Should Marijuana be legalised?

otm. I don't care if I want to drink three jugs of gasoline and chase it down with rubbing alcohol, it's my damn body

Can I come to your next gasoline party please San Te?

tbh I think this might be a one-time only deal, just have that sense....

Awes at the "wrong" pic

so gonna happen:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2013/04/pewmarijuana.jpg

Is this the next 'gay marriage' progressive galvanizer of opinion? The amount of money spent on the war on drugs generally and on cannibis specifically makes Iraq and Afghanistan look fiscally manageable and dammit if we don't already grow some killer weed.

oh man i am so excited

with 2/3rds of younger voters in favor of it? yes

xp

not to mention the huge burden relieved off our overtaxed gulag system for housing minority fathers

whoa

http://www.military.com/military-report/house-votes-to-let-va-doctors-recommend-marijuana.html?ESRC=mr0530.nl&utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

http://www.marijuana.com/blog/news/2016/09/chelsea-clinton-implies-marijuana-can-kill-you/

i need to look into getting medical w33d oil in nyc for my crohn's disease, it seems like a much more promising option than immunosuppressant injection therapies like Remicaid. I don't know where to start though. I have a feeling my gastroenterologist is not 'cool'.

ime it is a life-saver but not a complete replacement for immunosuppressants. are you on 77? i have a thread related to the topic there. short version tho even treating myself w/ mm for about a decade i never had as much symptom relief as i'm having on the humira. tho just the humira without the mm (as i found on a recent business trip where i couldn't score) also has problems + discomfort.

I asked to be put on 77 but I think it got overlooked

Basically I have one disincentive to do the humera/remicaid etc thing which is that I had a splenectomy a couple decades ago, so my immune system is already compromised bc of that. Further suppressing it worries me.

i am looking into this for my chronic neck pain; doctor seems to think it should be pretty doable
wishing for the best for you ailments jon

Not a user myself and never have been, but I do follow developments in legalization, and as I pointed out on another pot thread we're at something of a metaphysical impasse. Marijuana will never be legalized recreationally if it is formally categorized as medical, yet it is likely never going to be categorized as medical for a confluence of reasons, not least because it's hard/impossible for the FDA to isolate and independently regulate all the various chemical components in it (apparently there are only two or so botanicals legally recognized as medicine, period). And yet we have all this grey area stuff going on, with states in essence legalizing marijuana as both recreational *and* medical, even though both categories remain technically illegal on a Federal level. It also introduces all sorts of weird stuff on the medical front, not least the notion of something being legalized as medicine on a state by state basis. Has this ever happened before? That something is recognized as a medicine in one state but not another?

Anyway, it scans to me that the push for marijuana to be licensed and regulated as medical is counter-production, on the legalization front, and that a better strategy would be to focus efforts on recreational legalization. (As some piece I read about this stuff pointed out, the FDA compromise would be akin to, say, vitamins, which can be marketed and sold with medical benefits but which feature an FDA disclosure. Top of my vitamin bottle lists possible health benefits, and at the bottom: "This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.") Because marijuana clearly has benefits (as does alcohol, coffee, etc.), they're just hard to isolate and verify scientifically enough to determine a consistent dose, strength, delivery mechanism and so on per the FDA/DEA policy.

@Wonkblog
Chelsea Clinton ‘misspoke’ on marijuana risks, spokeswoman says

@ggreenwald
Meaning: what she claimed about marijuana and death was . . . false

I asked to be put on 77 but I think it got overlooked

never been invited either. i should probably stop posting here, now that i think of it

I still don't know what 77 is, and I've been posting here forever...

Request Access to 77 Borad

xp no bile intended or anything but you've got to have one of the lowest word-count-to-knowledge ratios of anyone here so it isn't exactly surprising. :D

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/in-sixth-grade-math/ratio-and-proportion/introduction-ratios/v/introduction-to-ratios-new-hd-version

Math is hard. xpost So was that ad hominem "you are dumb" addressed to me? Youch. What's up with that?

never tabulated my word count to knowledge ratio, let alone estimated how low it is. guess that precludes 77 fellowship :(

Math is hard. xpost So was that ad hominem "you are dumb" addressed to me? Youch. What's up with that?

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, September 30, 2016 10:20 PM (twelve minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah sorry, i'm bad at math and got it backwards. i meant to say "one of the lowest knowledge-to-word-count ratios", meaning you are often very verbosely full of shit. but never change, it takes all kinds, etc.

i mean we're all dumb to an extend but it takes a special spirit to go on at length anyways.

I'll take it!

you're the best.

we should get high some time

i hope you guys have a good time

sorry, mr. map. never knew how word-county exclusive the love of everything is. be seeing you :(

you should join us

i'd be there, but there's only so long you can persist excluded from 'the in board' before expectation totally deflates. which isn't to say though hey, hope you guys hit new highs

if man is 5, if man is 5

i'm not on 77 anymore fwiw and agree it has some boring and in-groupy elements but iirc it can be a good place to talk about things you don't want to be easily linked to your ilx account. josh in chicago has been around a long time though and there's been a lot of discussion about what 77 is on the main board and it seems he should at least kind of know what it is. i feel like i'm always seeing him say he doesn't know something and then drop 3 graphs about it anyway. i just think it's odd and find it annoying but w/e.

can't recall because i've never been invited to participate in 77 even though i've been clown-posting here for years turns out

So I will be receiving my medical marijuana card in the next week or so. this is an odd turn of events; I'm really not a smoker and I am a little wary of using this prescription but I've been dealing with chronic neck pain and muscle spasms for about 16 months so at this point I'll try anything.
I'm an NYC resident. anyone have any questions?

you can ingest instead of smoke, but edibles are pretty potent, so be cautious

NYC doesn't offer legal smokable weed actually; my understanding is the options are time release capsules (meh), fluid for vaping (uh uh) and sub lingual drops. Given that I'll likely take this before I go to sleep, as that's when the pain is worse (and has been kept in check till now with an evening cocktail of 800mg ibuprofen and muscle relaxers), I think the immediate relief option is the one I'll go for. It's apparently offered as three separate levels of THC/CBD potency and you're guided by the pharmacist as to what's most effective through trial and error. Insurance won't cover this and the doc suggested a monthly dose would likely run $130 out of pocket... which sucks but if it genuinely works I'll take it. There appears to only be one dispensary in Manhattan proper but, as it happens, it's 45 minutes away by subway. Further reports when my card shows up and I start trying to make appointments.

https://col-careny.com/faqs/

another thread for our "new friend"

Vaping fluid is very popular in legal states (and non-legal if you can find it) - an extract is made then mixed with propylene glycol or similar, the tank looks like the early e-cig things you could buy at corner stores.
I've tried those, if that's the form it works like a champ. Screw the tank onto a $5 e-cig battery and take veeeeeeery light drags to start with. You're getting a lot of THC in concentrated form, it's easy to overdo it.

Edibles are too variable for me - I made a batch of coconut oil and it would take an unpredictable number of hours to hit me. Currently have tincture drops in the fridge but I haven't tried it yet - the idea of putting 151 under my tongue is horrifying. I'll probably just dropper it into a glass of water or something.

THC is the more useful part for pain but a 1:1 THC:CBD mixture is good if you're worried about anxiety/paranoia - CBD blunts the anxiety response some people have to THC. Higher CBD than THC (like the 20:1 products for epilepsy, etc.) don't get you high and while there's a body relaxation effect I don't think it would be useful for pain.

re: variable time - first two times I tried the coconut oil effects were minor but then I went to sleep. Increased the dose by 2 more ml, went to bed an hour later THEN woke up 3 hours later higher than I have been in my entire life. Still sort of high the next morning. For some reason it wasn't hitting for 4 hours, maybe my digestion is fucked.

We had made the coconut oil a few times and unpredictable is right. Sometimes it would come on in under an hour. Sometimes I'd be sitting there for three hours feeling like I'd wasted my time when it would finally start creeping up on me. I like the high much better than smoking it though.

I've been researching the whole thing for my crohns and finding it pretty confusing. I guess I don't need my gastroenterologist to be on board with the idea, but I do need some kind of statement of diagnosis from her. But who actually prescribes the shit for me? A doctor at the one place that exists in Manhattan?

Jon, let's talk. I can recommend the pain management doctor who helped me get the prescription.
Basically all you need is a referral from someone who is certified to put you in the program and there's only a few in the city. I have a list and we can see who takes your insurance... or you can ask your gastro explicitly to place you with someone who can.

A sterling excuse to hang out!

agreed! drop me a line!

Chief Wana Dubie: In Memoriam

https://i.imgur.com/OtCmrl9.png

what the hell are they smoking in new hampshire

given all the car wrecks we've had in this country, why on earth should we be giving people bikes?

About fucking time they took it off Schedule 1.

wow

man if there's a Weedonald's on every corner

some info I just found on what that means, legally:

Legal Consequences If Marijuana Moved to Schedule III

Moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, without other legal changes, would not bring the state-legal medical or recreational marijuana industry into compliance with federal controlled substances law. With respect to medical marijuana, a key difference between placement in Schedule I and Schedule III is that substances in Schedule III have an accepted medical use and may lawfully be dispensed by
prescription, while Substances in Schedule I cannot. However, prescription drugs must be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Although FDA has approved some drugs derived from or related to cannabis, marijuana itself is not an FDA-approved drug. Moreover, if one or more marijuana products obtained FDA approval, manufacturers and distributors would need to register with DEA and comply with regulatory requirements that apply to Schedule III substances in order to handle those products. Users of medical marijuana would need to obtain valid prescriptions for the substance from medical providers, subject to federal legal requirements that differ from existing state regulatory
requirements for medical marijuana.

Rescheduling marijuana would not affect the medical marijuana appropriations rider. Thus, so long as the current rider remains in effect, participants in the state-legal medical marijuana industry who comply with state law would be shielded from federal prosecution. If the rider were to lapse or be repealed, these persons would again be subject to prosecution at the discretion of DOJ.

With respect to the manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana, if marijuana were moved to Schedule III, such activities would remain illegal under federal law and potentially subject to federal prosecution regardless of their status under state law.
Some criminal penalties for CSA violations depend on the schedule in which a substance is classified. If marijuana were moved to Schedule III, applicable penalties for some offenses would be reduced.

However, CSA penalties that apply to activities involving marijuana specifically, such as the quantity based mandatory minimum sentences discussed above, would not change as a result of rescheduling. DEA is not required to set annual production quotas for Schedule III controlled substances.

The prohibition on business deductions in Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code applies to any trade or business that “consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.” Because the provision applies only to activities involving substances
in Schedule I or II, moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III would allow marijuana businesses to deduct business expenses on federal tax filings. Other collateral legal consequences would continue to attach to unauthorized marijuana-related activities.

Hooray for rescheduling — it’s a step!

legalization seems like pretty low hanging fruit for a not-particularly-popular incumbent President in an election year but honestly idk what he can even do. this seems like a good step at least.

xpost it's a step I thought was a pipedream for many years. glad to see sanity finally prevailing

legalization seems like pretty low hanging fruit for a not-particularly-popular incumbent President in an election year but honestly idk what he can even do. this seems like a good step at least.

― frogbs, Tuesday, April 30, 2024 2:11 PM bookmarkflaglink

with our luck, Trump campaign will do his advertising for him.

"With Biden in office, weed is going to be freely available"

Biden's response:

"Hell yeah it is!"

Legalization would require congressional approval, yes? Good luck with that right now

still might help to get their votes on the record

get their votes on the record

Good thought, but not gonna happen. In the Senate legalization would be subject to filibuster and never make it to a vote. If the Ds held the House majority they could bring legalization out of committee to the floor for a recorded vote, but the R majority's not going to cooperate on that.

It doesn't need to get to a vote. The President and prominent Democrats making it an issue would be an energizing issue with a lot of younger (under 50 lol) voters.

should be decriminalized NOT LEGALIZED

why not

I seriously doubt that legal weed would be such an electoral slam dunk for a candidate that everyone always hopes it will be. I mean, it’s the right thing to do, but I don’t think it’s moving the needle very much.

I seriously doubt that legal weed would be such an electoral slam dunk for a candidate that everyone always hopes it will be.

Maybe it's a dumb stereotype, but "really into weed" and "likely voter" seem close to mutually exclusive.

Weed is all over the place now as well: from the lowly doobie of mexican weed, to highly concentrated 'dab' and shit like that

I don’t think it’s moving the needle very much

perhaps not but as unperson says it's one of those issues that might motivate some folks to vote who otherwise would say "who cares, it's all a scam anyway, man...". plus it would force the GOP to argue against something broadly popular. but yeah maybe the ship has sailed I mean I don't live in a legal state and yet it seems to be everywhere these days. that farm bill which passed seems to introduce so many technicalities, like oh here's something that's not at all like weed until you heat it up, in which case it's basically the same...I mean where we're at now just makes no sense. like you can "only" have .3% THC in edibles here but even in legal states you don't often get more than that.

i am not going to try to predict the effect this is going to have on voters -- overall rescheduling it from S1 is a logical and useful shift and I am here for it.

Maybe it's a dumb stereotype, but "really into weed" and "likely voter" seem close to mutually exclusive.

https://www.cshl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Boomer-Esiason-headshot.jpg

xpost otm, regardless of its effect it needed to happen

something that I think has been overlooked itt so far is that this will enable research on a much greater scale

i.e. lab work, genetics, tests, etc

cancer treatment, etc etc etc

yes!! and that will legitimize and destigmatize and that is good.

lmao my brain was going the opposite direction and I was thinking "yes, there will be more labs doing work on marijuana genetics and breeding"

ConAgra Cannabis® - Buds You Can Trust

dankest weed moonshot starts now

happy 4/30 yall

think the corporate weed move will be lowering THC content so that you can buy a pack of Marlboro joints that don't paralyze the average person (also that increase addictiveness somehow) plus all the exotic cannabinoids present naturally in small amounts that supposedly cause weight loss/etc..

market segmentation, for sure