The Marijuana Thread

[brodski]

I believe there may be a limit on home production. Like fifty gallons.

Quite probably, I know there are limits on this side of the pond too. And of course you're not allowed to sell it without paying the duty.

Both conditions coudle asily eb appleid to home grown weed.

 

[Thanz]

A couple of points:

First, I see a clear distinction between alcohol and marijuana. Alcohol is frequently used for purposes other than getting drunk. Marijuana, whether used medically or recreationally, is only used for the "high" effect, or the effect that it has on the body. And I don't think that I am going out on a limb to say that the majority of marijuana is used recreationally, for the high alone.

Second, even if I wanted to smoke a joint, I really don't know where I would get one. Maybe I am just the squarest guy around, but I just don't know any drug dealers or pot suppliers. That would not obviously not be the case if it were in every corner drugstore.

Third, there may be some people who would try pot if it were legal as having a criminal conviction can have very serious consequences for certain careers (like lawyers, judges) and can be serious for just anyone's career.

Lastly, this is directed at Vorticity: You have stated that you should have the right to screw up your own life. Yet you seem to not be advocating for the legalization of more serious drugs like heroin and cocaine. If that is correct, why do you draw the line at pot? Or, put another way, what do you see as the fundamental difference between pot and those other drugs?

 

[WildCat]

With inhaled marijuana smoke, neither the patient nor their doctor have any way of monitoring dosage. Which just doesn't make any sense.

Believe me, you'll know when you've had enough. Inhaled marijuana takes effect almost immediately.

And btw, there is no known fatal dose of marijuana.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sure, but just medicinal THC?

Do you oppose total legalization?

There are a few issues here for me personally. I'm not opposed in principle to the idea of total legalization - the parallels to prohibition are rather compelling. But I also recognize that much of the advocacy for legalization for medical uses (which right now is really as close as anyone is going to get to total legalization) is simply a cover for recreational use. If it weren't, they would be advocating what I'm advocating: treating it like an actual medicine. So my personal feelings is we should stop the charade. Treat the question of medical marijuana as an actual medicine question, in which case the answer is blindingly obvious: make the primary active ingredient available for perscription in controllable dosages, just like pretty much every other drug out there (did you know, for example, that hospitals use cocaine as an aneasthetic?). Under those conditions, medical THC would probably face much less opposition than medical marijuana does now, but it won't happen because that doesn't satisfy the advocates who use it as cover for recreational use. Which ends up hurting the people who really would benefit from truly medical use.

 

[Ziggurat]

Believe me, you'll know when you've had enough. Inhaled marijuana takes effect almost immediately.

Had enough, yes. But that's not the only question. Doctors and patients should be able to monitor, for example, how much dosage is required to alleviate the symptoms in question (nasuea, loss of appetite, etc.). Tracking that sort of thing can help monitor the progress of their disease. And that sort of information simply isn't available for smoked marijuana. But it's easily available in pill form. Probably in other forms too, such as an inhaler (which would have response times similar to smoking, without the lung damage). From a medical standpoint, there's simply no reason NOT to go for other, more controlled, methods of administering the drug.

And btw, there is no known fatal dose of marijuana.

There's no known lethal dose of THC. There are most certainly lethal doses of smoke of any kind.

 

[WildCat]

Treat the question of medical marijuana as an actual medicine question, in which case the answer is blindingly obvious: make the primary active ingredient available for perscription in controllable dosages, just like pretty much every other drug out there (did you know, for example, that hospitals use cocaine as an aneasthetic?). Under those conditions, medical THC would probably face much less opposition than medical marijuana does now, but it won't happen because that doesn't satisfy the advocates who use it as cover for recreational use. Which ends up hurting the people who really would benefit from truly medical use.

The problem is that most medical use is to control the nausea of chemotherapy. Putting it in a pill that needs to be swallowed kind of defeats the whole purpose. And inhaled marijuana has far fewer and less dangerous side effects than any prescription drug for nausea.

 

[WildCat]

There's no known lethal dose of THC. There are most certainly lethal doses of smoke of any kind.

But unless you're trapped in a building full of flaming bales of marijuana it's unlikely you'll die of smoke inhalation.

 

[brodski]

The problem is that most medical use is to control the nausea of chemotherapy. Putting it in a pill that needs to be swallowed kind of defeats the whole purpose. And inhaled marijuana has far fewer and less dangerous side effects than any prescription drug for nausea.

Although there is a certain irony in telling cancer patients to start smoking, which is why the BMA no longer supports medical use of smoked cannabis, and eating it has exactly the same problems (with none of the dosage benefits) of pill form.
I have heard of trials of THC inhalers but it's all by the by for us this side of the pond, as no cannaboid is currently licensed for use in the UK.

I favour legalisation, but I don’t buy the medical arguments, in the UK heroin is used medically, but no one would seriously suggest that this means that it should be legalised.

Oh and to answer Thanz's question for Vorcity- I rank drugs based on how "chemically" addictive they are, which is why cannabis gets a pass but crack and heroin don't, I think that is a pretty good basis for legislation.

 

[Ziggurat]

The problem is that most medical use is to control the nausea of chemotherapy. Putting it in a pill that needs to be swallowed kind of defeats the whole purpose. And inhaled marijuana has far fewer and less dangerous side effects than any prescription drug for nausea.

Then put it in an inhaler.

 

[Ziggurat]

But unless you're trapped in a building full of flaming bales of marijuana it's unlikely you'll die of smoke inhalation.

That's how my cousin died.

 

[Almo]

Make it legal. I think that cocaine should be legal. Remove the profit incentive generated by the black market, remove much of the crime. Seems simple to me. People are going to use it and ruin their lives regardless of whether or not it's legal.

In pot's case, it's really weird that it's illegal, given the ratio of the dose needed to get high to the lethal dose. Pot's ratio is extremely low, while alcohol's is pretty high. Much easier to kill yourself by ODing on alcohol than pot.

About personal relationships, I'm rather close to people who have had serious problems with alcohol, but I know that making it illegal wouldn't have done anything more than make them a criminal.

 

[aerosolben]

No, manufacturing (growing) is grounds for forfeiture.

Fair enough. Second point still holds, though.

 

[Vorticity]

A couple of points:

First, I see a clear distinction between alcohol and marijuana. Alcohol is frequently used for purposes other than getting drunk. Marijuana, whether used medically or recreationally, is only used for the "high" effect, or the effect that it has on the body.

What about cigarretes? The effect of cigarretes is a kind of high, and I'm not aware of any other (i.e. wine-snob type) uses.

And I don't think that I am going out on a limb to say that the majority of marijuana is used recreationally, for the high alone.

Oh, I've no doubt whatsoever that's true.

Second, even if I wanted to smoke a joint, I really don't know where I would get one. Maybe I am just the squarest guy around, but I just don't know any drug dealers or pot suppliers. That would not obviously not be the case if it were in every corner drugstore.

Third, there may be some people who would try pot if it were legal as having a criminal conviction can have very serious consequences for certain careers (like lawyers, judges) and can be serious for just anyone's career.

You seem to be arguing that pot should remain illegal because otherwise more people would use it. I see this as a kind of circular question-begging:

1) Pot should be illegal because otherwise more people would use it.
2) That would be bad because pot is bad.
3) Pot is bad because it's illegal.

So what if more people use it? There must be some independent argument, aside from its current illegality, which would not also apply to any number of other, legal, substances.

Lastly, this is directed at Vorticity: You have stated that you should have the right to screw up your own life.

Yes.

Incidentally, I'd just like to note that, despite me being the one who started this thread, I don't smoke marijuana at this time. I've smoked marijuana around five times in my life (college), and I never liked it. I dislike the sensation of smoke going into my lungs. I don't smoke anything or take illegal drugs, and I drink alcohol very rarely.

Yet you seem to not be advocating for the legalization of more serious drugs like heroin and cocaine.

No, not here.

If that is correct, why do you draw the line at pot?

I'm not sure I do.

Or, put another way, what do you see as the fundamental difference between pot and those other drugs?

I'm not sure there is one.

Look, I'm afraid I'm going to have to weasel on you. I knew that someone would probably ask these questions, and I decided ahead of time that I would openly weasel.

This is a thread about marijuana. I started it out of curiosity. In my experience, there seems to be no particularly strong public desire for pot to stay illegal. (I've found that the same is not necessarily true of other drugs.) And yet, there seems to be great resistance (from where, I don't know) to making marijuana legal. I'm curious why.

It seems like there must be someone, somewhere, that has access to some trove of stellar anti-marijuana arguments that explain why it has to be this way, and I'd like to hear them.

As for all the other illegal substances, I don't think the public thinks about them in the same way as pot, and so there seems to be less of a paradox. That's why I'm concentrating on pot.

 

[Vorticity]

There are a few issues here for me personally. I'm not opposed in principle to the idea of total legalization - the parallels to prohibition are rather compelling. But I also recognize that much of the advocacy for legalization for medical uses (which right now is really as close as anyone is going to get to total legalization) is simply a cover for recreational use.

I agree completely.

If it weren't, they would be advocating what I'm advocating: treating it like an actual medicine.

Not necessarily. They could advocate it specifically for recreational use. After all, what's wrong with recreational use?

 

[BPSCG]

Alcohol as a food? Are you even serious?

I don't drink alcohol to get drunk.

Not any more, anyway. After a certain age, when you drink alcohol, you start to feel bad before you start to feel good, then you feel bad all over again. Not worth it, to me anyway.

I drink alcohol because I like the way a good red wine or a Guinness goes with a steak, or the way a strawberry daiquiri goes with stifling summer heat and humidity.

Now, all those smokers who don't smoke pot to get high, who smoke it because you like the taste, or the way it feels going down your throat and into your lungs, raise your hands.

BTW, does anyone besides me note the irony of cancer patients wanting to smoke something to feel better?

 

[BPSCG]

But unless you're trapped in a building full of flaming bales of marijuana it's unlikely you'll die of smoke inhalation.

"I ain't gonna make rope no more!"

 

[steverino]

...it looks like the vast majority of those who replied to the poll favor legalization. In fact, these results make it look like the "Keep pot illegal" position is not a "mainstream" position (whatever that means).

Does this forum accurately sample the population at large on this topic?

No. This forum is chock-full of wacked-out weed-heads.

If so, then why is marijuana still illegal?

Read my Sig Line. We are but forum warriors. We are powerless here.
Unless folks here organize a march with all 59 who voted pro-pot. (FYI-I voted for the Planet-X thinggy.)

 

[steverino]

I drink alcohol because I like the way a good red wine or a Guinness goes with a steak, or the way a strawberry daiquiri goes with stifling summer heat and humidity.

Sounds nice and cozy BEEPS. Can I come visit this summer? (I take my steak medium rare...Guiness room temp. works. Thanks. )

 

[Quinn]

A related question that I've wondered about: I remember being told many years ago (by one of my high school teachers IIRC) that all the popular names for different grades/types of weed -- "Acapulco gold," etc. -- had already been trademarked by the tobacco companies in anticipation of its eventual legalization. Can anyone confirm or deny that?

Also, my worthless anecdote about the gateway issue: one of my best friends is a former crackhead who hardly ever smoked weed, and then only after he was into coke.

 

[Molinaro]

How is the gateway drug thing a myth?

I dont know any crackheads or methheads or cokeheads who dont also smoke pot, and didnt start at pot

I often see pot smokers wearing shoes, therefore shoes are obviously the gateway to pot smoking.

Get it?

Just because a crackhead or methhead or cokehead also smokes pot, and started with pot, it doesn't mean that the pot is the reason they tried the other drugs.

In my opinion, they went on to the other drugs, because they wanted to try them. Just like many potheads don't go onto other drugs, because they don't want to try them.