It appears that marijuana legalization, recreational or medical, is taking off in this country. So far 4 states, as well as Washington D.C., have legalized recreational use and 23 states have legalized the use of medical marijuana.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/04/361533318/marijuana-on-the-ballot-d-c-voters-ok-legalization?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews

Florida was the other state voting on marijuana laws(medical) this voting season and it failed to pass by 2.5%. Thanks to Florida laws, changing their constitution requires a super majority vote! (60%)

But despite this minor setback, people are very optimistic. Mostly because things are in motion on the Federal level. a Judge is currently deciding if it should stay a Schedule 1 substance or not.

http://theleafonline.com/c/politics/2014/10/schedule-hearing-concludes-judges-ruling-expected-december/

I personally believe that it should be unscheduled and held to the same standards as alcohol and tobacco. Any thoughts on this or what is now being called the "failed war on drugs"?

The sad thing about FL's situation, is that the bill that required a supermajority passed with only 53% of the vote. Less than the marijuana law, and not enough to pass its own content.

It's a rather sad statement about how people vote in the US.

I agree it should no longer be a scheduled drug: it just doesn't make any sense on a scientific, political, or hell, even moral angle.

The DC legalization is interesting.

It doesn't authorize dispensaries like Colorado; it's a "grow and give" law that allows residents to grow plants up to six plants, keep up to 2 ounces (!), and give away, but not sell, up to an ounce to anyone over 21.

I'm interested to see how this pans out for the city. Hopefully it goes well enough to make my state consider it.

DC is indeed interesting because of the whole "non-state" issue. Full on legalization with allowance for weed sale would make DC a huge amount of money from neighboring states, tourism (which is obviously a huge part of DCs economy already), and all the conventions and gatherings that happen in DC.

There's been some talk about this in Sweden, but it's never really taken off.

I hope it does though, because I don't see any reason for it to be illegal. Maybe it's because we love criminals in this country, and we don't want to steal business from them.

We have the opposite problem. We love our businesses and wouldn't want the private prisons industry to go broke.

(in reality, frell those guys.)

I am somewhat interested in how Oregon's legalization law works, because last time I was down there (only a week or two ago) the debate was not on whether weed should be legalized, but rather, whether Measure 91 was the way to legalize it.

There were some who felt that there were not enough regulatory requirements, that there wasn't measures of control/taxation, etc. "like Washington has". As if the Washingont legalization bill was the perfect, end all be all in marijuana legalization.

Keep in mind it is still federally illegal anyway you cut it, is it insane that it is a schedule 1 drug? oh yeah. I myself do not have a problem with people that want to consume THC, but i think alot of other laws need to be refined to address the changes (OWI laws, ETC). One thing alot of people do not realise is that legalization opens bad flood gates, for example look at prescription drugs which are tightly controlled (well sort of unless you know corrupt Drs) but still flood the streets, imagine what happens to a drug that can be grown in a flower pot in an individuals closet? Its a very touchy fragile and unstable topic, on one side it can generate alot of tax revenue and make casual or addicts(yes THC is mentally addictive, sorry but you can form dependence on it) users not obliged to buy from the shady guy in the back alley. Then on the other side you open the door for marijuana drug smuggling to increase even more, augmenting the need for cartels to increase shipments and violence..or if you want to look at the domestic aspect, you leave room for money hungry people to start illegal grows and spoil it for those who try to do it by the book. Like i said i'm not anti-THC, but theres so much more that needs to be done to make the legalization of it 100% accepted, all its going to take is a few kids getting run over by a stoned driver for the old guard of the population to go back running to their black and white movies of people smoking THC and becoming phsyco killers...

I think that one of the "good" flood gates that opens is in the Treatment options for addicts. Now, instead of treating someone who is addicted to Marijuana (really the THC as you point out) like a "dirty criminal", doctors and others involved in dealing with the issue can treat the addict like what they are: someone who is "sick" with a mental health issue.



Slightly Off Topic, but this is one of many reasons why I am in favor of federally legalizing things like prostitution.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Slightly Off Topic, but this is one of many reasons why I am in favor of federally legalizing things like prostitution.

It is legal. You just have to record it and call it porn

Ive been hoping NJ would legalize (Governor Christie is all thats stopping it at this point), not because I want to smoke (never touched the stuff), but because NJ stands to make SO MUCH MONEY if we get there before NY/Philly.

I dunno. I know people think we should heavily tax the sales of Marijuana but that would just give the cartels an opportunity to sell here. The last thing we need is to give the Cartels more money.

Crimson Heretic wrote:
Keep in mind it is still federally illegal anyway you cut it, is it insane that it is a schedule 1 drug? oh yeah. I myself do not have a problem with people that want to consume THC, but i think alot of other laws need to be refined to address the changes (OWI laws, ETC). One thing alot of people do not realise is that legalization opens bad flood gates, for example look at prescription drugs which are tightly controlled (well sort of unless you know corrupt Drs) but still flood the streets, imagine what happens to a drug that can be grown in a flower pot in an individuals closet? Its a very touchy fragile and unstable topic, on one side it can generate alot of tax revenue and make casual or addicts(yes THC is mentally addictive, sorry but you can form dependence on it) users not obliged to buy from the shady guy in the back alley. Then on the other side you open the door for marijuana drug smuggling to increase even more, augmenting the need for cartels to increase shipments and violence..or if you want to look at the domestic aspect, you leave room for money hungry people to start illegal grows and spoil it for those who try to do it by the book. Like i said i'm not anti-THC, but theres so much more that needs to be done to make the legalization of it 100% accepted, all its going to take is a few kids getting run over by a stoned driver for the old guard of the population to go back running to their black and white movies of people smoking THC and becoming phsyco killers...

Agreed. State level legalization is a step in the right direction but it is at best only a half measure. The only reason federal agencies like the DEA aren't shutting things down in states like Colorado is because the DOJ is ok with looking the other way. If that changes it's a big mess. You don't see big money being invested in legalized marijuana, the kind of investment you need to make it a mainstream industry like alcohol, because nobody wants to put money into something that could be ruined by the feds if they change their policy of enforcement.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I dunno. I know people think we should heavily tax the sales of Marijuana but that would just give the cartels an opportunity to sell here. The last thing we need is to give the Cartels more money.

Ehh... not really. Most of the "dispensaries" around here are either grown in shop, or at the least grown "locally" by the store owners, according to my friend who now works in one

How many times does it have to be pointed out Weed is not the drug that cartels make boats of money from?

 LordofHats wrote:
How many times does it have to be pointed out Weed is not the drug that cartels make boats of money from?

Probably a lot. As I said though, marijuana is actually more commonly a "locally grown" commune/hippy type thing

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I dunno. I know people think we should heavily tax the sales of Marijuana but that would just give the cartels an opportunity to sell here. The last thing we need is to give the Cartels more money.

Ehh... not really. Most of the "dispensaries" around here are either grown in shop, or at the least grown "locally" by the store owners, according to my friend who now works in one

Ohhh. I didn't know that. I retract my statement.

Don't get me wrong. Yeah, the Cartels deal weed, but the market for them to sell it here in the US is small. Way smaller than what they're doing with Coke and Meth. And it's not like they can just up and start legitimate weed business like that.

These are guys who want big money by selling that you can't just buy at a corner store. Legal weed is not much for them to work with. They're not good for laundering money because they're more regulated than a car wash. Plus, what are they going to do when Joe the Weed Farmer sets up shop and starts selling weed on sale with a rewards card? Shoot him?

The cartels thrive off high price product they can monopolize regionally. You can't really do that with a legal business (unless you're a cable company ZING).

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think that one of the "good" flood gates that opens is in the Treatment options for addicts. Now, instead of treating someone who is addicted to Marijuana (really the THC as you point out) like a "dirty criminal", doctors and others involved in dealing with the issue can treat the addict like what they are: someone who is "sick" with a mental health issue

Who do you think is going to pay for them?

The point of legalization is to make parchment and rope, not to smoke for pleasure, if I am to go by the people that constantly tell me it needs to be legalized beyond medication.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think that one of the "good" flood gates that opens is in the Treatment options for addicts. Now, instead of treating someone who is addicted to Marijuana (really the THC as you point out) like a "dirty criminal", doctors and others involved in dealing with the issue can treat the addict like what they are: someone who is "sick" with a mental health issue.

Can't say I've EVER known a Marijuana addict.

Slightly Off Topic, but this is one of many reasons why I am in favor of federally legalizing things like prostitution.

I agree.

Legalize it. Clean it up. Tax it. Create Jobs. Boost Economy.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think that one of the "good" flood gates that opens is in the Treatment options for addicts. Now, instead of treating someone who is addicted to Marijuana (really the THC as you point out) like a "dirty criminal", doctors and others involved in dealing with the issue can treat the addict like what they are: someone who is "sick" with a mental health issue.

Can't say I've EVER known a Marijuana addict.

That smelly guy who absolutely reeks of weed, your run of the mill stoner.

Its not as obvious of an addiction causes its symptoms are easily confused with being a GUO.

I'm all for this. I'm sure it will be a while before it comes to the south though.

I can't do anything until it's federally legal though. :(

I'm for this if for no other reason than to deny the Prison-Industrial complex prisoners.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think that one of the "good" flood gates that opens is in the Treatment options for addicts. Now, instead of treating someone who is addicted to Marijuana (really the THC as you point out) like a "dirty criminal", doctors and others involved in dealing with the issue can treat the addict like what they are: someone who is "sick" with a mental health issue.

Can't say I've EVER known a Marijuana addict.

My younger brother is as close as I've ever seen to a weed addict.

He's been an everyday smoker since probably high school and he more or less can't function properly without it.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

My younger brother is as close as I've ever seen to a weed addict.

He's been an everyday smoker since probably high school and he more or less can't function properly without it.

I wonder if in instances like his if there is a withdrawal period. I was of the understanding that one of the primary things that differentiated cannibus from other drugs is that had neither addictive or withdrawal related properties.

Off to google!

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think that one of the "good" flood gates that opens is in the Treatment options for addicts. Now, instead of treating someone who is addicted to Marijuana (really the THC as you point out) like a "dirty criminal", doctors and others involved in dealing with the issue can treat the addict like what they are: someone who is "sick" with a mental health issue.

Can't say I've EVER known a Marijuana addict.

My younger brother is as close as I've ever seen to a weed addict.

He's been an everyday smoker since probably high school and he more or less can't function properly without it.

Damn... that's a lot of The Chronic man.

It's probably more psychological than an chemical addiction.

It's like my schadenboner won’t go down today after last night's election...

Do I need to see a doc?

I'm OK with marijuana legalization, as long as it is treated similarly to Alcohol, e.i. must be 21+, taxed, and regulated.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I dunno. I know people think we should heavily tax the sales of Marijuana but that would just give the cartels an opportunity to sell here. The last thing we need is to give the Cartels more money.

Ehh... not really. Most of the "dispensaries" around here are either grown in shop, or at the least grown "locally" by the store owners, according to my friend who now works in one

"Sin taxes" don't work because they decrease the behavior and perpetuate a black market. There are plenty of people buying weed from dealers even in places where it's legal and that will continue if the price from an illegal dealer is lower than that of a licensed shop. I'm not saying that licensed shops won't do a nice amount of business just that it won't wipe out illegal sales. People still sell cigarettes on the black market to avoid the high cigarette taxes and tobacco is locally grown and processed. If states want to make a lot of money from the sale of legalized weed they should keep the tax on it low and make money off of the volume of sales. I remember when Congress decided it would use cigarette tax money to help fund SCHIP but the problem with that is that with increased education and taxes fewer people are smoking so there's less revenue and increasing the taxes to get more just drives sales lower.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I dunno. I know people think we should heavily tax the sales of Marijuana but that would just give the cartels an opportunity to sell here. The last thing we need is to give the Cartels more money.

Ehh... not really. Most of the "dispensaries" around here are either grown in shop, or at the least grown "locally" by the store owners, according to my friend who now works in one

"Sin taxes" don't work because they decrease the behavior and perpetuate a black market. There are plenty of people buying weed from dealers even in places where it's legal and that will continue if the price from an illegal dealer is lower than that of a licensed shop. I'm not saying that licensed shops won't do a nice amount of business just that it won't wipe out illegal sales. People still sell cigarettes on the black market to avoid the high cigarette taxes and tobacco is locally grown and processed. If states want to make a lot of money from the sale of legalized weed they should keep the tax on it low and make money off of the volume of sales. I remember when Congress decided it would use cigarette tax money to help fund SCHIP but the problem with that is that with increased education and taxes fewer people are smoking so there's less revenue and increasing the taxes to get more just drives sales lower.

Just don't make the taxes cigarettes-excessive.

Shrugs... I'm in the camp of just regulating it like the other vices.

You'll never stamp out illegal sales (just look the the moonshiners).

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
My younger brother is as close as I've ever seen to a weed addict.

He's been an everyday smoker since probably high school and he more or less can't function properly without it.

A friend of mine is the same. If not a chemical addition, it's clearly a dependence. Of course, that's nothing that's exclusive to weed.

 whembly wrote:
It's like my schadenboner won’t go down today after last night's election...

Do I need to see a doc?

Nah, you just need to see my Asian friend

It's a mental compulsion, like gambling.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
It's a mental compulsion, like gambling.

Yup and just like gambling if the state can make money off of it they'll legalize it and if the state can't monopolize it, like gambling, they'll just regulate and tax the gak out of it.

 streamdragon wrote:
DC is indeed interesting because of the whole "non-state" issue. Full on legalization with allowance for weed sale would make DC a huge amount of money from neighboring states, tourism (which is obviously a huge part of DCs economy already), and all the conventions and gatherings that happen in DC.

OMG the 2015 NOVAcon is going to be EPIC!!!!

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I think that one of the "good" flood gates that opens is in the Treatment options for addicts. Now, instead of treating someone who is addicted to Marijuana (really the THC as you point out) like a "dirty criminal", doctors and others involved in dealing with the issue can treat the addict like what they are: someone who is "sick" with a mental health issue.

Can't say I've EVER known a Marijuana addict.

Me either, but my statement was, I felt, more broad and generalized. Treat the addict like another Mental Health Patient, not a Criminal, and I believe (I could be very wrong here) that there will be more people seeking help for addiction. Whether it's weed, booze, sex, meth, internet porn; Doesn't matter, treat the mental health issues, and we're all the better for it.

 Nicorex wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
DC is indeed interesting because of the whole "non-state" issue. Full on legalization with allowance for weed sale would make DC a huge amount of money from neighboring states, tourism (which is obviously a huge part of DCs economy already), and all the conventions and gatherings that happen in DC.

OMG the 2015 NOVAcon is going to be EPIC!!!!

So... instead of BEERHAMMER... why not engage in BLAZEDHAMMER?!?!?

 whembly wrote:

 Nicorex wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
DC is indeed interesting because of the whole "non-state" issue. Full on legalization with allowance for weed sale would make DC a huge amount of money from neighboring states, tourism (which is obviously a huge part of DCs economy already), and all the conventions and gatherings that happen in DC.

OMG the 2015 NOVAcon is going to be EPIC!!!!

So... instead of BEERHAMMER... why not engage in BLAZEDHAMMER?!?!?

4 hours will feel like 15 minutes

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

My younger brother is as close as I've ever seen to a weed addict.

He's been an everyday smoker since probably high school and he more or less can't function properly without it.

If that is 'as close as' you've seen, what would it take for you to consider someone an actual addict?

I'm torn on this to be honest. My principles say that it's no business of the state what adults choose to put in their own bodies. And as someone who smoked a little dope in his university days it would arguably downright hypocritical of me if I didn't favour it's legalisation.

However I've know a few long term pot smokers and it's definitely had a detrimental effect on most of them. One good friend became violent and paranoid after a few years of heavy usage. I stopped speaking to him after he was arrested for attacking his girlfriend (who was a close friend of mine).

As long as it does no physical harm (like hard drugs), and it's kept away from children, it should be legal.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As long as it does no physical harm (like hard drugs), and it's kept away from children, it should be legal.

But you would be okay with psychological harm?

How do you justify that position?

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As long as it does no physical harm (like hard drugs), and it's kept away from children, it should be legal.

But you would be okay with psychological harm?

How do you justify that position?

At what point do we "make that decision" for the individual?

I see some people tossing around a little bit of misinformation in here. Just to clear some things up.

It is non addictive. (THC and other cannibanoids have been found to have no physical dependence, it is all mental, unlike Alcohol or Tobacco. This is non disputable. It is a fact.)

Take money from the Cartels (75% of Marijuana in Colorado must be grown on the premises of the dispensary)

Lower Prescription Drug Deaths (Studies have shown that deaths by Prescription Drugs have dropped since Marijuana has been legalized, it is a painkiller and you cannot OD on it!)

People will save money! (Thanks to the current prohibition, people are paying more than double in states where it is still illegal compared to Colorado)

Taxes! (Colorado has put taxes on Marijuana that directly go to Drug Addiction Treatment as well as the Educational system)

Not a single person has ever died from over consumption of Marijuana! (Not one)

People argue about "stoned drivers" being on the roads and killing people. (http://theleafonline.com/c/science/2014/05/driving-stoned-studies-suggest-no-significant-change-in-driving-performance/ The joke about a stoned driver just driving slower than normal is, true!)

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As long as it does no physical harm (like hard drugs), and it's kept away from children, it should be legal.

But you would be okay with psychological harm?

How do you justify that position?

Oooh! ooh! I got this one. This is how I justify that position. You can take Marijuana out of the equation and add Gambling, Sex, Exercise, or whatever you want! This was going to happen to them regardless of what was put in front of them.

 CptJake wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

My younger brother is as close as I've ever seen to a weed addict.

He's been an everyday smoker since probably high school and he more or less can't function properly without it.

If that is 'as close as' you've seen, what would it take for you to consider someone an actual addict?

I should have been more clear that I am making assumptions considering that we are both adults and only hang out occasionally. I base this off of the limited time I spend with him and things that he says. However, I will say that I know he treats it as an after work activity; he doesn't go to work baked out of his mind (I know this mainly because we worked together for almost 10 years).

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As long as it does no physical harm (like hard drugs), and it's kept away from children, it should be legal.

But you would be okay with psychological harm?

How do you justify that position?

What psychological harm would you be speaking of?

It looks like for the most part attitudes about this are high here on dakka.

*que laughter*

 Daemonhammer wrote:
It looks like for the most part attitudes about this are high here on dakka.

*que laughter*

I guess you could say that popular culture is weeding out old objections to marijuana legalization and the electorate is eager to blaze a trail to a new normal.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
it is all mental

So it can be addictive, just not physically. Of course at that point we are also talking about things like Video Game or Sex addiction, and I don't see either of those being banned any time soon. There are some complex cultural and psychological issues tied up with it in the USA. A lot of Stoner Culture (or whatever one wants to call it) is tied up in the social reaction and laws and I think if you take those away and make it as normal as getting a beer a lot of the problems and attitudes would disappear.

 whembly wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As long as it does no physical harm (like hard drugs), and it's kept away from children, it should be legal.

But you would be okay with psychological harm?

How do you justify that position?

At what point do we "make that decision" for the individual?

If it were up to me, I would not have the Gov't making that decision. Folks want to destroy themselves with pot, booze, sex, gambling, whatever I could care less as long as no one expects my tax dollars to go towards unscrewing the mess they make of themselves and their families/lives. I am all for freedom of choice and zero freedom from consequences.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I see some people tossing around a little bit of misinformation in here. Just to clear some things up.

It is non addictive. (THC and other cannibanoids have been found to have no physical dependence, it is all mental, unlike Alcohol or Tobacco. This is non disputable. It is a fact.)

Pot is addictive. You would be right in that it isn't chemically addictive, but I haven't seen anyone make the claim that it is in this thread.

Pot is extremely easy to form a dependency on with extended use, though. Technically, anything can create a dependency with habitual use- video gaming to eating food -but like any mind-altering substance, the simple fact that it's something you can use to quickly alleviate stress or tension means that it's very easy to regulate your emotions around it.

I don't think its something worth holding against the drug, because people do the same gak with food and booze, but I know quite a few people who've become totally obsessed with pot. To the point where their memory is crap and they're totally unreliable.

It's really sad to watch the process, honestly.

Indeed. Mental addictions are just as bad as chemical addictions. Worse actually because treatment is more difficult.

 whembly wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As long as it does no physical harm (like hard drugs), and it's kept away from children, it should be legal.

But you would be okay with psychological harm?

How do you justify that position?

At what point do we "make that decision" for the individual?

At the point the government deems them a danger to themselves and others. That's why the gov bans lots of things, to do its job, i.e. protecting its citizens. Sometimes is protecting the citizens from themselves, such as in cases of dangerous drugs and suicide.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

At the point the government deems them a danger to themselves and others. That's why the gov bans lots of things, to do its job, i.e. protecting its citizens. Sometimes is protecting the citizens from themselves, such as in cases of dangerous drugs and suicide.

Just how does the gov't protect people from suicide via banning? Heck, how does it protect people from suicide at all? And why should it be a Gov't function at all? What do they do, imprison the corpse?

The government has an obligation to step it when people present a danger to others. They don't have an obligation to protect people from themselves, though. If I want to eat cheeseburgers until my arteries clog and my heart stops, that's my right. If I want to jump off a bridge or ruin my life smoking crack or drinking alcohol, that's my right.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I dunno. I know people think we should heavily tax the sales of Marijuana but that would just give the cartels an opportunity to sell here. The last thing we need is to give the Cartels more money.

Ehh... not really. Most of the "dispensaries" around here are either grown in shop, or at the least grown "locally" by the store owners, according to my friend who now works in one

"Sin taxes" don't work because they decrease the behavior and perpetuate a black market. There are plenty of people buying weed from dealers even in places where it's legal and that will continue if the price from an illegal dealer is lower than that of a licensed shop. I'm not saying that licensed shops won't do a nice amount of business just that it won't wipe out illegal sales. People still sell cigarettes on the black market to avoid the high cigarette taxes and tobacco is locally grown and processed. If states want to make a lot of money from the sale of legalized weed they should keep the tax on it low and make money off of the volume of sales. I remember when Congress decided it would use cigarette tax money to help fund SCHIP but the problem with that is that with increased education and taxes fewer people are smoking so there's less revenue and increasing the taxes to get more just drives sales lower.

Let big business run it. They'll knock the price down through economy of scale. Once the might of American Farmers kicks in, we'll curb stop those cottage industry players. AMerica Hurr!

 CptJake wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As long as it does no physical harm (like hard drugs), and it's kept away from children, it should be legal.

But you would be okay with psychological harm?

How do you justify that position?

At what point do we "make that decision" for the individual?

If it were up to me, I would not have the Gov't making that decision. Folks want to destroy themselves with pot, booze, sex, gambling, whatever I could care less as long as no one expects my tax dollars to go towards unscrewing the mess they make of themselves and their families/lives. I am all for freedom of choice and zero freedom from consequences.

Wait, so you asked someone how they can justify something like weed being legal and then said if it was up to you the government would not be making that decision? Are you for or against weed being legal?

 Frazzled wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I dunno. I know people think we should heavily tax the sales of Marijuana but that would just give the cartels an opportunity to sell here. The last thing we need is to give the Cartels more money.

Ehh... not really. Most of the "dispensaries" around here are either grown in shop, or at the least grown "locally" by the store owners, according to my friend who now works in one

"Sin taxes" don't work because they decrease the behavior and perpetuate a black market. There are plenty of people buying weed from dealers even in places where it's legal and that will continue if the price from an illegal dealer is lower than that of a licensed shop. I'm not saying that licensed shops won't do a nice amount of business just that it won't wipe out illegal sales. People still sell cigarettes on the black market to avoid the high cigarette taxes and tobacco is locally grown and processed. If states want to make a lot of money from the sale of legalized weed they should keep the tax on it low and make money off of the volume of sales. I remember when Congress decided it would use cigarette tax money to help fund SCHIP but the problem with that is that with increased education and taxes fewer people are smoking so there's less revenue and increasing the taxes to get more just drives sales lower.

Let big business run it. They'll knock the price down through economy of scale. Once the might of American Farmers kicks in, we'll curb stop those cottage industry players. AMerica Hurr!

This^^, even if they sell a pack of "Marlboro Green" for 20 or even 40 bucks a pack (that come to 2-4 bucks a gram) you are still undercut the street dealer so much it will not be worth it for them.

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

At the point the government deems them a danger to themselves and others. That's why the gov bans lots of things, to do its job, i.e. protecting its citizens. Sometimes is protecting the citizens from themselves, such as in cases of dangerous drugs and suicide.

Just how does the gov't protect people from suicide via banning? Heck, how does it protect people from suicide at all? And why should it be a Gov't function at all? What do they do, imprison the corpse?

They stop people from committing suicide. I don't think it against the law, per-say, but you will be stopped if possible. You are extrapolating from my statements wrongly.

Your statement doesn't leave a whole lot to extrapolate.

How does the Government stop people from committing suicide?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I see some people tossing around a little bit of misinformation in here. Just to clear some things up.

It is non addictive. (THC and other cannibanoids have been found to have no physical dependence, it is all mental, unlike Alcohol or Tobacco. This is non disputable. It is a fact.)

Pot is addictive. You would be right in that it isn't chemically addictive, but I haven't seen anyone make the claim that it is in this thread.

Pot is extremely easy to form a dependency on with extended use, though. Technically, anything can create a dependency with habitual use- video gaming to eating food -but like any mind-altering substance, the simple fact that it's something you can use to quickly alleviate stress or tension means that it's very easy to regulate your emotions around it.

I don't think its something worth holding against the drug, because people do the same gak with food and booze, but I know quite a few people who've become totally obsessed with pot. To the point where their memory is crap and they're totally unreliable.

It's really sad to watch the process, honestly.

So wait, I am confused. Are you saying Pot is addictive or it is not addictive. Because Pot is addictive in the same way that literally anything else in the world can be addictive. It is all about Mental Illness and not about the substance itself. So I mean, Pot itself isn't addictive, people just become addicted to it.

As for the whole "their memory is crap and they'e totally unreliable" I am going to call bullcrap on that. Studies have shown that marijuana does not cause drops in memory at all. Also, I have many friends who smoke daily and they are some of the most reliable people I know. In fact, 4 of them banded together to buy me a car for Christmas when my current one quit on me. Nice guys!

It is all about the user. Not the drug. Which means, Pot is not addictive. But instead, people with a predisposition to mental illness can become addicted to it.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I see some people tossing around a little bit of misinformation in here. Just to clear some things up.

It is non addictive. (THC and other cannibanoids have been found to have no physical dependence, it is all mental, unlike Alcohol or Tobacco. This is non disputable. It is a fact.)

Pot is addictive. You would be right in that it isn't chemically addictive, but I haven't seen anyone make the claim that it is in this thread.

Pot is extremely easy to form a dependency on with extended use, though. Technically, anything can create a dependency with habitual use- video gaming to eating food -but like any mind-altering substance, the simple fact that it's something you can use to quickly alleviate stress or tension means that it's very easy to regulate your emotions around it.

I don't think its something worth holding against the drug, because people do the same gak with food and booze, but I know quite a few people who've become totally obsessed with pot. To the point where their memory is crap and they're totally unreliable.

It's really sad to watch the process, honestly.

I've known a whole lot of stoners in my day. And I've never met one who couldn't put it down on the drop of a dime for the whiz quiz, suffer a day of boredom, and get on with their lives.

Not to say it doesn't have side effects, or people form habits. But lets not blow this out of proportion.

Nicorex wrote:OMG the 2015 NOVAcon is going to be EPIC!!!!

whembly wrote:So... instead of BEERHAMMER... why not engage in BLAZEDHAMMER?!?!?

Unfortunately, no. DC's law is very specific in what it allows and doesn't allow. It does NOT, for instance, allow shops to set up weed sales.

It DOES allow for private citizens to grow small amounts (up to 6 plants per person; no idea how many joints that actually makes). They can give it out, but they can not SELL it.

One person described it as a way to stop people from going to jail for simple possession, with an eye especially pointed at the African American population who is disproportionately likely to go to prison for simple possession.

So... if you can find a resident or two to grow for you, yes. I'd offer, but I'm in MD and I'm pretty sure I'd lose my clearance and my job for growing.

To me, the biggest reason for federal legalization is the prison issue.

I mean, if you support prohibition, you support sending people to jail at great expense to society. Over what? I just don't get it. This issue should have been resolved in the 60s or 70s, but alas here we are heading into 2015.

 jasper76 wrote:
To me, the biggest reason for federal legalization is the prison issue.

I mean, if you support prohibition, you support sending people to jail at great expense to society. Over what? I just don't get it. This issue should have been resolved in the 60s or 70s, but alas here we are heading into 2015.

I'm given to understand that legalizing it would be a violation of international treaties. Which would complicate the issue.

I couldn't really care about treaties, personally. That's no reason to imprison a kid and ruin his life for smoking a joint.

If we have such treaties, let's just not honor them. I hardly think it's going to start a war.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So wait, I am confused. Are you saying Pot is addictive or it is not addictive. Because Pot is addictive in the same way that literally anything else in the world can be addictive. It is all about Mental Illness and not about the substance itself. So I mean, Pot itself isn't addictive, people just become addicted to it.

Why say you're confused and then proceed to perfectly reiterate what I said?

As for the whole "their memory is crap and they'e totally unreliable" I am going to call bullcrap on that. Studies have shown that marijuana does not cause drops in memory at all.

Studies show lots of things.

Pot is not addictive. But instead, people with a predisposition to mental illness can become addicted to it.

If you can form an addiction to pot then pot is addictive.

I don't know why you're trying to argue that pot isn't chemically addictive when I started off my post, literally the second sentence, with "Pot isn't chemically addictive".

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Your statement doesn't leave a whole lot to extrapolate.

How does the Government stop people from committing suicide?

By stopping people jumping of bridges?

It's not a hard concept, if the police can stop someone from committing suicide or other lethal acts, they do so.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
If you can form an addiction to pot then pot is addictive.

But that's a meaningless definition because it doesn't separate things into separate groups of "addictive" and "not addictive". You can become addicted to anything (well, other than suicide I guess), so if we use your definition then saying "X is addictive" adds nothing to our understanding of X.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
As long as it does no physical harm (like hard drugs), and it's kept away from children, it should be legal.

But you would be okay with psychological harm?

How do you justify that position?

At what point do we "make that decision" for the individual?

If it were up to me, I would not have the Gov't making that decision. Folks want to destroy themselves with pot, booze, sex, gambling, whatever I could care less as long as no one expects my tax dollars to go towards unscrewing the mess they make of themselves and their families/lives. I am all for freedom of choice and zero freedom from consequences.

Wait, so you asked someone how they can justify something like weed being legal and then said if it was up to you the government would not be making that decision? Are you for or against weed being legal?

My positions is exactly as I stated, it should not be up to the gov't.

I questioned why someone would be against something for physical harm but not care about psychological harm. Harm is harm, and often physical harm is the lesser type. That is why I questioned his position, it made no sense to me and I wanted to see it defended.

 Peregrine wrote:
You can become addicted to anything (well, other than suicide I guess),

Which is exactly what I said, which is why I'm not sure why people are trying to argue with me when they're basically just regurgitating my point.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

By stopping people jumping of bridges?

It's not a hard concept, if the police can stop someone from committing suicide or other lethal acts, they do so.

Okay. How is your point relevant to marijuana?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Your statement doesn't leave a whole lot to extrapolate.

How does the Government stop people from committing suicide?

They don't stop it. Which is why CDC says it is the 10th highest cause of death in the US. They don't even clean up afterwards.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Which is exactly what I said, which is why I'm not sure why people are trying to argue with me when they're basically just regurgitating my point.

But then why are you posting to say that pot is addictive? If you aren't claiming that there is any difference between pot and water in terms of addiction then what exactly is your point? If "pot is potentiallty addictive just like every other thing" is your only claim then you're essentially doing the equivalent of coming into a thread and posting "hey guys, did you know that 1+1=2".

 Peregrine wrote:
But then why are you posting to say that pot is addictive?

Because it is. That that being the case shouldn't have any influence on its legality doesn't make it not a fact, and to say "you can't get addicted to marijuana" is patently false and a potentially dangerous opinion to have.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. Mental addictions are just as bad as chemical addictions. Worse actually because treatment is more difficult.

I disagree, there are quite a few chemical addictions which can lead to fatal withdrawal; including alcohol.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. Mental addictions are just as bad as chemical addictions. Worse actually because treatment is more difficult.

I disagree, there are quite a few chemical addictions which can lead to fatal withdrawal; including alcohol.

And he's been buzzed for 2 decades

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. Mental addictions are just as bad as chemical addictions. Worse actually because treatment is more difficult.

I disagree, there are quite a few chemical addictions which can lead to fatal withdrawal; including alcohol.

True, but then you've got an "obviously bad stuff is obviously bad" situation.

Nobody pays attention to the minor stuff, which in turn results in greater suffering because there isn't a drive to treat it or even recognize a problem exists.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Because it is.

But so is everything else. Do you post in every thread on 40k to say "painting models can be addictive, be careful"? Do you make sure to start every post with "forums can be addictive, are you sure you want to read this post"?

That that being the case shouldn't have any influence on its legality doesn't make it not a fact, and to say "you can't get addicted to marijuana" is patently false and a potentially dangerous opinion to have.

How exactly is it dangerous? The risk of addiction doesn't seem to be any worse than the risk of addiction associated with lots of other stuff that we don't see any need to attach warning statements to. The statement "you can't get addicted" might not be absolute literal truth, but most reasonable people understand that when you're talking about addiction risks you're talking about exceptional risks, not just the general principle that you can get addicted to pretty much anything.

There was an article the other day that said with all the taxes applied by Washington State and the IRS, it was nearly too expensive to grow.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/03/irs-limits-profits-marijuana-businesses/18165033/

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

By stopping people jumping of bridges?

It's not a hard concept, if the police can stop someone from committing suicide or other lethal acts, they do so.

Okay. How is your point relevant to marijuana?

It doesn't, or at least specifically. It was in response to someone questioning an earlier statement of mine that if it doesn't cause harm, it should be legal.

 Grey Templar wrote:

True, but then you've got an "obviously bad stuff is obviously bad" situation.

I wouldn't say that alcohol is obviously bad. As is always the case, abusing it is the issue.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Nobody pays attention to the minor stuff, which in turn results in greater suffering because there isn't a drive to treat it or even recognize a problem exists.

I have a hard time considering psychological dependency to be something which necessarily involves suffering. A great example of this is psychological dependency many people develop with respect to caffeine. The real issue is when that dependency starts to impact you day-to-day life in ways which impair your ability to function within society, such as having a stable income. As such, much as I'm not going to begrudge someone their morning coffee, I'm not going to begrudge someone their after work joint.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Because it is.

But so is everything else. Do you post in every thread on 40k to say "painting models can be addictive, be careful"? Do you make sure to start every post with "forums can be addictive, are you sure you want to read this post"?

That that being the case shouldn't have any influence on its legality doesn't make it not a fact, and to say "you can't get addicted to marijuana" is patently false and a potentially dangerous opinion to have.

How exactly is it dangerous? The risk of addiction doesn't seem to be any worse than the risk of addiction associated with lots of other stuff that we don't see any need to attach warning statements to. The statement "you can't get addicted" might not be absolute literal truth, but most reasonable people understand that when you're talking about addiction risks you're talking about exceptional risks, not just the general principle that you can get addicted to pretty much anything.

I can't tell if you're actually disagreeing with me or if you're just being contrary out of boredom.

Summarize your argument in a sentence.

Some people develop addictions to putting there toes in the sand on the beach to relax. Just sayin.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

True, but then you've got an "obviously bad stuff is obviously bad" situation.

I wouldn't say that alcohol is obviously bad. As is always the case, abusing it is the issue.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Nobody pays attention to the minor stuff, which in turn results in greater suffering because there isn't a drive to treat it or even recognize a problem exists.

I have a hard time considering psychological dependency to be something which necessarily involves suffering. A great example of this is psychological dependency many people develop with respect to caffeine. The real issue is when that dependency starts to impact you day-to-day life in ways which impair your ability to function within society, such as having a stable income. As such, much as I'm not going to begrudge someone their morning coffee, I'm not going to begrudge someone their after work joint.

It does depend on the addiction. You can be addicted to something harmless, although anything taken to an extreme will be harmful.

There is good evidence that weed causes some not insignificant problems. http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/how-does-marijuana-use-affect-your-brain-body

Relaxation is a dangerous side effect if you are driving. Reaction time is the real factor in avoiding a crash, thats why the 10/1 rule exists. The fact it does also make you drive slower isn't actually a compensator, it just adds to the danger. Large doses can cause hallucinations and impaired memory.

Being addicted to something like this can't be a good thing.

 jasper76 wrote:
Some people develop addictions to putting there toes in the sand on the beach to relax.

Prove it.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Summarize your argument in a sentence.

"Why are you posting here if all you're saying is the equivalent of insisting that 1+1=2?"

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Summarize your argument in a sentence.

"Why are you posting here if all you're saying is the equivalent of insisting that 1+1=2?"

Ah.

Because someone claimed that it equals 4.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Some people develop addictions to putting there toes in the sand on the beach to relax.

Prove it.

Next time I visit my mom , come out to OBX. The beach bums are everywhere!

OBX?

Outer Banks, NC

Ahhh.

I live in San Francisco. We have those zombies here, too.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Ah.

Because someone claimed that it equals 4.

But they didn't, they just expected (like a reasonable person) that most people can figure out that "not addictive" means "no more addictive than any other random thing people can enjoy", not "it is literally impossible for someone to get addicted to this". So we have one of two conclusions about your claims:

1) Despite claiming that everyone else is just repeating what you said you DO believe that pot is more addictive than food/video games/watching football/etc.

or

2) You're pointlessly nitpicking something that nobody else had any trouble understanding just because there was some tiny amount of ambiguity that couldn't be tolerated.

 Peregrine wrote:
But they didn't, they just expected (like a reasonable person) that most people can figure out that "not addictive" means "no more addictive than any other random thing people can enjoy", not "it is literally impossible for someone to get addicted to this".

An interesting claim. Prove it, my son.

It has been legal in my home country for years (the Netherlands) and as the world can see the country has degenerated into chaos and anarchy because of this. Everyone has become a lazy unproductive junky.

But wait it hasn't, so maybe weed isn't as addictive as some people claim!

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
It has been legal in my home country for years (the Netherlands) and as the world can see the country has degenerated into chaos and anarchy because of this. Everyone has become a lazy unproductive junky.

But wait it hasn't, so maybe weed isn't as addictive as some people claim!

Disagree. You Netherlanders are all crayyyyzaaayyy.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
But they didn't, they just expected (like a reasonable person) that most people can figure out that "not addictive" means "no more addictive than any other random thing people can enjoy", not "it is literally impossible for someone to get addicted to this".

An interesting claim. Prove it, my son.

Prove what, that people have common sense about what "not addictive" means?

(Not that you actually want to see proof, "citation needed" is rarely a genuine request for information.)

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Ah.

Because someone claimed that it equals 4.

But they didn't, they just expected (like a reasonable person) that most people can figure out that "not addictive" means "no more addictive than any other random thing people can enjoy", not "it is literally impossible for someone to get addicted to this". So we have one of two conclusions about your claims:

1) Despite claiming that everyone else is just repeating what you said you DO believe that pot is more addictive than food/video games/watching football/etc.

or

2) You're pointlessly nitpicking something that nobody else had any trouble understanding just because there was some tiny amount of ambiguity that couldn't be tolerated.

Well given what Pot actually chemically does in your brain(direct stimulation of the pleasure centers) I would say its got more addiction potential than food/video games/football/etc simply because its totally bypassing the normal channels of stimulation and its directly plugging in. Its like the difference between normal eating and having a feeding tube.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
But they didn't, they just expected (like a reasonable person) that most people can figure out that "not addictive" means "no more addictive than any other random thing people can enjoy", not "it is literally impossible for someone to get addicted to this".

An interesting claim. Prove it, my son.

Prove what, that people have common sense about what "not addictive" means?

(Not that you actually want to see proof, "citation needed" is rarely a genuine request for information.)

Yes, I'd like you to prove that when he said that pot being potentially psychologically addictive is "a misconception", what he actually meant was that pot is, indeed, potentially psychologically addictive.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
It has been legal in my home country for years (the Netherlands) and as the world can see the country has degenerated into chaos and anarchy because of this. Everyone has become a lazy unproductive junky.

But wait it hasn't, so maybe weed isn't as addictive as some people claim!

Disagree. You Netherlanders are all crayyyyzaaayyy.

That is an after affect of eating too much cheese not weed

 Grey Templar wrote:

Well given what Pot actually chemically does in your brain(direct stimulation of the pleasure centers) I would say its got more addiction potential than food/video games/football/etc simply because its totally bypassing the normal channels of stimulation and its directly plugging in. Its like the difference between normal eating and having a feeding tube.

Ehh... depends really. Most of what I've seen regarding "official" addiction to food is that a person who is addicted to "food" isn't really addicted to it, but rather they have deeper mental health issues and that is, or starts off as a coping mechanism.

As for football... Well, again, this depends. If you're watching it on TV, then I agree with you. If you're playing it, then there is a possibility to become addicted. Again, this isn't addiction to the actual activity itself (this was explained to me by a person in the field of MH with my own example), rather you are addicted to the brain chemicals released by exercise. The endorphins and "Feel good" hormones are what people who are "addicted" to exercise are really addicted to.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Yes, I'd like you to prove that when he said that pot being potentially psychologically addictive is "a misconception", what he actually meant was that pot is, indeed, potentially psychologically addictive.

Seriously? Go back and read the post you quoted when you first posted here. They were talking about pot being physically addictive, not psychologically. All you're doing here is nitpicking that "not addictive" is used in the common conversational sense of "not very likely compared to other things", not a literal "not possible" sense. They were absolutely correct about the addiction risk being a misconception: a lot of people believe that pot is physically addictive like other drugs, when it isn't. The only addiction risk is the same addiction risk that applies to pretty much every other enjoyable thing you can do, and if the addiction risk of pot is on the same level as the addiction risk of sitting on your couch watching football then I think most people will say that it isn't addictive.

About 9% of pot users become addicted. Age and consistency/frequency of use can increase an individual's risk of addiction.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-teenage-mind/201012/is-marijuana-addictive

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/reading-between-the-headlines/201205/is-marijuana-addictive

"Contrary to common belief, marijuana is addictive. Estimates from research suggest that about 9 percent of users become addicted to marijuana; this number increases among those who start young (to about 17 percent, or 1 in 6) and among people who use marijuana daily (to 25-50 percent).

Long-term marijuana users trying to quit report withdrawal symptoms including irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which can make it difficult to abstain. " from: http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana

"In fact, while many people have benign and brief experiences with this drug, a significant number develop dependence or addiction. About 1 out of 11 adults who use marijuana, and about 1 out of 6 adolescent users, become dependent.

Also contrary to what many people suppose, marijuana can produce physiological dependence. A person who has developed tolerance to the drug and then is deprived of it may experience withdrawal symptoms including cravings, irritability, changes in appetite, and altered sleep. People who regularly use marijuana also often wind up with problems in their daily functioning" from: http://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/nida-notes/2014/10/dr-kevin-m-gray-q-potential-medication-marijuana-dependence


Perhaps 9% of folks who sit on their couch and watch football become addicted as well. I've never seen a study to indicate it though. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone having actual withdrawal due to lack of couch sitting football watching, but I'm sure it has happened. But 9%? I doubt it.

Most of the actual damage is not because of the drug itself, but the same reason alcohol is destructive.

 CptJake wrote:
About 9% of pot users become addicted. Age and consistency/frequency of use can increase an individual's risk of addiction.

{links}

Do you have some scientific studies for this instead of just blog posts? Because the first two links are non-technical blog posts written by someone who doesn't seem to have any real knowledge about the subject, while the drugabuse.gov articles don't cite any sources and have an obvious conflict of interest in the government's "war on drugs" policies that make marijuana use a federal crime. The first two are especially bad because they confuse physical addiction with not having the willpower to quit doing something you enjoy doing.

 CptJake wrote:

My positions is exactly as I stated, it should not be up to the gov't.

I questioned why someone would be against something for physical harm but not care about psychological harm. Harm is harm, and often physical harm is the lesser type. That is why I questioned his position, it made no sense to me and I wanted to see it defended.

Who should it be up to on whether or not it is legal? The government has to be involved in some level, even if it just to say, "Weed is no longer a Schedule I drug." So, in your opinion, should cannabis be legal or not?

Also, what "psychological harm" are you talking about when it comes to cannabis?

 Grey Templar wrote:

It does depend on the addiction. You can be addicted to something harmless, although anything taken to an extreme will be harmful.

This is the part where I mention determining what "harm" entails isn't as easy as people often think, especially when considering only matters of psychology. I'll also mention that people often have definitions of addiction which very wildly from substance to substance. For example, I doubt many people would say someone who has a drink every day is an alcoholic, but someone who smokes a joint every day is likely to be classified as a stoner (eg. addicted to marijuana). Not to mention that people who are addicted to caffeine wouldn't generally into a conversation about addiction, despite the fact that it has the potential to be more harmful than THC.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Relaxation is a dangerous side effect if you are driving. Reaction time is the real factor in avoiding a crash, thats why the 10/1 rule exists The fact it does also make you drive slower isn't actually a compensator, it just adds to the danger.

Fatigue has the same effect, yet most states don't make an effort to punish people for driving while tired.

As to driving slower: That's not strictly true. While large deviations from the general speed of traffic will always be dangerous, simply driving slower is not necessarily so.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Large doses can cause hallucinations and impaired memory.

Sort of like that completely legal, and chemically addictive drug we call alcohol. A drug which is potentially lethal absent any additional factors and is connected to a number of other known, long-term health issues which can clearl be demonstrated to produce suffering.

 dogma wrote:
Fatigue has the same effect, yet most states don't make an effort to punish people for driving while tired.

Or talking to the passengers.

I don't think whether marijuana is addictive or not is actually relevant to whether or not it should be legal. No one argues that alcohol and cigarettes aren't clearly addictive, and no one seriously argues for them to be unlawful.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Yes, I'd like you to prove that when he said that pot being potentially psychologically addictive is "a misconception", what he actually meant was that pot is, indeed, potentially psychologically addictive.

Seriously? Go back and read the post you quoted when you first posted here. They were talking about pot being physically addictive, not psychologically. All you're doing here is nitpicking that "not addictive" is used in the common conversational sense of "not very likely compared to other things", not a literal "not possible" sense. They were absolutely correct about the addiction risk being a misconception: a lot of people believe that pot is physically addictive like other drugs, when it isn't. The only addiction risk is the same addiction risk that applies to pretty much every other enjoyable thing you can do, and if the addiction risk of pot is on the same level as the addiction risk of sitting on your couch watching football then I think most people will say that it isn't addictive.

A) No one cares about what you think is obvious. Bias is a powerful thing, and repeating an assertion over and over again doesn't suddenly make it a substantiated argument.

B) I'm not going to argue with you about what the intent behind someone else' post is. Dude's not dead- he's more than capable of clarifying his post if he wants to.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Yes, I'd like you to prove that when he said that pot being potentially psychologically addictive is "a misconception", what he actually meant was that pot is, indeed, potentially psychologically addictive.

Seriously? Go back and read the post you quoted when you first posted here. They were talking about pot being physically addictive, not psychologically. All you're doing here is nitpicking that "not addictive" is used in the common conversational sense of "not very likely compared to other things", not a literal "not possible" sense. They were absolutely correct about the addiction risk being a misconception: a lot of people believe that pot is physically addictive like other drugs, when it isn't. The only addiction risk is the same addiction risk that applies to pretty much every other enjoyable thing you can do, and if the addiction risk of pot is on the same level as the addiction risk of sitting on your couch watching football then I think most people will say that it isn't addictive.

A) No one cares about what you think is obvious. Bias is a powerful thing, and repeating an assertion over and over again doesn't suddenly make it a substantiated argument.

B) I'm not going to argue with you about what the intent behind someone else' post is. Dude's not dead- he's more than capable of clarifying his post if he wants to.

I am not even sure what sort of clarification you need.....

I think every politician, local, state, and federal, who has tried the pot should turn themselves in for jail time and pay for every red cent of it. Maybe then this issue wouldn't seem do trivial to them. You shouldn't impose on others what you're not willing to impose on yourself.

-Deleted for bigotry-

 Ouze wrote:
I don't think whether marijuana is addictive or not is actually relevant to whether or not it should be legal. No one argues that alcohol and cigarettes aren't clearly addictive, and no one seriously argues for them to be unlawful.

I agree with one caveat, misrepresenting it one way or the other does potentially affect how voters will decide to vote on the issue. Spreading the "It isn't addictive" tripe gives voters less than honest info to base their decision on, as does spreading the "It is more addictive than heroine" crap. So from that perspective, it is relevant to how people perceive the issue of whether it should be legal or not, and to what extent it should be regulated and restricted if/when made legal.

 Ouze wrote:
I don't think whether marijuana is addictive or not is actually relevant to whether or not it should be legal. No one argues that alcohol and cigarettes aren't clearly addictive, and no one seriously argues for them to be unlawful.

That's a terrible and flawed argument. "There already is bad, so what harm would more bad do?" isn't an argument to begin with.

"X is addictive" is not an argument.

"X is addictive, but so is Y, so banning X because it's addictive seems irrelevant" on the other hand, is a very valid argument and the reason the former is not a very good argument.

 jasper76 wrote:
I couldn't really care about treaties, personally. That's no reason to imprison a kid and ruin his life for smoking a joint.

If we have such treaties, let's just not honor them. I hardly think it's going to start a war.

Sooo... "SUCK IT United Nations!"

Right?

Remember: "puff, puff, pass!".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. Mental addictions are just as bad as chemical addictions. Worse actually because treatment is more difficult.

I disagree, there are quite a few chemical addictions which can lead to fatal withdrawal; including alcohol.

Yep... withdrawal is fething serious stuff guys. Some things you cannot COLD TURKEY things and literally survive.

Now... here's the interesting thing though... there's no known case that going COLD TURKEY from POT addiction will kill ya. (yet, alcohol addiction can).

And... it's legal to drink copious amounts of alcohol.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
"X is addictive" is not an argument.

"X is addictive, but so is Y, so banning X because it's addictive seems irrelevant" on the other hand, is a very valid argument and the reason the former is not a very good argument.

Yup.

Dislcaimer: Not a Pot smoker... but, "tootsie rolls" from Colorado? Awesomesauce.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I don't think whether marijuana is addictive or not is actually relevant to whether or not it should be legal. No one argues that alcohol and cigarettes aren't clearly addictive, and no one seriously argues for them to be unlawful.

That's a terrible and flawed argument. "There already is bad, so what harm would more bad do?" isn't an argument to begin with.

No, it's more like, we have already established as a society that the mere fact something is addictive isn't in itself enough to make us uncomfortable, let alone unlawful. We've decided adults can make those choices on their own: please don't make bad analogies from what I said. I never attached any moral value at all.

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I couldn't really care about treaties, personally. That's no reason to imprison a kid and ruin his life for smoking a joint.

If we have such treaties, let's just not honor them. I hardly think it's going to start a war.

Sooo... "SUCK IT United Nations!"

Right?

Remember: "puff, puff, [i]pass![/]

The United Nations can go fall of a cliff. Whatever it once may have been, its now the most useless, toothless obligation we have to keep on life support.

If you're implying I smoke pot, I don't. If it ever became legal, I'd try it for insomnia. But I am subject to random drug testing, and I can't. And if I got arrested, I'd lose my job, which I need.

Tell me, if your kid is caught smoking a joint, how much prison time do you want him to do, and how large a fine do you want him to pay? Seriously, tell me...I want to know.

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I couldn't really care about treaties, personally. That's no reason to imprison a kid and ruin his life for smoking a joint.

If we have such treaties, let's just not honor them. I hardly think it's going to start a war.

Sooo... "SUCK IT United Nations!"

Right?

Remember: "puff, puff, [i]pass![/]

The United Nations can go fall of a cliff. Whatever it once may have been, its now the most useless, toothless obligation we have to keep on life support.

If you're implying I smoke pot, I don't. If it ever became legal, I'd try it for insomnia. But I am subject to random drug testing, and I can't. And if I got arrested, I'd lose my job, which I need.

Tell me, if your kid is caught smoking a joint, how much prison time do you want him to do, and how large a fine do you want him to pay? Seriously, tell me...I want to know.

I think you have me confused as being anti-pot.

In addition, I don't think any "drug users" deserves jail time.

Oh...very sorry! I haven't been getting much sleep lately

 jasper76 wrote:
Oh...very sorry! I haven't been getting much sleep lately

No worries.

My folks live in Colorado.. and my pa just had shingles.

Very painful...

Doc gave him a crap ton of narcotics to help the pain, but those "industry" narcs just feths with his system and he can't take it well.

So, he tried that THC enriched "toostie roll".

It's the best thing ever.

@whembley: I go through bad episodes of insomnia, and I've heard pot is a miracle for that. Honestly I haven't tried it since college. Ambien knocked me out, but made me wake up inside my car one time. Never again. Nothing else iv been prescribed works even remotely, and at this point, I've tried alot. It really pisses me off that I can't try something that might actually work for me without endangering my life, like ambien did.

And I also think it's ridiculous that people go to jail for it, when anyone who's ever tried it knows alcohol is like 100 times more potent and potentially dangerous.

 jasper76 wrote:
@whembley: I go through bad episodes of insomnia, and I've heard pot is a miracle for that. Honestly I haven't tried it since college. Ambien knocked me out, but made me wake up inside my car one time. Never again. Nothing else iv been prescribed works even remotely, and at this point, I've tried alot. It really pisses me off that I can't try something that might actually work for me without endangering my life, like ambien did.

And I also think it's ridiculous that people go to jail for it, when anyone who's ever tried it knows alcohol is like 100 times more potent and potentially dangerous.

Sorry bro...

I'd advocate trying that toostie roll, but I wouldn't do it if it can cost you your job.

Yep. I've been tested twice in three years at my present job. No weed for me! Why can't we have nice things?

 jasper76 wrote:
Yep. I've been tested twice in three years at my present job. No weed for me! Why can't we have nice things?

You're not high (up) enough

From someone in upper management: a LOT of people here smoke weed. A LOT.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Yep. I've been tested twice in three years at my present job. No weed for me! Why can't we have nice things?

You're not high (up) enough

From someone in upper management: a LOT of people here smoke weed. A LOT.

I know that at my job, alot of people smoke weed too, even though we do have random drug testing, and try to play the numbers in terms of when they think they could get tested, and 'partying' or whatever for a while after they've been tested. It's just a risk I'm not willing to take, because to make as much money as I'm making now, I'd likely have to sell my house and move if I lost my job (or up my commute from 20 minutes to 1.5 hours)...which is something I don't want to do because I like living in my area, and I love having a short commute. And honestly, I'm not so much interested in marijuana because I want to get high...I just want a good night's sleep.

Yeah, it's always better to stay safe and thus clean. Neither me nor my wife are doing drugs either. Except for alcohol, but in pretty rough limits, being parents and such. And at our age, you don't go partying anymore anyway. Usually.

Regarding sleep problems - those utterly suck and I feel ya. I don't know how it works in the US, but could you go to a doctor specialized in the topic? A good friend of ours had rough sleeping problems and he went to a sleep laboratory where they analized his sleeping phases etc., where he was given individualized advice on how to improve his sleep overall, sleeping manners and was, for a start, given meds to ease sleeping. If your insurance does not cover it, however, it might pretty expensive.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Yeah, it's always better to stay safe and thus clean. Neither me nor my wife are doing drugs either. Except for alcohol, but in pretty rough limits, being parents and such. And at our age, you don't go partying anymore anyway. Usually.

Regarding sleep problems - those utterly suck and I feel ya. I don't know how it works in the US, but could you go to a doctor specialized in the topic? A good friend of ours had rough sleeping problems and he went to a sleep laboratory where they analized his sleeping phases etc., where he was given individualized advice on how to improve his sleep overall, sleeping manners and was, for a start, given meds to ease sleeping. If your insurance does not cover it, however, it might pretty expensive.

It's covered by insurance here. I was tested in a couple overnight studies, and I don't have sleep apnea. It's probably something in my brain. I have quit all caffeine, been on umpteen different meds and such, and the only thing that has worked has been Ambien, but I had a very dangerous sleep walking episode where I woke up in my car, keys in hand, trying to get the key in the ignition, so I won't be using that medication anymore.

Hopefully, eventually I'll find something else that works for me.