Rolling Cannabis Politics Thread

Just read a great article about race + marijuana arrests in New York by Mark Jacobson: http://nymag.com/news/features/58995/

I don't think there's another thread like this -- a place to discuss the current movements to legalize marijuana (medicinally or otherwise) throughout the United States (and anywhere else that interests people), and any other legal/political/racial issues involved.

Also, I don't know how it works, but if it makes people feel more comfortable maybe a mod can unindex this thread from google? (If not, can we move it to 77 or something?)

Cary Tennis' last column on Salon is called "How I Became a Pothead": http://www.salon.com/life/drugs/index.html?story=/mwt/col/tenn/2010/06/03/marijuana

Some other more recent stories:

Marie Myung-Ok Lee's "Why I Give My 9-Year-Old Pot" Series from Slate:
http://www.slate.com/id/2251174/

Marijuana inspiring Cuisine in NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/dining/19pot.html

Jack Shafer telling NY Times they are ridiculous for writing that piece:
http://www.slate.com/id/2254397/

not sure i want to read "why i gave my 9-year-old pot" but.. hm..
intriguingly, my mom's position on weed has flipped--she used to bother me about 'becoming a druggie' and now she is all 'oh, i think pot should be legalized.' maybe she's been lighting up?

living in massachusetts i can openly smoke pot at my gay wedding, but good luck to the rest of you.

http://johngushue.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/05/19/bob_dylan_greenwich_village.jpg

Come gather round people wherever you roam...

I cannot help but conclude, after a lifetime of observation, that the present power regime in the USA will never consent to legalize drugs, even if it results in more rational regulation of these activities, a massively lowering of the costs of incarceration (both social as well as monetary), and a cutting off of the funding for huge criminal organizations.

There's just too much money at stake in continuing the drug war now. The cops are mostly in favor of it, because it gives them more power and money, and they get to look like they are saving society from a scourge, while they are just engaging in a lot of fruitless, showy, theatrical idiocy. The prison industry is all for it. And politicians love it, because hating on druggies is the opposite side of the coin from loving mom and apple pie.

Against such stupidity even the gods contend in vain.

Really? Cause the winds seem to be heavily blowing towards legalization.

Just became medically legalized in NJ, NY is currently looking to medically legalize it.

i hate the focus on medical though, no one should have to give a reason or be able to see a doctor to engage in freedom

Those winds of legalization will die away to a whisper in the South. If the Feds maintain prohibition, then the states will not be able to enact the kind of reform and regulation that will do a proper job of it.

I'm okay with that. I think that if it becomes legal (or de facto legal) in enough of the country, eventually that'll push things over federally too. You just need to build some momentum, and I see momentum all over the place.

If we could just strangle enough RRW Republicans, then maybe...

... but moral scruples forbid me to discuss this line of thought.

i hate the focus on medical though, no one should have to give a reason or be able to see a doctor to engage in freedom

― harbl, Sunday, June 6, 2010 3:14 PM (41 minutes ago)

idk, i agree totally about pot and think that all drug possessions should be decriminalized, but i wouldn't extend that 'freedom' to other illicit drugs or prescription medications obv

neither would i!

ha yeah i basically figured that's what you meant, i'm in lolcollege so i've had one too many conversations w/ ppl who are like yeah pot should be legal! fuck it all drugs should be legal!

penalties in ca may be reclassified (no longer misdemeanor)

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/cannabis-chronicles/marijuana-possession-less-than/

http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss51/tr_fudge/arnold_smoking-pot-thumb-300x238.jpg

if dude can hold the pen straight

i think the legalization ballot measure is going down fwiw, but the fact that it's a question is amazing even given the state of bud politics here.

vast majority of la dispensaries needing to ROLL with the punches meanwhile
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_15235255?source=rss

they're pushing to get full legalization on the ballot in oregon this fall

Also, I don't know how it works, but if it makes people feel more comfortable maybe a mod can unindex this thread from google? (If not, can we move it to 77 or something?)

― Mordy, Sunday, June 6, 2010 12:37 PM (4 hours ago)

I've done this, though if it's kept to politics rather than personal habits, I don't know how necessary it was.

i hope it's not just a lolcollege idea to want to see see all drugs legalized. obviously we're not talking crack being freely available to schoolkids from the corner shop here; there would besome kind of sliding scale of control, e.g. cannabis as free as tobacco, e/speed/coke over the counter at the pharmacy, heroin perhaps only on prescription for registered addicts. i really don't see the benefit in having any substance completely criminalised. it does not effectively discourage use; it turns ordinary people into criminals - at best merely for usage/possession, at worst for having to commit crime in order to maintain a supply; it enables an enormous criminal trade; it means there is no control over substance purity. if drugs were under government control they would be clean and pure, they could be taxed to help fund treatment for addicts, and there would surely be a huge reduction in drug related crime.

ok maybe things wouldn't be quite that rosy. but it's clear the current system is a complete failure. and in general while i'm far from libertarian i am a strong believer in personal liberty and the idea of the government having such a strong say over what i choose to put into my body is anathema to me.

no i don't think the lolcollege thing refers to what you're talking about, just a certain type of libertarian thinking. i don't believe in drug criminalization either for the same reasons as you said, it has done a lot of very bad things to america in my opinion.

Full legalization is a LONG way away. The area of law I practice in, employment, is one of the areas where this is really clear: The California Fair Employment and Housing Act, or FEHA, recognizes the use of some prescription drugs, and mandates that employers, in certain situations, must accommodate the user of those drugs if the use of those drugs somehow limits their ability to do their job.

But it doesn't provide the same protections to medical marijuana. The way in which the Compassionate Care Act of 1996 was drafted, it addresses only the criminal aspects as it pertains to patients. It doesn't address employment aspects, or any of the other ways in which marijuana can impact lives. The CA Supreme Court ruled that employers do not have to accommodate compassionate care users for precisely this reason - the Act doesn't address employment law. Kind of a legal punt, but it drew attention to just how narrowly the Compassionate Care Act is drawn. There was an Oregon decision recently which arrived at the same rationale. Now, if two of the most pot-friendly states in the country have rulings like that on the books, the 9th circuit is not likely to hold another way if a case were to make it that far.

But the decriminalization has been good. And, in reality, no cop is going to bust you for a joint or a dime bag. Driving while doing smoking/stoned? Another story, as well it should be.

no cop is going to bust you for a joint or a dime bag.

if you have the right color of skin

I doubt we'll ever see pot legalized, though it would be so convenient if it was. OK, maybe not "ever," but I really seriously doubt it'll happen in the next 20-40 years, or so long as we have Mormons in the U.S.

Rev otm, and if you're in the "wrong" neighborhood, you'd be surprised how small an infraction you can end up in handcuffs for

no cop is going to bust you for a joint or a dime bag.

if you have the right color of skin

― donk quixote (The Reverend), Monday, June 7, 2010 10:02 AM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark

I used to work at a diner where for dishwashers we hired convicts who were trying to get back on their feet, and they were mostly black guys that had been in jail for years and years after being busted in this way. Legalization is in a large part a civil rights cause.

i think the legalization ballot measure is going down fwiw

why do you think this...? I haven't seen any authoritative polling to-date.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/31/local/la-me-0601-poll-20100529

i just have a feeling. people don't pay attention to propositions, even this one, until the ads start ratcheting up and the opposition has a lot of boogeymen to unleash, not to mention opposing the measure more forcefully in the coming months is low-hanging fruit for both of the likely gub nominees. from what i've seen, trying to put myself in the shoes of the 'average voter' the pro argument as articulated feels kind of ad-hoc but that could change too.

Besides the Office of National Drug Control Policy, who funds opposition advertising? Someone said the cigarette companies spend a lot on opposition advertising, but I couldn't find any data to support that. Anyone here know?

cigarette companies are all broke I thought

I would not be surprised if it were religious people (cough cough Mormons). If there *were* a national vote, you bet the Mormon Church would do a Prop-8 style $$$$ push to shut that shit down. I promise.

are tobacco companies even allowed to spend campaign money? so many lawsuits/civil suits have crippled the industry

xp

If there *were* a national vote, you bet the Mormon Church would do a Prop-8 style $$$$ push to shut that shit down. I promise.

I can see this happening. at the same time, most of the country does not love Mormons, much less being told what to do by Mormons.

like what is the percentage that thinks Mormons aren't "really" Christians...? it's pretty high iirc

Well, sure, but it worked w/Prop 8, right?

And it's not like they would advertise, "WE, the MORMONS, want you to never smoke pot! And also we don't really have multiple wives. Brought to you by THE MORMONS."

Sponsored by the Mormons For Curtailing Your Fun Committee for America (c)

At any rate, this topic of converrsation ("will pot be legalized") always kind of feels like a mass funtime of projections of the speakers' pasts & desires. I, por ejemplo, would love for pot to be legalized, but grew up in a community where smoking weed was tantamount (in perceived riskiness & evilness) to smoking meth. This informs my perspective. I imagine someone who grew up in a less conservative area, or had pot-smoking parents, would have a more optimistic view. ANd someone who thinks weed is bad, and has never smoked it, would naturally be more inclined to say it's so not gonna happen. I feel in some ways like there's no way to know.

i suspect in my lifetime we will see the states where it's been cleared for medical purposes legalize it wholesale; everywhere else will be in sort of limbo between where we are now and full legalization

It seems to me that once it's become fully legalized in a few states, it'll be de facto legal everywhere. They can't exactly set up state border patrols to make sure you aren't buying in NJ and driving it up to NY, or whatever.

still pretty illegal in lots of europe, despite amsterdam

Europe's different

As far as I know, Prohibition was repealed everywhere all at once, but an interesting comparison might be individual state tax laws on vices. Technically, afaik, it's illegal to buy alcohol in NJ and then drive it into PA, but this obviously happens all the time, whenever someone in Cherry Hill picks up a bottle of wine and then drives to his friend's place in Philadelphia, and it's de facto legal. How can you enforce that kind of law?

wrt CA as an avowed pessimist the fact that they gathered the signatures still feels like found money, bottom line is i think the radius of 'public consciousness raising' for legalization hasn't extended nearly as far as the medical angle, which tbh still relies on compassion for the very very sick to get over (medical cannabis is not going away but it's still plenty begrudged among the majority of counties and municipalities). i mean i hope that's an antiguated view of how politics move in 2010 but yeah, prop 8. think we can just wipe away the culture of prohibition w/o at least will n' gracing it for a minute, it just can't be that easy, right?

yeah, i guess i would liken it blue laws around here. like, you would probably never ever be able to just pop by dispensary/ package store in the state of Tennessee and buy a nice bottle of wine and some white widow for your dinner party. but if you were pulled over and had an oz cops would just be like eh, whatever - as long as you aren't smokin & drivin (someone will obviously need to build some kind of breath-alizer for weed if it's ever to be legalized i'm guessing)

56% of CA supports legalizing weed as of a couple months ago

xxposts

shakey i posted a more recent poll upthread fwiw, but again i think it's too early to hang your hat on either one

Wish 538 would run something about it.

yeah I agree - margins are probably soft, and we haven't seen any marketing really get started yet

xp

As I indicated upthread, while there are still federal anti-drug laws and while Congress is dominated by anti-legalization sentiment (think Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennesee, ad infinitum), even if California voted to legalize pot, the Feds would be able to render that vote moot, by independent DEA raids, federal prosecutions, and what's worst, by almost certainly withholding vast amounts of federal funds for all kinds of stuff - from Medicaid to schools.

CA would relent within months.

It looks like the Federal government is moving away from enforcement, not towards it. It's hard to imagine Obama giving the order to resume the raiding. (I thought that had stopped, btw?)

yeah they have and Obama's made it explicitly clear that prosecuting marijuana is not a priority

Also, I don't know how this would actually play out politically, but with a right-wing totally committed to limiting federal power for probably the next six years, and a left-wing with a large group that is pro legalization, I can't see a lot of people pushing for federal enforcement.

no one's winning the White House with CA's votes either - state might take a dim view of a sitting president waging financial war against it, esp when it's in such dire straits already

withOUT CA's votes sorry

Hard to imagine there is anything a sitting Democratic president could do that would stop CA from voting for him. I think if Obama wanted to, he could act against CA's economic interests with more or less impunity.

just thinking of a president winning w/o CA makes me hear hoofbeats xp

a right-wing totally committed to limiting federal power

The right wing's commitment to limiting government definitely does not extend to the DEA, or to any action that could remotely be construed as "soft on drugs". One has only to look at the past 40 years to see this is true.

mainstream right-wingers still want pot smoking deadbeats in jail. limited federal intervention just means states can pass their own draconian laws against it, right?

Yes, but once you've opened the door to states passing their own draconian laws, you've also opened the door to some states totally legalizing it.

Nope. The argument would be that you can't have it legal in one state, because it would become a staging area for growing and then exporting pot to other states. Which is true enough.

CA needs a new cash crop!

It's time to return to an agrarian economy, dude.

I'm with Wm. F. Buckley on this issue. Ending pot prohibition makes sense to me in a dozen different ways. But legalization is not about to happen. Decriminalization of small amounts in self-selected places is the best you can get in the present climate.

if california successfully legalized it in a way that made a ton of $ for the state, I could imagine lots of things happening faster outside of california

Somewhat relevant: http://www.slate.com/id/2255385/

Review of new book about prohibition.

Colorado laws re dispensaries. Salon frames it as a positive ("Gov. Bill Ritter signs laws that could let hundreds of dispensaries continue to operate") tho ultimately it's going to involve places closing.

http://www.salon.com/news/medicine/index.html?story=/news/feature/2010/06/07/us_medical_marijuana

Legalization is in a large part a civil rights cause.

― Adam Bruneau, Monday, June 7, 2010 9:31 AM Bookmark

^ DING DING DING

btw, this is what their trying to get on the ballot in OR: http://cannabistaxact.org/

Just wanna say wrt legalization versus medical legalization, while I firmly believe that medical legalization is the door to full legalization, I also believe that medical legalization is itself an important battle. I've known many people suffer through ailments that were alleviated in a healthy safe way through medical marijuana and without stating it explicitly, it's an issue that hits very close to home as well. While there are a lot of treatments for certain illnesses + disorders, those treatments often come with side effects and shit like that, whereas marijuana can often really be a wonder drug.

someone happened to have posted this on fb while i was reading this thread: State Medical Marijuana Laws Are Getting Stricter

xp: otm

The weed (legally prescribed in NC) is what got my older sis thru many of her darkest cancer days - it was the only thing she could rely upon to counter the nauseating effect of chemo & morphine (& she tried LOTS of things).

to be fair tho, the couple of weeks i was on a morphine drip, it was the only thing keeping me sane, not sure pot would have done the trick

but pot counters the sort of nausea that is a common side effect of opiates (& chemotherapy, glaucoma, etc.) - I did not mean to suggest it was an alternative to the pain-relief provided by morphine etc.

I understand that there is a limited medical benefit for marijuana (like your chemo patient who relies on it just to be able to eat), so I'm pretty much with CA's Compassionate Use legislation.

Apart from that, I'm largely apathetic toward outright legalization. Right now in CA, all you need is a signed recommendation from a doctor (any doctor—doesn't have to be your primary care doc or even someone referred by them) and you can possess up to eight ounces, and even grow your own.

However, what's happening now is that anybody adult who has $50 and wants to smoke pot legally just goes to one of those "Dr. 420" places for an "evaluation" and picks one of the symptoms off the list.

I don't know what it is about that situation that bothers me, but I think it's the fact that people are exploiting laws designed to protect people with certain illnesses that I take issue with. Fraudulently claiming a medical condition because you want to party or make a buck is just terribly unethical.

I think if it were to be legal for medical use only, it should be treated like other medicines. Put into a pill form, maybe engineered to emphasize certain physiological effects while minimizing others. Take all the fun out of it, so to speak.

A cop I once worked a case with told me that marijuana is "only half-illegal", and he was right. I don't think it's even possible to buy a dime bag of schwag these days, as everybody (even some of the school kids I've worked with) can get access to dispensary weed.

Even though I have friends who still smoke and are decent people, I've also come across way too many "I think I actually drive better when I'm high" type assholes to think that if faced with "Legalize: Y/N" on my ballot, I wouldn't vote either way. I'd be way more inclined to vote in favor of it if there were a ton of restrictions alongside it, such as stronger DUI laws, laws against providing it to those under 21, and regulations on when and where it can be consumed.

pretty sure most of that stuff comes included, dude

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oDc--yrWQc

XP I know there would have to be rules, but I specifically meant strong legislation. I don't know if simply treating it like alcohol would go far enough.

is there any good reason we shouldn't treat it like alcohol?

SMOKE WEED EVERYDAY

Because alcohol is a CNS depressant, and the effects from one serving are metabolized by the body in about an hour. THC is a psychoactive chemical, the effects of which take about four times as long to leave one's system. BAC is relatively easy to measure; the same can't be said for marijuana. Due to the different natures of each, they should be treated differently.

re: What I said above about Conservatives embracing legalization, here's the National Review arguing that the Tea Party should support legalization
http://article.nationalreview.com/435622/the-tea-party-and-the-drug-war/jeffrey-a-miron

Obviously this isn't like a policy paper from the right wing, but there's clearly a group of people who believe in legalization from the right.

Yes, the libertarian-leaning right is usually anti-prohibition. But the religious conservatives are a much larger part of that base. The libertarians love to make noise, but they don't vote in very large numbers. They more often sit on the sideline and bitch about everyone who isn't libertarian.

However, what's happening now is that anybody adult who has $50 and wants to smoke pot legally just goes to one of those "Dr. 420" places for an "evaluation" and picks one of the symptoms off the list.

I don't know what it is about that situation that bothers me, but I think it's the fact that people are exploiting laws designed to protect people with certain illnesses that I take issue with. Fraudulently claiming a medical condition because you want to party or make a buck is just terribly unethical.

i am not a chemo patient. i do have a MM recommendation for anxiety and depression. i smoke weed (legally) every day when i get home because it makes me feel happier and less anxious, and helps me get work done at night. it also helps me be more positive on a day-to-day basis. finally, it gets rid of the migraine symptoms i feel on the way home every day. i am a high school teacher, so i tend to deal with a lot of stress and anxiety at work and staying extremely positive is a really big part of being successful at my job (i.e. reaching the kids is much easier when you're smiling and mellow every day - mind you, i don't smoke at or before work)

as far as i know, the extent of benefit for a chemo patient is not much further than this. marijuana doesn't cure cancer. it just provides pain relief and emotional support. and stimulates appetite.

in everyone's opinion, do i deserve to use medical marijuana or not?

if the average joe can *legally* get pain relief and emotional support from OTC pills and alcohol, why not weed?

BTW, if anybody know, please don't use my real name or even my first name in this thread.

as a state employee AFAIK i don't have anything to worry about w/r/t my MM use but i'd rather keep it on the DL just in case anyway.

Everyone who has a right to consume alcohol ought to have the right to smoke weed.
Are conservative more afraid of Gays or Weed?

^^ see i agree entirely

hi-five

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2IcIq_OTlfc/S5FNtbfMZMI/AAAAAAAABSo/cqMTLbhmFJ4/s320/gay+pot.gif

I REALLY like that.

I would wear that as a button or badge.

Piece about the possible consequences of a legislative victory v. defeat in California:
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/2010/jun/08/marc_emery_calls_out_selfish_mar

Due to the different natures of each, they should be treated differently.

that's the only thing different about them?

I merely mentioned two differences, and each has its own set of ramifications.

As I already stated, I'm largely apathetic to whether it gets legalized or not, and my main issue is with recreational users taking advantage of laws designed to shield a those with valid medical conditions from prosecution.

All matter of substances, be they alcohol, illicit drugs, over-the-counter, or prescribed pills have the potential for misuse and abuse. If marijuana were to be legalized, it would be nice to think that everybody would use it responsibly, but that isn't even the case now. My concern rises when it becomes a public safety issue, and which criteria would then be used to determine legal vs. illegal use. DUI and public intoxication rules are obviously the biggest, and to say it should just be treated like alcohol is naïve, since with alcohol we can accurately quantify the amt. of one's intoxication. With weed, not so much. A daily drinker, if they haven't had any that day, would blow a clean breathalyzer. A daily smoker, even if they had gone without for a few days, would still test dirty. This would open a huge grey area wrt court cases involving DUI charges, etc. Why shouldn't I be skeptical that the existing legislation would neatly cover everything, and that there won't be any unforeseen issues with legalization?

I could almost, as a cursory matter, see the rationale of getting upset about recreational pot users "abusing" some law that exists for the benefit of medical marijuana users, but then I pause, squint real hard, and think to myself "no actually why would I give a shit about that, like at all?"

I mean if I don't care if it's legalized or not, and if I don't care if someone uses it or not, I'm supposed to get offended if they do so for sham reasons under the pretext of a law where the state clearly isn't interested in drawing the distinction? I'm sorry, but that's really fucking stupid.

by drawing the distinction, I meant enforcing the distinction.

Is it?

It didn't bother me until about last month, when it made my job quite impossible. I work in child welfare, primarily with relatives of children who are dependents of the court. I assess these relatives for their suitability to care for the children, and have to make sure they're compliant w/ state regulations and pretty much holding them to the same standards a licensed foster home would be held to. I recently got two cases where one of the applicants has a MM recommendation. I had to ask each about their use (when, where, how often, how much), potentially violating their HIPAA rights, just to be able to ascertain that the child's safety could be provided for. There's a HUGE grey area wrt current policy, and CA's Depts. of Social Services and Community Care Licensing are totally vague.

In one case, the child had already been in the home, and upon my inspection, I found that the relative caregiver was growing quite a substantial crop, way beyond the 12 immature or 6 mature per patient as codified in the law. That required so many case staffings, multi-agency investigations, and still isn't completely resolved.

On the plus side, I've pretty much gotten a crash course on much of the current legislation (namely H&S 11357-11362), and am quite aware of where it falls short.

(This thread is de-indexed, right?)

if weed was legal smoking it wouldnt be cool anymore

also mexican drug lords wld have less money, probably

naus OTM

and you (naus) sound like you are very good at a very important job.

if weed was legal smoking it wouldnt be cool anymore

never been to holland eh lamp

http://www.youtube.com/user/hashbean420

Hobbies: growing smoking makeing canna concentrates playing guitar ,bluesharp, mouth harp collecting glass and helping ppl out

Man, I remember how drinking lost all its cache when they ended prohibition.

And naus, I understand your concerns better now, but I don't think legalization should be held up by the fact that there are inadequate means of testing for intoxication.

I recently got two cases where one of the applicants has a MM recommendation. I had to ask each about their use (when, where, how often, how much), potentially violating their HIPAA rights, just to be able to ascertain that the child's safety could be provided for.

point being: if John is a responsible adult who enjoys getting stoned from time to time, is confident that it does not negatively affect him too much (i.e. in a way that would render him unsuitable to be say a child's guardian), lives in a state with highly-abusable medical marijuana laws, and wants to take care of his nephew... at some point, doesn't obtaining a medical marijuana card under false pretenses actually demonstrate responsibility, in some bizarre way, as it reduces the risk that he'll run afoul of the law and the kid will be back in a foster home?

don't u think that…you would be able to 'pick up on it' during the course of a standard evaluation process?

Not always, as my visits are usually always scheduled in advance. People can do quite a bit to clean things up before I actually arrive at the home. This includes hiding things (leaving things w/ friends and other relatives, coaching the kids, and doing anything else to minimize things that could reflect poorly on them.

With alcohol, it's pretty simple. Adults can drink, but they can't be drunk around the kids. "One with dinner" usually works as a reasonable guideline.

Of course, if I came across someone who obviously used and could not furnish any sort of recommendation, it's pretty easy. But w/ the Compassionate Use legislation pretty much does nothing more than provide certain exceptions to existing law. If it were to go fully legal, it would have to be codified to a greater extent than simply appending "and marijuana" to the existing alcohol laws.

Having to constantly rely on verbal reportage and and observations of one's affect opens me up to messy court issues, grievances, and possible civil actions.

I'm having trouble following your argument against the sham prescription medical marijuana users. Who's the victim supposed to be?

imo naus is mistaking the camel's nose for the whole camel

i mean, Prop 215 was always clearly a gateway initiative

naus, back in the day they couldn't measure BAC for drunk drivers. should etoh have been made illegal until science provided that means?

"yes, if it would make the bureaucratic part of my job easier"

i mean, i don't really intend to be unsympathetic but given that The Man has used the legal status of weed as a tool oppress and dominate and flip and profit from anyone without a country club membership for going on 100 years now, "but what about the children" just doesn't automatically get my head nodding

(btw I'm not even a doper, just angry)

"With alcohol, it's pretty simple. Adults can drink, but they can't be drunk around the kids. "One with dinner" usually works as a reasonable guideline."

wait, "one" is one bottle of wine, right?

Roger, it's not just to make my job easier. It's just that at the very limited intersection of my profession and current legislation, I've found that there's a lot left uncovered, and should be covered. In the interest of the public's health and welfare, I just feel that it would be reckless for voters to legalize it without a thorough set of guidelines accompanying it. Even places like Amsterdam have guidelines on when, where, and how much can be possessed, purchased, cultivated, etc. This just isn't a matter to let precedent and case law dictate.

I also disagree with you in that I don't see the legal status of a controlled substance as being a civil rights issue. Disparities amongst protected classes in sentencing and even law enforcement's conduct, sure, but there is no right to get high.

Jim, when your average burnout uses a medical argument to obtain weed because he wants to party, it does stigmatize those with valid medical needs. I might be the only one claiming that here, but I know of plenty who also feel that way. I know if I had a condition where MM was the only effective option, I'd probably feel a little put off if I were picking up some from a dispensary and saw another customer bragging about how they just scored some dank nugs and that tonight's session is going to be amazing.

I take a pretty liberal stance towards it, and feel that what a responsible adult does in the privacy of his/her own home is (and ought to be) of little concern to me, as long as it does not interfere with their ability to be an effective parent/caregiver, that they're not contributing to the delinquency of minors, and that nobody else is in any way being endangered. But for those instances that it does effect others, there should be new mechanisms in place to deal with it.

there is no right to get high

sure there is! i mean you pretty much said so yourself in your last paragraph.

you have like the straightedge dork's view of stereotypical potsmokers, i should just shut up now

off to smoke my dank nuggs bro!

Hope you have an epic session

lol'n at granny!

yeah i'm just going to chime in here to say that i don't really understand what naus is on about. if you can't really show someone is impaired by any other measure than a blood concentration test then can you really say they're impaired?

like, the people in authority can't demonstrate any sort of lack of attention or coordination or visual acuity here but they're going to claim that you're impaired? it strikes me as an approach that says that it's more important to have a rule that you can enforce than to have a rule that makes sense.

also bragging about scoring dank nugs and tonight's session would get me kicked out of both the cooperatives that i visit.

Even places like Amsterdam have guidelines on when, where, and how much can be possessed, purchased, cultivated, etc.

also, as a medical marijuana patient, i can assure you that there are pretty thorough guidelines on when, where and how much can be possessed, purchased, cultivated, etc.

Not always, as my visits are usually always scheduled in advance. People can do quite a bit to clean things up before I actually arrive at the home. This includes hiding things (leaving things w/ friends and other relatives, coaching the kids, and doing anything else to minimize things that could reflect poorly on them.

^^ so anyway is there anything about this sentence that applies specifically to marijuana and not alcohol? or do you routinely schedule breathalyzer tests for people on your caseload?

come to think of it, isn't this equally true for any sort of behavior that could adversely affect the kids?

no just weed

I am a better parent when I'm high

you mean when you're *medicated*

crash course in marijuana dispensary etiquette, for those of you who might be wondering

customers = "patients"
marijuana = "medication"
getting high = "medicating"

I don't have children iirc don't arrest me naus

my nugs....are my children

as a high school teacher, i am *extremely* disturbed by the lack of proper drug testing tools for marijuana

a kid could be in school, doing well in class, getting along with friends, not showing any changes in personality ... and yet, i have no way of knowing if they're getting high after school!!!!

dude, you know you can tell

lol

one of my friends on the moonship plan (medicated high school teacher) still has enough teaching vigor to call his students out when they're high

#1 starts every sentence w "dude"

#2 has pizza delivered to classroom

i actually caught a kid with weed at school a couple of months ago. i asked him what he had in the baggie and he said "herbal medicine". i was sad that he got expelled, but rules are rules.

Your friend actually teaches while he's on medical marijuana?

noooooo

could not imagine what a nightmare that would be

kid was dumb for saying he had any sort of "medicine" at school iirc

we were actually super-tight too. he wrote me a long rambly email later where he apologized for his bad decision and said he'd always love me. i hope he's making better decisions now. if i brought my medication in to work i'd be fired in a heartbeat! (we're not even allowed to have OTC medication in our office)

Yeah, seriously. Cannot imagine someone teaching (or learning) while actually on marijuana at that moment.

that sux

hmmm ... teaching / learning are complex processes that happen in lots of different contexts. i'd say you could probably learn certain things or teach certain things while on marijuana. like, uh, how to play mario kart. classroom teaching takes a lot of responsibility, quick decision-making and multitasking though. in fact, teachers make more snap decisions (300 per day, on average) than any other profession except law enforcement. so i'd never try classroom teaching.

in fact, teachers make more snap decisions (300 per day, on average) than any other profession except law enforcement.

Is this true? Hate to get off the topic (ILXlol) but do you have an article or source for that? I'd be really interested in reading about it.

i'm not a researcher, that's just what one paper said in my master's program. a quick google search for "teachers 'decisions per day'" turns up some researchers that claim we make 3000 decisions per day!

humans make about 3000 snap decisions per hour ime. or maybe I have just been smoking too much weed

lol at snap weed decisions, "should i go buy ice cream or not," "should i eat two scoops or just the entire pint," "should i listen to sublime or dave matthews band?" "should i play Madden or rock band?"

oh right. the context for that "decisions" statement is "leadership decisions", i.e. "should i let this kid go to the bathroom?" or "should i accept this late homework". stuff like that.

Yeah, seriously. Cannot imagine someone teaching (or learning) while actually on marijuana at that moment.

― Mordy, Thursday, June 10, 2010 4:39 PM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark

dude this must be sarcasm cuz ^that^ pretty much describes college imo

Sitting in class != learning. And there's a lot of pot smoking in colleges, but I think the amount of in-class smoking is probably overstated

only helps if its a filmstrip day ime

GRANNY DAINGER YOU TICKLE ME ELMO

you obv got the dank nuggs then, my broskiheems

on the real tho i have seen people smoke and smoke and smoke 2 more and they may babble on abt some silliness but when dudes drink like that they fall down and shit. the psychoactive nature of weed me thinks gets to a point where the cannabinoid receptors are saturated and then although you may ingest more it really aint doing much to intoxicate you. bear in mind this is me riffin with no sources, just pontificating. but i knows from experience how whiskey river can take yr mind. i dunno has anyone ever been out smokin mad reefers and couldn't remember coming home or doing some dumb shit yr friends tell you abt the next day? i never did

worst i've seen is people passing out, don't know what's that all about. i've gotten lightheaded/dizzy a few times myself.

yea worst i've seen is peeps get sleepy, which granted you don't want those dudes driving

only times i drove high was cause we had no spot to do it without getting in trouble (high school & college days, no place of our own) cause...wait for it...it's illegal

Ton of NPR stories: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127403401
Ton of CBS stories: http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-504243_162-156.html

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/11/marc-emery-canadas-prince-of-pot-extradited-to-u-s/

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/06/marijuana_law

Prop. 19 approval could decrease marijuana costs, increase consumption, report says

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_15460278

ca naacp chief catching hell from religious coalition for backing it

Granny D - the extradition of Marc Emery really pissed me off, fwiw.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Guhk5dtwzQ

"i don't get the same euphoria that other people do . . ."

is montel has this?

And there's a lot of pot smoking in colleges, but I think the amount of in-class smoking is probably overstated

LOL. Not in the school down the road. I don't think ANYONE's sober there. I am kidding, teachers must be sober.

Granny Dainger, if only I had Spiccoli in my class. Would have been so much better.

the more cancer patients you get to know over the course of your life, the angrier you will get that medical marijuana isn't available to everyone who needs it imo - people opposing this shit on bogus danger-to-society grounds are a public health menace

<3 u Smithy for that.

Sign the Vienna Declaration for evidence-based drugs policy reform:

http://www.viennadeclaration.com/

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/marijuana/union-support-pot-legalization/

ufcw backs prop 19

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMM_T_PJ0Rs&feature=player_embedded

ok lol

that is adorable and ridiculous

love the gang war at the end

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/jane-hamsher-gets-into-the-marijuana-legalization-game/60861/

http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2010/aug/05/if_you_think_marijuana_legalizat

About the (obvious) conclusion that legalizing marijuana will reduce drug cartels. I can't help but think that ten-twenty years after we finally legalize marijuana people will hardly be able to believe that we kept it illegal this long. They'll look back on it like we look back on prohibition, but with so much more confusion since it's been around for almost a century now.

The measure being voted on in CA would legalize supply and sale (subject to local gov permission) right, as well as consumption, right? If so, is there anywhere on earth where such a law already exists? Large-sale cultivation is still illegal in Holland/Portugal/etc, even technically Jamaica, no?

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_19,_the_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative_%282010%29

personal use, not large-scale cultivation

I've heard a lot of talk about how post-prop 19 California will likely become the primary source for illegal marijuana throughout the country. That alone could do wonders for reducing crime.

Oh, that's weird. This bit:

May grow marijuana at a private residence in a space of up to 25 square feet for personal use.
Local government regulation of commercial production and sale
Local government may authorize the retail sale of up to 1 ounce of marijuana per transaction, and regulate the hours and location of the business.
Local government may authorize larger amounts of marijuana for personal possession and cultivation, or for commercial cultivation, transportation, and sale.

Is on the Prop 19 wikipedia page, but not the ballotopedia one, which is otherwise identical.

hmm that is odd. commercial production there maybe referring to dispensary sources...? I dunno. I would think if large-scale cultivation were being legalized, some specifics would be included.

Even Glenn Beck wants to legalize marijuana now!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k4zTAe7TGw

the Head Shop drugs is a big issue in Ireland right now. they had a benzadrine sub, 3 pills for a fiver. they were the best things ever. slightly hallucinatory and quite euphoric, you could take them with 'squares' and nobody would know the difference. why are you taking my fun away from me? im more of a hindrance with drink, i can chat up birds and be mad elegant with this stuff. fuck you ireland. iwant them back again.

when i was in roscommon in june there were a number of delighted articles in the local paper about the busybodies who shut down the towns only head shop

certain shops have been set on fire by local dealers

I have no idea what any of the last three posts mean

"certain shops" - nom. pl. - some shops, but not all
"have been set on fire" - were by some means caused to be on fire
"by local dealers" - dative of means: these are the people who set the shops on fire

wait no dative of agent

sorry

material cause = "certain shops", efficient cause = "local dealers", formal cause = a burned-down building, final cause = I guess money?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/aug/05/marijuana-industry-canada

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/192121

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_dogs_have_THC_receptors

werd

http://gawker.com/5623930/

http://www.mediaite.com/online/arnold-schwarzenegger-signs-bill-decriminalizing-marijuana-in-california/

With the vote on legalizing marijuana in California only a month and a half away, the state has also officially decriminalized it. Late yesterday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill affectively making possession of up to an ounce of the drug equal to speeding. With this news, opponents of staunch drug laws are now holding their breath, wondering what’s next.

From the Associated Press:

“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law late Thursday that reduces possession of an ounce or less from a misdemeanor to an infraction, with a maximum punishment of a $100 fine.
Even as a misdemeanor, possession of up to an ounce of pot was still punishable only by a $100 fine and no jail time. But offenders also faced arrest, a possible court appearance and a criminal record.”

Like Proposition 19, which could tear down the rest of the walls around marijuana in the Golden State come November, this move has less to do with the drug and more to do with the money it could make (or, in this case, save) California. Schwarzenegger, himself, said that he didn’t support decriminalization but recognized that officers and courts can’t afford to “expend limited resources prosecuting a crime that carries the same punishment as a traffic ticket.”

it's essentially legal already, if you're willing to do the paperwork and fork over $150-$300 a year

http://www.ninjadude.com/images/Arnold-Schwarzenegger/arnold-joint-smoker.jpg

just sayin

Reason on the politics of prop 19: http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/07/the-politics-of-proposition-19

President Calderon on prop 19
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iqW6idI8B_M28KOkXu98wpy58c6AD9INA9A02?docId=D9INA9A02

other than his fuzziness(or rhetorical fudging) on CA's proposition process, i was under the impression there was a more open discussion on legalization in Mexico than here (or especially 'the U.S.')

bonus tijuana town boosterism :)

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/27/george-soros-gives-1-million-to-back-legalized-marijuana-ballot/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303467004575574450703567656.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-1020-lopezcolumn-20101018,0,493202.column

a little older, but no one has posted this yet: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_d6b1aaca-edfc-527f-ad11-f1691fdc6e3b.html

John McWhorter in TNR about why we should legalize drugs: http://www.tnr.com/blog/80669/getting-darnell-the-corners-why-america-should-ride-the-anti-drug-war-wave

http://www.inqmnd.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/weeds.jpg

Seattle Times Op-Ed Says Legalize It: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2014270472_edit20legal.html

Marijuana Busts Cost City $75 Million a Year (NYC)
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/03/marijuana_busts.php

Very cool piece about weed growing in Brooklyn in 1951

http://brooklynology.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/post/2011/01/28/White-Wings-and-Dream-Stuff.aspx

new jersey being new jersey
of course it would go down like this here

NJ medical pot startup companies well connected

<!--[4] end remove
, replace with following code block -->
TRENTON, N.J.
The aspirations of New Jersey's first medical marijuana businesses range from modest to potentially massive, but marijuana advocates say the state's startup dispensaries have stronger ties to traditional medicine than most -- and an unusual number of politically connected people involved in them.
Last month, the state issued licenses for its first six alternative treatment centers -- not-for-profit organizations that are allowed to grow and sell marijuana to patients with certain medical conditions. They're expected to begin sales to the public later this year, but no sooner than late summer.
"These are not people that we're used to seeing apply for licenses. They're coming from a different background. They have different skill sets," said Lauren Payne, the legal coordinator and regulations analyst for Americans for Safe Access, which works on behalf of patients who believe marijuana may help them. "Some of them may or may not have an idea of what they're getting themselves into."
The fledgling medical marijuana industry was closely watching who would get New Jersey's licenses. It has a bigger population than all the 14 other states that have legalized pot for patients, except California. And it's launching its version of the business with tighter restrictions than have been tried anywhere else in the U.S.
The state's proposed regulations are so tough -- limiting even the potency of the medical cannabis, which no other state has done -- that a number of groups that had considered applying for licenses were scared off. Some said that their prospective patients would be more likely to get marijuana illegally than buy it legally under New Jersey's system.
They complained that the state's rules would give the traditional pharmaceutical industry a serious toehold into a world heretofore populated largely with more down-home players seeking holistic treatments rather than traditional medical approaches.
Still, 21 groups applied for licenses. A number of them applied in more than one region of the state. And state Health Department officials said they were happy with the quality and variety of the applicants.
Chris Goldstein, a medical marijuana advocate who serves as the spokesman for the Coalition for Medical Marijuana of New Jersey, had concerns about the winners.
"These are the most politically connected medical marijuana operators in the country," he said.
Well-connected figures appear among the boards of trustees or advisers of several of the licensees.
David Knowlton, a onetime acting commissioner of the state Health Department whom Gov. Chris Christie appointed as chairman of his transition team's health care subcommittee in 2009, is a member of the board for Compassionate Care Foundation Inc., which received a license to run a southern New Jersey treatment center.
William Thomas, the CEO of the foundation, said Knowlton's name on the application likely didn't win any favors from the Health Department when it chose its licensees. "Dave Knowlton is sort of a gadfly to the Health Department," Thomas said. "We were almost afraid to put him on the board."
Knowlton said he didn't talk to anyone in the governor's office or health department about his application and hasn't spoken to officials formally or informally about his views on the proposed regulations.
"I recognize that I'm a former public official," he said. "I was very circumspect."
Kevin Barry, picked by Christie last year to be chairman of the board of trustees at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, is a medical adviser at another center, the similarly named Compassionate Care Centers of America Foundation, which is setting up a center in New Brunswick. Barry did not return a call.
Board members and advisers at other centers include Webster Todd Jr., the brother of former Gov. Christine Todd Whitman and a chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board in the late 1970s; and Thomas Giblin, a union official who is a Democratic member of the state Assembly.
Giblin said he's not getting any financial benefit from his role as a medical adviser to the Greenleaf Compassion Center (slogan: "A higher standard of care") in Montclair. "They thought it would be helpful in terms of vouching for their integrity," he said. Giblin said his role there is no different from his position on several other local boards.
Todd did not comment, but Andrei Bogolubov, a spokesman for Compassionate Sciences Alternative Treatment Center, which is looking to open in Camden or Burlington County, said in a statement that nothing was amiss with his involvement.
"We are proud of Webster Todd's public policy experience, which will help us serve patients and their physicians with excellence in keeping New Jersey's medicinal marijuana program," Bogolubov said.
The number of establishment figures involved in the startups probably speaks to the state's model of dispensing medical marijuana.
Christie and former Health Commissioner Poonam Alaigh, who resigned abruptly last week, citing the illness of a close family member, said they wanted the state to follow a medical model.
Christie has often criticized the wide-open way the medical marijuana business works in places like California and Colorado.
New Jersey's law called for only six grower-dispensers to start. And the proposed regulations, which some lawmakers say do not meet the Legislature's intentions, make it clear that medical marijuana here will be a quiet business.
Under the regulations, the clinics would not be able to advertise their prices; their signs couldn't specify that they're selling marijuana; and patients would have to show long-term relationships with doctors who recommend the drug.
While those regulations discouraged out some medical marijuana advocates who were imagining dispensaries with the feeling of coffee shops or offering other services like acupuncture, they lured in people familiar with the business side of the medical industry.
Among the principals in groups receiving licenses are people who have run a health insurance company, a firm that sold pharmaceuticals to nursing homes, and a company that developed a system for delivering chemotherapy. One organization, the Compassionate Care Centers of America Foundation, has close ties to Meadowlands Hospital Medical Center.
Veterans of medical marijuana businesses elsewhere are also getting involved in New Jersey -- though none seem to be operating as branches of operations elsewhere. Some of the enterprises with the strongest connections to the medical business are being run by veterans of dispensaries in Montana, Colorado and California.
Thomas, of Compassionate Care Foundation Inc., says that if the rules were more lax, his group would not have formed.
He said his organization plans to make marijuana plants into lozenges, topical lotions and a form that can be taken through a vaporizer or by smoking.
"We're not a pot shop, we're not a head shop," Thomas said. "There are no bongs for sale."
Thomas said it's not clear where his group will operate, though it has looked at a place in Camden County's Bellmawr.
According to the organization's application, it's expecting to have annual revenues of nearly $68 million and a staff of more than 200 by the end of 2013.
Unlike most organizations that sell medical cannabis in the U.S., his group intends to have a major research component. It says it's applying for grants from the National Institutes of Health to research marijuana's medical effects. Knowlton said the research could help find more applications for marijuana -- and that could increase sales.
The Coalition for Medical Marijuana of New Jersey's Goldstein said he believes groups like that anticipate research as the main focus of their business -- not treating patients.
Some of the other groups asked the state to redact more details of their business plans before distributing them to the media and other interested parties. Most have declined to be interviewed or have not returned calls to The Associated Press.
But not all of them have such ambitious projections.
Breakwater Alternative Treatment Center, which plans to grow its buds on an organic farm in New Egypt and sell them in Manalapan, anticipates revenue by 2013 of under $2 million. And by then, it expects to have just 13 employees.
Morgan Fox, a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, which advocates for the legalization of marijuana, said that in some states, medical pot dispensaries range from "shady little pot shops to cutting-edge pharmaceutical facilities." But in New Jersey, he said, the heavier regulations will mean that patients will be able to expect professionalism.
"The nice thing about New Jersey is that they are a very strict," he said. "They all meet a certain level of criteria."

Meanwhile in Montana...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/us-montana-marijuana-idUSTRE72E0O520110315

Federal agents raided state-sanctioned medical marijuana greenhouses and dispensaries in several Montana cities on Monday, prompting an outcry from legalized pot suppliers.

The raids marked the first such crackdown in Montana by the federal government since a state ballot measure legalizing cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical purposes was overwhelmingly approved by voters there in 2004.

Didn't the Obama admin say they weren't going to be doing this anymore?

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/04/11/pot-allergy-is-proba.html?dlvrit=36761

Pot allergy is probably widely underreported

"Cases of marijuana allergy are rare in the medical literature, but a [Removed Illegal Link] suggests that they're a lot more common in real life."

recent study*, link here: http://skin.gcnpublishing.com/index.php?id=372&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=54155&cHash=99cfa314cf

Didn't the Obama admin say they weren't going to be doing this anymore?

RIght after he closes down Gitmo, oh wait!

If you want to be furious about drug laws in this country listen to this episode of This American Life: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/430/very-tough-love

Backwoods (or just simply corrupt) judges basically ignoring the constitution/laws of their state is unfortunately a problem that goes beyond drug laws, but that is the worst thing I've heard all week Mordy!

So infuriating I couldn't actually finish listening to it - I got too angry. I've heard that since it broadcast some ppl have started the impeachment process against judge amanda williams.

need rolling cannabis consumption thread

lol rolling cannabis

need rolling cannabis consumption thread

^^^^

SMOKE WEED EVERYDAY

any other ilxors go to dispensaries? i've started going and they are LOL

I never took advantage when I lived in California. What's funny about them? Apart from everything, of course.

Public Support Rising
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/19/marijuana-legalization-public-support-growing_n_851238.html

good call, judge

http://www.adn.com/2011/04/24/1826162/judge-says-trooper-couldnt-have.html?story_link=email_msg

anyone really that sensitive to marijuana aroma wouldn't be able to resist smoking it

Watson drew fire in February when he said state lawmakers had their priorities right "if you are a Guatemalan gay man who likes to gamble and smokes marijuana."

http://www.norwichbulletin.com/news/crime/x215603618/Rhode-Island-lawmaker-faces-drug-charges-in-Connecticut#axzz1KYswX2az

Police in East Haven, Conn., say East Greenwich Republican Robert Watson, the House Minority Leader, was stopped at a police checkpoint Friday and charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia and driving under the influence.

yoooo

i know this is mostly american erb politics, but this Ontario ruling had me smiling:
Ontario court strikes down Canada’s pot laws

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/04/weed_arrests_nyc_illegal_searches.php

the original WYNC report about race/marijuana + NYC is here with audio + interactive maps: http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2011/apr/26/marijuana-arrests/

Not explicitly about marijuana, but great interview with David Simon that touches on the war on drugs:

David Simon: Oh, I would decriminalize drugs in a heartbeat. I would put all the interdiction money, all the incarceration money, all the enforcement money, all of the pretrial, all the prep, all of that cash, I would hurl it as fast as I could into drug treatment and job training and jobs programs. I would rather turn these neighborhoods inward with jobs programs. Even if it was the urban equivalent of FDR’s CCC—the Civilian Conservation Corps—if it was New Deal–type logic, it would be doing less damage than creating a war syndrome. The drug war is war on the underclass now. That’s all it is. It has no other meaning.

dude is otm. http://www.guernicamag.com/interviews/2530/simon_4_1_11/

more infuriating criminal news:
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2011/05/fourth_marijuana_conviction_gets_louisiana_man_lif.php

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/05/pot_smokers_alb.php

Last year, 54,000 people--including 50,000 here in the city--were arrested for possession of small amounts of pot. Marijuana arrests make up 15 percent of all NYPD arrests--making it the number one type of arrest in the city. Critics have called the pot crackdown a waste of $75 million a year in taxpayer money.

Under legislation sponsored by Brooklyn democratic assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries and republican Buffalo senator Mark Grisanti, folks caught smoking a joint or in possession of a small amount of pot in public view would just be given a ticket, rather than arrested.

Police currently are "going against the intent of the law," says Tony Newman, a spokesman for the Drug Policy Alliance. "This bill tries to get back to that intent."

"With New York in serious fiscal crisis, we simply cannot afford to arrest tens of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens for possessing small amounts of marijuana - especially when so many of these arrests are the result of illegal searches or mis-charging," Grisanti says. "Furthermore, the unwarranted racial disparities associated with these arrests are unacceptable. This legislation strikes the right balance by discouraging and punishing possession and use of marijuana while promoting smarter, more effective use of our limited fiscal resources."

The police crackdown is interesting in light of Mayor Bloomberg campaign statement that not only did he try marijuana, but he liked it.

About fucking time.

Now let's get to work on that legalization bill...

Word!!!!

worked my fuckin ass off today and wish there was an MM clinic down the street for stress tbqf

for sure!
It’s really ridicules the conveniences of the clinics in LA now. I moved away from California right before things really opened up there

err ridiculous

I got pulled over by Oklahoma state troopers about an hour after smoking a joint in my car on Monday.
I didn't freak out because I knew that I'd really done nothing wrong. I told them that I had three roaches and nothing else.
They searched my car and let me go. Oh, I've got MS, so I played the shit out of that card.
Close one.

can i just...why do people smoke in their car? this is the easiest way to get charged with possession if you want it!

lol, also: today i had the unexpected opportunity to sit in on a state police forensic chemist's talk about how their lab works. at the conclusion of her talk she suggested ways that would help the lab work more efficiently and one was "advocate for making marijuana possession a fine-only offense." it was just me and some prosecutors and one said "boo hiss!" and i said "yay!"

harbl ive been told if you have w33d in your car you're best to have it in a bag in the trunk-- y/n?

Police currently are "going against the intent of the law,"

Pardon me if I cynically believe that the intent of marijuana prohibition laws have always been to give police a pretext to hassle mostly non-whites, but also non-conforming whites, who are predominately seen as dangerous elements of society who must be subjected to frequent doses of police power to keep them in line.

"intent" idk. It seems to me like sometimes these systems fall into place for variety of reasons and if alcohol prohibition is anything to go by sometimes the shitty broken law is backed by a bunch of well meaning psychotic suffragettes and moms. Still that's def the result even if not necessarily the intent. (did cotton peeps kill hemp??? That might be the true evil intent)

harbl ive been told if you have w33d in your car you're best to have it in a bag in the trunk-- y/n?

I would say that if you are going to, that would be the place to have it. Preferably in an airtight bag, concealed in a container of coffee grounds or some other aromatic which will help shield from the K9 unit.

But that's just what I've heard.

you some type of lawyer or something? someone important or something?

ehhhh i was more talking about the extra levels of sufficient cause that are needed for a cop to justify getting inside a bag inside your trunk.

where even if they went and did it and found it, your lawyer could argue "the officer had cause to search that car, and maybe the trunk, but not the bag inside the trunk"

f. lee bailey iirc xp

pretty sure tho that the thing to do if you get busted is smoke out the cop and then listen to some tunes together, this always works in movies

got busted smoking on the sidewalk a while back--last november--but case was dismissed for some reason that was made unclear to me. am i cynical for suspecting the evidence could not be produced cuz it had been smoked?

that's from the same movie where you smoke out the cop & listen to Creedence together in his cruiser

in real life a cop hassles you just for drinking Reed's Extra Spicy Ginger Brew on the sidewalk, because of the green glass bottle

conversely, if you are Devin the Dude, cops pull you over just to smoke weed with you

... but the best movie of all is the one where Devin the Dude *is* the cop, and he pulls you over to give you some ginger ale and good advice and a bong that he doesn't need anymore because he's decided to quit his job after this week and go backpacking across the country

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/27/us-dutch-cannabis-idUSTRE74Q64420110527?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FworldNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+International%29

(Reuters) - The Dutch government on Friday said it would start banning tourists from buying cannabis from "coffee shops" and impose restrictions on Dutch customers by the end of the year.

!

Wow, didn't see that coming. Flies against common wisdom of decriminalization not causing problems in Amsterdam. Looks like it's spurred on by right-wing xenophobia?

What's really weirding me out though, is that I actually think I know the guy in the photo on that story link - timeline fits too!

Depressing news.

:'(

they finally got sick of us huh

i dont really blame them tbh, backpackers are horrible people

lol xp

Last night one of my friends -sort of a local guru - kept telling me that on all Native American reservations it was legal to cheese down.

He also invented a term called "Top Chimp", which means 'someone that is so high they've reverted in evolution to a primordial state'.

Top Chimp sounds like basically the opposite of Terrance McKenna's Stoned Chimp theory.

Top Chimp sounds like a reality show.

shit is getting real here

Opponents of new restrictions on medical marijuana dispensaries submitted more than 46,000 signatures to the city of San Diego on Friday, halting a years-long effort to regulate the location of storefront operators and setting the stage for a possible referendum.

Citizens for Patient Rights, part of a coalition of patients and providers, needs 31,029 valid signatures from registered voters to qualify the measure. If the group succeeds, the City Council must either repeal the ordinance or put the question on the ballot.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/may/27/signatures-filed-medical-marijuana-referendum/

http://www.theorangecountydefenseattorney.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/red-sd.jpg

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/global_commission_of_former_officials_says_war_on.php

The Global Commission on Drug Policy, which includes several former heads of state and UN officials, has released a report calling the global war on drugs a failure.

"The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world," the report reads. "Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President Nixon launched the US government's war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed."

Full report: http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/Report

End the criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people who use drugs but who do no harm to others. Challenge rather than reinforce common misconceptions about drug markets, drug use and drug dependence.

Encourage experimentation by governments with models of legal regulation of drugs to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and security of their citizens. This recommendation applies especially to cannabis, but we also encourage other experiments in decriminalization and legal regulation that can accomplish these objectives and provide models for others.

Offer health and treatment services to those in need. Ensure that a variety of treatment modalities are available, including not just methadone and buprenorphine treatment but also the heroin-assisted treatment programs that have proven successful in many European countries and Canada. Implement syringe access and other harm reduction measures that have proven effective in reducing transmission of HIV and other blood-borne infections as well as fatal overdoses. Respect the human rights of people who use drugs. Abolish abusive practices carried out in the name of treatment – such as forced detention, forced labor, and physical or psychological abuse – that contravene human rights standards and norms or that remove the right to self-determination.

Apply much the same principles and policies stated above to people involved in the lower ends of illegal drug markets, such as farmers, couriers and petty sellers. Many are themselves victims of violence and intimidation or are drug dependent. Arresting and incarcerating tens of millions of these people in recent decades has filled prisons and destroyed lives and families without reducing the availability of illicit drugs or the power of criminal organizations. There appears to be almost no limit to the number of people willing to engage in such activities to better their lives, provide for their families, or otherwise escape poverty. Drug control resources are better directed elsewhere.

Invest in activities that can both prevent young people from taking drugs in the first place and also prevent those who do use drugs from developing more serious problems. Eschew simplistic ‘just say no’ messages and ‘zero tolerance’ policies in favor of educational efforts grounded in credible information and prevention programs that focus on social skills and peer influences. The most successful prevention efforts may be those targeted at specific at-risk groups.

Focus repressive actions on violent criminal organizations, but do so in ways that undermine their power and reach while prioritizing the reduction of violence and intimidation. Law enforcement efforts should focus not on reducing drug markets per se but rather on reducing their harms to individuals, communities and national security.

Begin the transformation of the global drug prohibition regime. Replace drug policies and strategies driven by ideology and political convenience with fiscally responsible policies and strategies grounded in science, health, security and human rights – and adopt appropriate criteria for their evaluation. Review the scheduling of drugs that has resulted
in obvious anomalies like the flawed categorization of cannabis, coca leaf and MDMA. Ensure that the international conventions are interpreted and/or revised to accommodate robust experimentation with harm reduction, decriminalization and legal regulatory policies.

Break the taboo on debate and reform. The time for action is now.

http://i51.tinypic.com/2wr0oe1.png

Tbh, I'm really shocked that they consider Solvents, LSD, Ritalin, Anabolic Steroids, GHB, Ecstasy and Khat less risky than Cannabis. On the other hand, OTM re Alcohol's actual risk placement.

Great paper and whole thing is worth reading.

Comparing Dutch and US Cities

A study by Reinarman, et. al. compared the very different regulatory environments of Amsterdam, whose liberal “cannabis cafe” policies (a form of de facto decriminalization) go back to the 1970s, and San Francisco, in the US, which criminalizes cannabis users. The researchers wished to examine whether the more repressive policy environment of San Francisco deterred citizens from smoking cannabis or delayed the onset of use. They found that it did not, concluding that:

“Our findings do not support claims that criminalization reduces cannabis use and that decriminalization increases cannabis use... With the exception of higher drug use in San Francisco, we found strong similarities across both cities. We found no evidence to support claims that criminalization reduces use or that decriminalization increases use.”

can i just...why do people smoke in their car?
Cuz long drives are boring. I don't do this in my hometown fwiw.

i am sure the cannabis risk value factors an assumed lung cancer risk, that's what makes it higher than the others

Only when smoked. Ingestion does not entail that risk.

ditto vaporization.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.

not v surprising, imo

even the headiest of heads aren't cycling as much smoke through their lungs as a pack a day smoker, i would think.

It might even be protective bc THC apparently helps discard old cells before they can be cancerous!!

right after nate dogg died I went into a weed store where I guess they have pictures of people who frequented the store or people they admired or something and right under a picture of nate dogg someone has just tacked on a torn half sheet of binder paper with the words RIP scrawled in pencil

yeah but the vast majority of people don't vaporize or ingest cannabis

presumably there's a risk of lung cancer if you smoke spliffs, tho the extent to which that is from the THC or from the tobacco...

it is not from either THC or tobacco, it is from carbon combustion products

anyway i am familiar with that study and i think the jury is clearly still out on this one

anyway, if in fact the only risk is from smoking cannabis, doesn't it behoove us to teach ppl how to use it responsibly (ingest/vape/etc)?

yes

People have to be not-scared to cook with it before that can happen though.

or they can just buy already-prepared butter and oil at the dispensary

I think I asked about vaporizers on another thread recently...

eating and vaping just isn't the same as smoking imo

what dispensary? let's start there.

I have no horse in this race but could ppl maybe use a different abbreviation than "vape" because every time I skim this thread I have horrible urges to write U GONNA GET VAPED all over it

not really seeing the problem there tbh

eating and vaping just isn't the same as smoking imo

you're crazy. they're better.

Yeah in many ways but sometimes u just wanna blaze a doob

to me, eating comes on too slow, lasts too long, and is hard to dose. most of the time it seems to to do too little or too much (not a problem obv. if "too much" is never an issue for you).

Some of the things that the vapists seem to prefer aren't really for me: a "cleaner" feel, more up or alert or whatever.

it is not from either THC or tobacco, it is from carbon combustion products

this

which, again, is probably why you don't see cancer in weed smokers---they just don't burn the same amount as heavy smokers. like for real can you imagine smoking 20-40 joints a day? my god it's full of stars

24 hr headache

a "cleaner" feel, more up or alert or whatever.

didn't realize this was associated with vaporizers but now that you mention it that is definitely something i experience with mine and something i greatly prefer. i like being able to smoke then go out and do stuff.

Tbh, I'm really shocked that they consider Solvents, LSD, Ritalin, Anabolic Steroids, GHB, Ecstasy and Khat less risky than Cannabis.

lung issues aside, I'd def put E below cannabis. makes users brighter and more motivated afterwards, far less likely to become habitual, has led to about three deaths in thirty years, all from too much or too little water while over-exercising, not the drug itself... (discounting polydrug use of more dangerous substances)

since when does ecstasy make people brighter?

Is the volcano still the best bet for vapin or are cheaper ones just as good?

Volcano is still the best but for the money the significantly cheaper VaporBrothers is tremendous.

brighter as in can engender an outgoing and positive outlook ongoing, not suddenly able to do high-level calculus

oh right

take it to the dawkins thread

Thx, Mordy.

Right, just bought one of these, I'll report back and tell you how my throat feels compared to other methods of ingestion. #nuffintodowithpolitics

Very cool Gawker piece about secret online drug buying website (only tangentially related to thread topic): http://gawker.com/5805928/the-underground-website-where-you-can-buy-any-drug-imaginable

Not so secret anymore tho

it was never really "secret"!

let's not focus on the 'secret' part. i just wrote that to make the link seem more sexy.

Lets get some secret ac1d

i was checking it out yesterday, prices are kind of steep but the user ratings is nice

http://reason.com/blog/2011/06/22/barney-frank-and-ron-paul-will

the bill is going nowhere of course but i love the dialog at least

amen

it's so great that this is being introduced and makes me very hopeful about reform/decriminalization/legalization movements, but such a bummer to even hear Barney Frank admit it has no chance of passing primarily bc legislators are way behind popular opinion. it's one thing when the people want something regressive or reactionary. another when there's broad popular appeal for particular policies and a disconnect between that popular opinion and legislation.

http://www.rmcortes.com/books/jury/Jury-Illustrated.pdf

NYers, read: http://www.freedomisgreen.com/advocates-battle-clock-for-new-york-marijuana-bill-2/

This bill ("Relates to standardizing penalties associated with marijuana possession"):

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/A7620-2011

This bill will accomplish what legislators originally intended when they decriminalized marijuana in 1977: keeping people out of the criminal justice system for posessing small amounts of marijuana. It will also ingnite our support to bring the fight to the NY Senate and pass the bill there next session.

Please call Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver’s office at 518-455-3791 and ask him to schedule bill A. 7620 for a floor vote before the session ends. Getting it passed this session will make it more likely it will gain movement in the Senate next session. New York residents: Please contact your Assembly member and ask them to support this bill and for them to pressure leadership (Speaker Silver) to put it up for a vote.

Also this passed recently and is awesome: http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/senate-gives-final-legislative-passage-good-samaritan-law

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20154333c759f970c-800wi

huh, id be interested to see what the top drug is in the #2 or #3 countries

also im assuming that "booze" "nicotine" (or even "caffeine") arent counted as "drugs" for this? prescriptions?

it s kinda dry here. foul drug laws.

imo 1933 was more a test of legalization if anything; a hurdle for technology and rhe lack of public wreckless politics and money. though i don't really know anything about it,. Pot can be a real sensory overload and induce behavioral problems to the uninitiated imo. if people would act normal it probably never would have had the great depression ll

cigarettes suck. though i smoke them constantly. they've got this stuff called mullien, an anti seizuric in trad. medicine, which i've been smoking-- p decent in my opinion. weird high.

that sprayed k2 stuff is pretty weird. gave a pal of mine a weird heartbeat, though i suppose that's to be expected from oddball thc analogues or whatever

yemeni stuff for chaw would be my drug of choice

if they don't legalize shwag in my lifetime i'm joinng FARC

Come to CA!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60MP_a-XwDA

FARC jokes not funny :-/

What is the perception of FARC. I thought they were thought politically normal by media barely more fringe than al Jazeera. Isn't there platform "Che"? Though I am totally unknowledgeable on this subject, that was a totally nonfunny remark.

wk I am if I'm not going to school, or even if I am.

4:20 get

harpers bizarre otm

fuck harpers bizarre

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzmxt-_QoDU

this is the version, dude sounds so fuckin insane on it it makes me smile so hard all day in traffic

That youtube is missing the best part though, the weird little spoken "sunshine, sunshine, sunshine sunshine sunshine" at the beginning.

Apparently Shakespeare might've been a toker, giving hope to the parents of stoners everywhere:

http://motherjones.com/mixed-media/2011/06/william-shakespeare-marijuana

http://i51.tinypic.com/qs14z4.jpg

what kind?

blueberry kush

(actually a blueberry kush hybrid, but i can't remember the other strain)

welcome back, luriqua!

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/270520/right-marijuana-editors o_O

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/09/feds-rule-marijuana-has-no-accepted-medicinal-use_n_893894.html

not surprising. this is the takeaway tho:

The paper spoke to advocates who criticized the ruling but are pleased that the government has finally responded, which allows them to appeal to the federal courts.

We also have codeine--which is OTC in a number of countries--as a Schedule II drug, the same classification as fentanyl and morphine. *shakes head*

That National Review editorial linked by Mordy is mainly about honoring a legacy of Wm. Buckley, Jr. If Buckley had never come out in favor of legalization, you can damn well bet the current editors never would have arrived there on their own. Still, it is nice to see one of their editorial positions making a modicum of sense.

RIP

http://comicstheblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/pour-some-beer-out-for-homies.jpg

^ more like pot brownie http://i.imgur.com/zi7hd.gif

meh, fuck illegal cheap labor Mexican plantations. legal California green is the future.

is it the present tho? seems like an operation this big'll be affecting prices hardcore in the non-medical states

quasi-legal CA growing is the present certainly

anecdotal information but my prices have been significantly lower over the last year and my connection said that's because it's all coming from CA. obv a supply deficit could affect prices everywhere but... ya know.

is it the present tho? seems like an operation this big'll be affecting prices hardcore in the non-medical states

not as much in the north I'd wager

If youre smoking dirt sure. What I get out here comes from cali and BC cuz nobody I know smokes stress

a much younger gbx in New England only saw Canadian/VT product.

and it was already pricey-ish

only suckers f/w mexican weed

man that just shows my age - back when, there were oaxacan buds that were quality. but then those were the ones that eventually got killed in the socal marketplace by the stuff coming down from carmel & humboldt

my dude sells in AZ and he says its almost like 2 separate marketplaces, ppl who get mexican shit and ppl who get cali/bc shit-- he doesn't even consider it competition

as mordy said, anecdotal but still...

im going to start growing methinks

rhododendrons i mean

too many shady rhododendron hortuculturalists up in this piece

mexico is def the source of what falls into the category of "popcorn mids" (well funded grows producing decent mids, not too compressed). bc (and norcal) is identified with triched out boutique weed and mexico is identified with dirt but both produce a lot of stuff in the middle. a lot of bc weed is just high yielding indoor stuff (the ghost of big bud) grown hot and fast-- you get people saying "i can always tell og kush (or other namebrand strain) grown by nammers" (ie the genetics are good but the product is too chemmy or too harsh or looks a little off).

god man weed nerds are something else

g--

"too chemmy" is a good descriptor of some i've gotten lately in WA. strong but...fake? fake smelling that's for sure.

chemmy = not flushed right, 2 many chems

wasn't hating, just always forget that ppl get as into it as wine

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-morgan/if-you-think-supporting-m_b_902208.html

"In so many ways, all it takes to move this issue forward is a willingness to ignore the people who don't know how to have a serious conversation about marijuana. They will tell you that it's not important, even though it obviously is. They will tell you that no one cares, even though almost everyone does. And they will tell you that you'll make thousands of enemies, when new allies and friends are waiting around every corner to pledge their support and stand alongside any political leader wise enough to know that the time for change is at hand."

The solid South is very still slow on this trend, I expect. I just can't see the idea of ending the prohibition playing well in Texas, Georgia or Florida, even if California is more than weary of bankrolling gangsters via marijuana profits.

In Texas & Georgia, really? I think those two will be where the movement catches hold in the south.

^ yes

and honestly I mean - Florida is a different country almost but there are a lot of people there whose symptoms could be alleviated by medical marijuana, and that's an avenue that's opening up

Hey, I'm all for opening up the question for a thorough public debate, but for 90% of voters the only way to initiate a debate is for some dramatic story to capture everyone's attention and focus it on the issue for a week or so. Whatever that dramatic story happens to be, it sets the framework for the discussion, and frankly, nothing about this dynamic is conducive to rational thinking, so we can only hope the irrational catalyst it provides for the debate will push people's emotions in favor of taking the rational side of the question.

It is a nice thought to "ignore the people who can't have a serious conversation about marijuana", because that kind of discussion favors ending the prohibition. Unfortunately, the general public has been fed so many slabs of television news about the horrors of drugs, and cop show plots fueled by evil druggies, and gossipy magazine articles and propaganda of every stripe in the popular media, that you can't just impose a whole new paradigm on them without resistance.

Even if our current set of politicians suddenly agreed that ending prohibition would be best, a new set of demagogues could easily supplant them, so long as the general public thinks prohibition is necessary to save them from druggies on crime sprees. This is precisely the sort of 'unserious', even ridiculous, idea that "people who can't have a serious conversation" still hold. But you can't wish those folks away. Changing enough of the public's mind means engaging with them over a long period.

Maybe the time really is right. I don't know. But I'm not averse to trying to launch as much sense into the nation as possible and then seeing how much it has the capacity to absorb.

there are a lot of people there whose symptoms could be alleviated by medical marijuana

hoo boy

I can't imagine how much weed you would have to smoke to cure the fact that you live in florida

^Post of the week!

<3

I actually kind of like Florida, but I couldn't just leave that dangling there.

last week's FRONTLINE had a 25 min segment on the current legal and political situation in california

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/the-pot-republic/

i enjoyed

^^that link streams the whole thing

At last, the field of genomics has something to offer Cheech and Chong. DNA sequencing hit a new high last night with the midnight release of the Cannabis sativa genome. The raw sequence was posted on Amazon’s EC2 public cloud computing service by a young company called Medicinal Genomics, which aims to explore the genomes of therapeutic plants.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=marijuana-plant-sequenced

High technology, etc.

Looking to make a fucking mint off of a more suitable synthetic that can be marketed to big pham for millions

hope they do indica next

fuck a more suitable synthetic, imo

We already have mutant nuclear weed, we don't need pharma. Weed is more like wine varietals and styles and pharmaceuticals will just end up being everclear/vodka.

Honestly, who would prefer a chemical to a naturally growing plant? Gross.
Also the politics of that: super duper gross.

naturally growing plant

I'm not sure one could describe most of the weed I see these days as 'naturally growing'.

If it grows out of the dirt, it's naturally growing, right? I mean, it may be a mutant variety, but it's grooooowing like plants do. I mean, I don't know that much about it tbh, but I imagine that it doesn't grow in a petri dish or a machine?

"natural" is a subjective term

Actually, a lot of hydroponic shit does kind of grow out of a petri dish.

I don't know that much about it tbh

I somehow misread this as about THC, lol.

I'd still rather artisinalol weed than some Monsanto fuckery, anyday.

i think the key thing is that as a patient you can grow your own and exercise some control over the process, but no way you can synthesize pills

after my 10 year experience with SSRIs - oh, long term, possibly permanent sexual side effects? discontinuation syndrome? elevated risk of suicidal thoughts? - i can understand people wanting to take more control over the process

Like I said about wine above, different weed has really different effects and knowing how to choose and how to dose is really important to me.

so here is a cutting-edge medicinal setup that with luck might yield ~ 1 lb/month, enough for about 25 patients?

obviously the plant would never grow like that "naturally", it would die under its own weight

whether you call that "gardening" or "agriculture" or "growing in a machine" or something more ominous like "nightmare mutant frankenstein weed" is up to you

fuck a more suitable synthetic, imo

of course! But you know that as soon as big pharmacy can come up with a “suitable” synthetic then it puts the kibosh on any talk of medicinal marijuana in its current form and that changes the conversation to a purely recreational aspect.

fuck that, there's no such thing as "purely recreational aspect"

f you guys by the way for even being able to go to a weed store.

seriously though, when big pharma tries that, a nation of people is going to stand up and sit the fuck down with that. if i want to manage my blood pressure with a glass of red wine instead of a statin pill that's my goddamn right.

after a crazy 40 year boom big pharma is going to get its ass handed to it with this coming medicare thing so i don't expect they'll be guiding public policy on cannabis

haha stand up and SAY ...

fuck that, there's no such thing as "purely recreational aspect"

i know!
this is what they will say though "hey we have this pill now, there is no need for you guys to use this plant anymore, unless you just want to get HIGH"

No, we'll be all stoned, stand up all outraged, and then sit back down to try to remember why.

xpost

Aerosol, that's what they've been saying since the 80's.

seeing as "GETTING HIGH" hurts no one and is generally part of the deal with many existing mood disorder / anxiety medications i don't see they have a leg to stand on

also thank god for fiscal crisis and chaos in mexico, seems like we are *maybe* waking up from the "drug war" nightmare?

dude! look at what goes on here. you're over in CA going to your weed store and shit while people are getting busted for a couple of grams in THE BIG CITY
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/council-members-call-for-change-to-marijuana-possession-law/

my co op gave free t shirts away a little while ago and I saw some woman in my building walking around with one on and I was like hey I go there too, and she was like, what, and I was like your shirt, I go to that co op and she was like oh a friend of mine just gave this to me no wonder people have been smiling and talking to me more today

another reason not to hate california

http://batzbatz.com/uploads/posts/2010-02/1266562133_1997-take-california.jpg

i moved from california in 2002 before there were any dispensaries really :(

I think maybe it's a little too cynical to assume that this is just about making a pill that they can patent. Sequencing the genomes of various medicinal plants can help lead to all sorts of further scientific understanding and medical breakthroughs.

I think maybe it's a little too cynical to assume that this is just about making a pill that they can patent.

It's just cynical enough. Pharmaceutical companies aren't non-profits!

actually ... i don't see the scientific application at all, unless they plan to breed cannabis or identify its relatives

my understanding was that the application of genome sequencing was studying the genome without worrying about the details of the traits

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/nyregion/parents-minor-marijuana-arrests-lead-to-child-neglect-cases.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion

Disgusting.

http://gothamist.com/2011/09/24/ray_kelly_to_nypd_marijuana_is_decr.php

I'm pretty convinced that Bloomberg is the number one impediment to more liberal marijuana policy in NYC. Too bad he's gonna be mayor for life.

Fed about to come down hard in cali ?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-kampia/obama-from-first-to-worst_b_1001781.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/11/war-on-weed-obama-marijuana_n_1005483.html

http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2011/10/10/20970/doj-vs-pot

discussion from yesterday w/ one of the u.s. attorneys involved w/ the california shutdowns. i was thinking the reporting on these particular prosecutions has been (slightly) hysterical, the dude is all over the place with some of his answers but that's still my impression.

wanted to post this on one of the other active political threads but googleproofed here so:
at this point i'm pretty much ready to vote for the first candidate that promises to legalize marijuana no matter what party

It would appear that Obama is innoculating himself from campaign accusations of being soft on druggies and of probably being a secret druggie himself, which would certainly help explain his embrace of communism, Islam, and America-hating to a lot of folks.

Mordy, you'll be interested in voting for whatever candidate the libertarians drag in, I guess.

Who I mostly voted for in 2010: http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/08/the-anti-prohibition-party/183998/

Not that particular candidate tho IIRC

I can't parse this recent activity at all. Medicinal pot is a no-brainer and pot legalization in general starting to look the same way. I mean, if you're worried about pre-election stance-taking (lol pussy), just don't do anything. Idiot.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/gallup-poll-is-first-to-find-plurality-support-for-marijuana-legalization/

presumably there's just so much money coming from the pharmaceutical industry and such a limited perceived downside from cracking down on drugs (alienate stoners + ex-felons) that a politician feels compelled to do crackdowns. i really can't imagine that these guys (and i mean guys like obama or bloomberg who have admitted history of drug use) are sincere in their prosecutions. i guess they might possibly believe that they are fulfilling the law -- even if they don't like it -- but they don't seem quite like inspector javert types to me.

and ftr I totally get these guys not exactly getting behind it w/ full-throated support, but what's the downside of a significant ratcheting down in prosecutions at this point? most likely you'll only be burnishing yr legacy IMO

presumably there's just so much money coming from the pharmaceutical industry
^^(on iPhone and missed this post)

But yeah all too true and just ...pathetic.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/justice-department-targets-banks-medical-marijuana-crackdown/story?id=14811540

Kevin Sabet, former Senior Policy Advisor to President Obama's Drug Czar, Gil Kerlikowske, and currently a consultant to drug prevention and policy organizations, said financial institutions that deal with medical marijuana organizations should be on alert.

"Smoked marijuana remains illegal in all states, and federal law -- while recognizing certain components of marijuana as having medicinal value -- does not allow the whole marijuana plant to be smoked for any purpose, including purported medical purposes," he said.

Sabet also warned that all states with legalized medical marijuana should pay attention to the enforcement actions in California.

"Remember, all actions have to be approved by Attorney General Holder, so it's hard to imagine that California would be the only place the Department of Justice is focusing on," Sabet said.

This is just like wtf? I cant even

"purported medical purposes"

Come the fuck on!

does not allow the whole marijuana plant to be smoked for any purpose

Illegal to smoke the roots, apparently.

But legal to eat THC worms?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g0npNxMvbDdiSKza1x1iTZjxyc6g?docId=857ef88e725c4bf69711ee247eba2ead

'twas the burning bush that gave the Israelites the word to escape into Canaan iirc

http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2011/nov/16/new_study_smart_people_more_like

Researchers discovered men with high childhood IQs were up to two times more likely to use illegal drugs than their lower-scoring counterparts. Girls with high IQs were up to three times more likely to use drugs as adults. [CNN]

So much of what we’ve been told about drugs and drug users turns out to be the opposite of the truth, it’s amazing that the anti-drug fanatics are able to find any audience at all anymore. News like this comes as a surprise only if you understand remarkably little about what drugs actually are and why people use them.

It ought to be intuitive that the curiosity which comes along with above-average intelligence would also be correlated with a heightened interest in experiencing altered states of consciousness. No doubt, a little extra brain-power also serves to inoculate against believing a lot of the BS we’re fed about how certain substances will turn your brain into a turnip.

It ought to be intuitive that the curiosity crushing despair which comes along with above-average intelligence would also be correlated with a heightened interest in experiencing altered states of consciousness getting stoned out of your gourd.

http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/health-and-fitness/28885-cedars-sinai-denying-transplant-to-medical-marijuana-patient-with-inoperable-liver-cancer.html

this is really fucked up.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/tony-dsouza-marijuana-growers

The New Dealers
Family, kids, minivan—and drug dealing. How the recession has driven average Americans into the game.
—By Tony D'Souza | November/December 2011 Issue

"average Americans"

I actually like the language of normativity for this kind of thing...

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20168e508f74d970c-pi

Source? Just cos I'm a stoner doesn't mean I can't recognise a dishonest diagram when I see one.

read that article in the newsstand edition, people risking federal charges to get weed shipped to them so they can deal enough to pay the mortgage...I absolutely could not stand the heat, that's insane

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1665502/infographic-of-the-day-america-loves-weed-more-each-year

cheers max

people risking federal charges to get weed shipped to them

cool plan

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/marijuana-smoking-does-not-harm-lungs-study-finds/

In something of a twist, the researchers found that compared to nonsmokers, marijuana users performed slightly better on the lung function test, though the improvement was minuscule. “Even with this tiny increase in airflow, I have to admit that I really doubt that there’s any real increase in lung health,” said Dr. Stefan Kertesz, an associate professor at the University of Alabama at Birmingham school of medicine and an author of the study. The finding may merely reflect marijuana smokers’ years of “training” in taking deep inhalations and holding the smoke, the researchers said.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/02/pot_legalization_why_doesn_t_anyone_in_washington_take_marijuana_policy_seriously_.html

http://laist.com/2012/01/31/last_medical_marijuana_in_chatsworth_shut_down.php

really did not see this kind of shit coming

the way things were going as of a couple of years ago anyway

if only smoking marijuana was harmful to your health, then we could buy it at Wawa

1) the medical marijuana debate pisses me off to no end. fuck these assholes and their "if you have cancer and are dying it's okay to get high". oh and their "chronic pain? ya seem fine to me!" attitude. yes, it's chronic pain, asshole! you can't see it, that's what makes the diagnosis PAIN and not say TUMOR. also the idea that 20-30 y.o. males must be over represented and that "anxiety" is a fake diagnosis. you assholes! you think men 20-30 have nothing to be anxious about? we don't ever commit suicide or self-medicate w/ the real seriously impairing drugs like valium, klonopin, ambien and alcohol?

2) all my spots are delivery now. they don't even really do the paperwork anymore, they just know my name and face and number and drop by with a backpack. congratulations California, you just created 1000s of drug dealers who need to be arrested because of ... Uh ... You kno, all the bad shit that's happened over the last few years

3) we have heard the outcry from city councils, sheriffs and police, anti-drug policy wonks, etc. did I miss the outcry from the public health professionals?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-war-on-pot-20120216

http://www.chow.com/food-news/109836/inside-a-marijuana-treats-kitchen/

The smallest rays of light...

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/2012-election/democrats-seek-end-federal-intervention-medical-marijuana

weirdly enough i think i saw a reopened dispensary the other day?!?

http://www.csindy.com/IndyBlog/archives/2012/05/10/first-ad-from-legalize-marijuana-group-debuts

i agree w/ the author of the post. the ad is in the right place but a little bit wtf.

the ad's heart is in the...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/05/study-the-gateway-drug-is-alcohol-not-marijuana/

http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2012/07/05/Health-Canada-Drop-Medical-Marijuana-Grow-op-Licenses

health canada says it hasn't inspected any medical growers
health canada says it will move to stop allowing medical users to grow their own:
1) safety concerns, 2) organized crime using medical grow licenses as covers for CRIME

2 is such bullshit

right... and the first issue could be helped if health canada did inspections

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2012/07/should-health-canada-centralize-medical-marijuana-production.html

Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq says the program is in need of reform, and that the department is considering a system of mail-order medical pot, to be produced by industrial growers.

"We are moving to eliminate personal grow-ops which will not require inspection," she said. "We are moving forward in looking at medical marijuana in terms of how any other prescription drug is accessed."

So anyone into growing their own? The Netherlands demand a weedpass so foreigners can't buy any anymore. :-(((

well it's a lot of work and - perhaps more importantly - it requires a big up-front investment so it's more expensive than a dispensary

supposedly the cooperative model is "you're growing your own by proxy" but it becomes too hard to cross-check where the money goes

there's some news in chicago on this front
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/chicago-to-ticket-for-marijuana-possession/Content?oid=6861353

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/07/11/marijuana_and_weight_loss_the_pot_you_smoke_isn_t_going_to_make_you_skinny.html

Ironically, the chemicals in question calm a major cannabinoid receptor, rather than stimulate it. Marijuana, as you may have heard, tends to increase appetite. Researchers hope that a drug that dampens cannabinoid signaling could have the opposite effect.

As you may have heard.

haven't read the article so i'm spitballing here but i'd think that a drug that demonstrates, in profile, that marijuana stimulates appetite would tend to serve the ends of ppl that want it legalized for medical reasons

Just heard on the news that that in Belgium there seem to be a lot more weed growing due to restriction of weed sale in Netherlands. lol. We're jumping on the bandwagon I guess.

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/07/how_much_would_legal_marijuana_cost_a_new_book_says_it_would_be_nearly_free_.html

w00t

so good article in the times today (good meaning necessary for the conversation i guess) that gets at least one thing right

But authorities rarely seem to address the real issue about marijuana in California: Is it good medicine?

i think we can all agree to be on one side of this issue, yes this is the most important and primary question we're all interested in

the writer goes over the basics of the issue which are all reasonable like 1) being natural isn't a gold star 2) being no worse than other drugs and substances does not mean good (but isn't that how the fda works?) and 3) we all know people are gonna get high but let's focus on the legitimate users

then they throw in a good curveball

But the situation is different with chronic marijuana use.

Marijuana acts on cannabinoid receptors in the brain. These receptors, which are the most prevalent in the nervous system, influence just about every bodily function, including memory, attention, disposition, arousal, motivation, perception, appetite and sleep.

which sounds scary but (really? cannabis smoking receptors are the most prevalent in the nervous system) but really just means hey this is a psychoactive substance like an ssri or l-dopa or thyroid medication or HEY alcohol cigarettes and coffee

yes it has a strong effect on short term memory

but then unfortunately it's kind of a rotation of talking heads. ok, glaucoma foundation. are they the only opthamology institute? do several agree? ok, the v/a dude says it's linked to psychosis. but miami zombie aside, are there statistics? there must be, they have been forthcoming about ptsd statistics.

i believe the v/a has statistics and probably other neutral organizations do too. the pro-cannabis lobby in the comments box doesn't seem interested in statistics and/or can't make better arguments than "the feds don't want you to have it, QED" and "legalize and tax like drunk driving" and "the cigarette, cotton and nylon industry lobby".

Dr. David Sack is a psychiatrist and addiction specialist. He is chief executive of Promises Treatment Centers

anyway this is not a surprise since it seems like we only hear voices (on both sides of the spectrum) from people w/ a political or professional stake in this specific issue rather than an actual professional association of mental and public health practitioners

so ... NIH? APA? the only credible advice i've heard from actual doctors not involved in the industry is along the lines of not more than x amoung, not outside the house, take breaks, not in the morning, etc

can't jerry brown authorize an advisory panel or something?

like FFS if you GIVE A SHIT instead of trying to use prohibition scare tactics please describe signs and symptoms of addiction rather than play hide the chicken behind the egg

the catch-22 is that research cant be done because its a schedule one substance, deemed harmful, so research would be a violation of ethics. At least that's my impression

like a "first do no harm" thing?

that would seem to rule out leeches and bee stings

it IS a real catch-22 huh

did you read the article gbx i am curious to know what more health workers think

there's also the good outweighs the harm aspect of things (cf chemo), but I think the legality of weed makes things problematic. allowing research to discover (perhaps) that weed has some beneficial effects that outweigh the harm would be egg all over the govts face.

they're doing lsd and mdma and psilocybin trials according to the nyt

link?

unfortunately it's prone to the same "well if you're DYING then okay you can chase the dragon" make-a-wish feelgood definition of "legitimate patients" that plagues the discourse

if only young people at college-age - nothing to be anxious about! prime of life! - could get xanax prescriptions as easily as suburban professionals and soccer moms ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/magazine/how-psychedelic-drugs-can-help-patients-face-death.html?pagewanted=all

but yeah it's such a hot-button issue and i doubt there being any forward progress on it until psychiatrists and psychologists can actually deal w/ the issue of medical marijuana on a professional basis w/ health care and gov't agencies w/o fear of reprisal

only half through it but I'd wager that the end-of-life aspect may have played into how they got approval?

you talking about cannabis or mdma ;-)

maybe people argue they're about to commit suicide if their hookup doesn't call back