category indulge with a marijuana "light" to reduce the possibility of a psychotic reaction. I haven´t seen any studies that show that people who smoke "super-skunk" are more inclined to psychosis than those who smoke "regular" marijuana. There are just too many variables to control.  Let me get back to my original points. Marijuana with a 70% THC content doesn´t exist. People susceptible to psychosis shouldn´t indulge in these types of  substances. The last question I have is cannot both the THC and CBD be increased at the same time? Or is there some reason that only the THC can be increased without the anti-psychotic?

[Br Cornelius]

jugoso, on 14 November 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

Thanks for the link. Anybody with a predisposition for schizophrenia is making a huge mistake if they use marijuana irregardless of the THC content. It´s a recipe for disaster.  I´m sure you´re not suggesting that people who fall in this category indulge with a marijuana "light" to reduce the possibility of a psychotic reaction. I haven´t seen any studies that show that people who smoke "super-skunk" are more inclined to psychosis than those who smoke "regular" marijuana. There are just too many variables to control.  Let me get back to my original points. Marijuana with a 70% THC content doesn´t exist. People susceptible to psychosis shouldn´t indulge in these types of  substances. The last question I have is cannot both the THC and CBD be increased at the same time? Or is there some reason that only the THC can be increased without the anti-psychotic?

There has been a lots of research done in this area. Psychosis of various kinds short of full  schizophrenia can be quite common among heavy users of high strength pot. These can be long lasting or transitory.  The point been that the increase in THC content has displaced the anti-psychotic component and has lead to an increase in adverse effects especially amongth the vunerable young who assume that more is better. The evidence so far seems to point to the fact that the plant can only produce so much active ingrediant and if one goes up significantly it impacts the other. Most mature users tend to avoid the super skunk varieties since they are seeking a different experience and know that they don't need to be off their faces every night.

In a controlled supply situation it is very unlikely that super skunk would ever have been developed and I consider that a significant argument in favour of controlled distribution. Also the very few times when I indulge in pot I would like to have some idea of what I was getting and what effects it was going to have on me, I would also like not having to negotiate the criminal supply chain.

Prohibition has repeatedly shown itself to have overwhelmingly negative outcomes.

Br Cornelius

[OverSword]

ColoradoParanormal, on 14 November 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

I am not sure whom posted about the Federal Government closing banks that had these Marijuana businesses as customers, but this is simply not the case. I know this because Colorado has had Marijuana legalized for a number of years now. Not to this degree, but it has been legal in a "medical" form. We have dispensaries on every street corner literally and the Fed's are yet to step in and do anything.

The feds have intimidated a few medical dispensaries in my state to shut down and also broke into homes and confiscated plants and growing equipment of individuals who were licensed to grow medical marajuana by the state.  They've done the same in CA.  I wonder why they haven't done the same in CO?

I should mention that the feds have shut down at least one dispensary that was not operating on the up and up in Seattle, but that's what you get for telling undercover federal agents how to smuggle product to Idaho.

Edited by OverSword, 14 November 2012 - 05:37 PM.

[MissMelsWell]

ColoradoParanormal, on 14 November 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

I am not sure whom posted about the Federal Government closing banks that had these Marijuana businesses as customers, but this is simply not the case. I know this because Colorado has had Marijuana legalized for a number of years now. Not to this degree, but it has been legal in a "medical" form. We have dispensaries on every street corner literally and the Fed's are yet to step in and do anything.

Medical marijuana has been legal In Washington for years as well. We've seen a few Federal raids but mostly because in those dispensaries, there were illegal activites going on (see Overswords post) and bank accounts for dispensaries have been closed down by even smaller local banks. The big problem with this is that some dispensaries are now running their money through personal bank accounts now to avoid getitng in trouble with the Feds. The feds are forcing what our state sees as a legitimate business, into money laundering more or less. Yea!

[DieChecker]

Orcseeker, on 14 November 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

Wait, so you stand for illegalising alcohol?

Sure. How could I be against one and not the other?

Quote

The war on drugs will fail and is failing. It is an endless cycle that will always exist. The only thing that can stop it is to legalise them. I believe you think everyone would then start lighting up a smoke and everyone would be stoned 24/7?

I think that the legalization itself would not stop anything. The same people would be using it. The same people would be trying to sell it. The same people would be driving under the influence. The only thing that might happen is instead of driving to a shady part of town, now you could go to a market and buy it. Certainly not everyone would be stoned 24-7, but I think that "experiments" would go through the roof, and possibly Cronic Users might increase. And with an increase in users, with the same percentages of bad drivers and those who are otherwise idiots, the rate of DUI and association to other crime, and those who have bad reactions would dramatically increase also.

I think people who think the War on Drugs is failing are those who are simply fooling themselves. If it is failing then why are so many young people in Jail/Prison for drug crimes? The war is successful, but it is not fixing the issues. I'd like to see a nation where people don't have to turn to pot, or drugs or drinking to make themselves feel better. I think it is that underlying issue that needs to be addressed in our society. Drug use is just a symptom.

Quote

Some countries which decriminalised at the very least Marijuana noticed a drop in use.

Is that why Amsterdam in the Netherlands has stopped allowing its pot bars to serve tourists/foreigners?

Quote

What I am saying is that a bottle shop owner cannot sell alcohol to a child or they will receive a monstruous fine. Other people purchasing alcohol on behalf of them also can get slapped with a huge fine as well. Whereas a drug dealer can sell to any age and only faces the conviction of dealing drugs and they get away with it 99% of the time. Whereas shop owners don't get that same percentile of success. So why not legalise it, price it to a price and quality that can't be competed with on the streets and sell it in shops?

If we're going to do it, that is how I would like it done. Adults are fined if they buy for minors, yet minors always have liquor... I'd imagine the same would go for pot, except now it is going to be cheaper and easier to locate, and of a known quality. Yay!

Quote

Because quite frankly the damage it is doing to our society and of course the children as you put it due to this illegality and all that couples with it, I don't see it as justifiable at all. It's like a problem you simply don't want to deal with so you just try to exterminate it and it turn make things tenfold worse. I could liken it to putting an insane person into mainstream prison as opposed to a mental hospital.

So what is it that is ten-fold worse? That pot is sold by dealers working for the cartels? Is it because money is going to criminals instead of the FedGov or LocalGov? Is it really so much more dangerous to buy pot, then to buy cigarettes or liquor... for a teenager?

Quote

Parents need a double check. People can make their own decisions but the problem here isn't the drugs but the parents. I know parents who are pro weed and others who are anti weed.

The medicine you store in your cupboard isn't good for kids either if they get a hold of it. May as well illegalise everything because we go off the basis that all parents are complete failures these days.

I don't keep medication in my cupboards. I throw it out when I am done with it. Because my kids might get into it. And most of those medications I have a prescription for. As I said before... pot should be a prescription drug, even if all you want is recreation.

Quote

Tobacco has addictive properties, Marijuana does not have addictive properties. A friend of mine who smokes a lot tested himself of he could stop smoking for a month. The first few days he just had to get over the habit but otherwise he is fine. I think such self control could easily be applied to parenting, much more than alcoholism and addicts to tobacco.

That is true, but irrelevant. Just because some kind of substance is non-addicitive, or is less addictive then existing substances does not mean that it is OK to make legal. A gun or a knive can kill you a lot easier then a fist, but that does not mean that beating someone with your fist is any less an attack. Just as pot is not any less a mind/perception altering substance.

Video games are not physically addictive, yet people have died from mental addiction to them. Pot is not physically addictive, but is just as readliy mentally addictive as anything else, but has the modifier that it makes you feel good, and takes away your worrys. So, that state is a lot more desirable, and thus a LOT more likely to induce mental addiction. Like you said, your friend fairly easily got off pot, but I've known real pot-heads too, and they would steal, or beg, or sell off valuables in order to get their weed while they are regularly smoking it.

[MissMelsWell]

DieChecker, on 14 November 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

Is that why Amsterdam in the Netherlands has stopped allowing its pot bars to serve tourists/foreigners?

They haven't banned it. It was proposed, but so many people objected to the banning that they still serve to forigners, Pot tourism is alive and well in Amsterdam.

However, that being said, it's possible that come 1/1/2013 it COULD become illegal to sell to foreigners (although technically speaking it's illegal to sell to locals!) Don't expect too much to change in Amsterdam as to pot tourism. It could, but as of today, it's looking unlikely.

The reality is that in places where pot has been decriminalized, overall usage has gone down and the usage of other street drugs has remained unchanged.

It's also been long known that since Portugal decriminalized pot, usage has gone WAY down. Actually, the same is true for both Washington and Colorado as well.

Edited by MissMelsWell, 14 November 2012 - 11:39 PM.

[questionmark]

MissMelsWell, on 14 November 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

They haven't banned it. It was proposed, but so many people objected to the banning that they still serve to forigners, Pot tourism is alive and well in Amsterdam.

However, that being said, it's possible that come 1/1/2013 it COULD become illegal to sell to foreigners (although technically speaking it's illegal to sell to locals! Really! Look it up!) Don't expect too much to change in Amsterdam as to pot tourism. It could, but as of today, it's looking unlikely.

The reality is that in places where pot has been decriminalized, overall usage has gone down and the usage of other street drugs has remained unchanged.

A large part of the Dutch economy is not based on growing tulips and tomatoes but on growing turbo-pot.