Red Mosquito

I was assured by top men this was all lies

not sure what is worse about weed

that is casually destroys lives and holds people back from their true potential

or the obnoxious sub-culture surrounding it

96583UP wrote:not sure what is worse about weed

that is casually destroys lives and holds people back from their true potential

or the obnoxious sub-culture surrounding it

So exactly like beer

not in munich

Bi_3 wrote:I was assured by top men this was all lies

lol are we doing this again? where is the article about alcohol turning totally mild mannered men into violent wife beaters? the fact that people with schizophrenia are self medicating with it is more reason to let the fda study the medial benefits.

everything is addictive. the only physical withdrawal i've ever gone through was from not drinking caffeine. tolerance breaks are pretty popular among medical marijuana users. there's no physical addiction with marijuana.

it's not even a partisan issue any more. the VA is gonna get the federal gov't to do something about it, ptsd is one of the main reasons vets use it.

It’s not “doing this again”, science isn’t static. That’s the entire point of science and what separates it from dogma, that we modify our conclusions based on evidence and change them as the evidence leads us in new directions.

lol, no, you're 100% 'doing it again'. it's not even 'new science', it's the same nonsense about marijuana being 'addictive' and turning people 'schizophrenic'. this is all just reefer madness BS. who doesn't think it's addictive? isn't it widely known people with mental health issues self medicate with marijuana? the study was probably funded by anheuser busch

Bi_3 wrote:It’s not “doing this again”, science isn’t static. That’s the entire point of science and what separates it from dogma, that we modify our conclusions based on evidence and change them as the evidence leads us in new directions.

Actually, I would say that what we usually do is treat any broad scientific consensus as more or less equal in weight to the outlier studies that feed our priors, or tell us what we wish was true instead.

Isn’t that exactly the tendency that big tobacco, big oil, and so many other industries have exploited over the years?

I think the volume and potency of THC products hitting the national community all at once is absolutely cause to keep an eye on things. And there will definitely be unpredictable effects, or people whose circumstances make readily-available marijuana a problem for them…just like alcohol and internet porn.

In fact, just like alcohol and internet porn (and smart phones), I think the majority of effects of legalized marijuana that are measurable or reported out will be negative. There will be exacerbated impacts on people with addictive personalities, and headlines about a pediatric surgeon coming to work high. There will be newly identified consequences for some mental illnesses.

But first of all, unlike alcohol and tobacco, marijuana has benefits to some people. And *just* like those things, any negative we observe just leaves us with the question…..what would we actually do about it?

That style of judgement may be true at the individual level, particularly for those emotionally invested in a particular result, but for broader consensus and policy, societies do and should evolve with the evidence. That was the point of the Enlightenment right?

What you are describing is assessing policy by taking into account its net effect on society, which is the norm. We do that with all medical treatments. What I was suggesting is that there is no final answer wrt to safety of cannabis and it’s derived products and acknowledging the risks and impacts on society is as appropriate as recognizing the benefits.

And I find the comparison to alcohol to be a bit shallow. We have like a century of evidence it’s bad for you. We understand the long term biological effects well. The same cannot be said for the high potency THC products currently on the market

as soon as there is clear evidence of someone OD'ing from THC use, you can bet the alcohol and tobacco industries will have this plastered all over the news.

i do understand the concern that there is less information about concentrates, but that is all the more reason to reclassify it and study it. i'm sure there's push back from big pharma

Bi_3 wrote:That style of judgement may be true at the individual level, particularly for those emotionally invested in a particular result, but for broader consensus and policy, societies do and should evolve with the evidence.

Should? Yes. Do? No. Both of these posts were developed by brains full of micro plastics.

What I was suggesting is that there is no final answer wrt to safety of cannabis and it’s derived products and acknowledging the risks and impacts on society is as appropriate as recognizing the benefits.

And I wasn’t arguing that

tragabigzanda wrote:my big hangup with all this dumb legalization is that for some of these states it's literally the best economic plan they can come up with. Accelerated virtual degrees towards a living wage? Nah, let's just let the low-income people get stoned more easily and put the taxes towards tax rebates.

Like casinos that will fund schools. That's everything though, a way to reduce competition for upper/upper-middle class kids.

tragabigzanda wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:my big hangup with all this dumb legalization is that for some of these states it's literally the best economic plan they can come up with. Accelerated virtual degrees towards a living wage? Nah, let's just let the low-income people get stoned more easily and put the taxes towards tax rebates.

Like casinos that will fund schools. That's everything though, a way to reduce competition for upper/upper-middle class kids.

we are united on this one

I don’t disagree with the cynicism behind acceptance of gambling or destructive substance taxes etc, but I’m not sure what the implied connection between legalization efforts and the rejection of destratification tools is. Hasn’t recreational marijuana legalization at the state level largely been a product of popular initiatives? IE a combination of signature gathering and supportive voter turnout?

Even in places where it hasn’t been adopted, it seems to enjoy a level of popularity that can make it politically expensive to reject. Red ass South Dakotans passed a recreational use bill through with signatures and votes, only to have it squashed by the courts. They’re planning to go again next year, and it’s a pretty broad (and vocal) group in favor. Small town moms are advocating for it on Facebook.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point?

tragabigzanda wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:my big hangup with all this dumb legalization is that for some of these states it's literally the best economic plan they can come up with. Accelerated virtual degrees towards a living wage? Nah, let's just let the low-income people get stoned more easily and put the taxes towards tax rebates.

Like casinos that will fund schools. That's everything though, a way to reduce competition for upper/upper-middle class kids.

we are united on this one

I don’t disagree with the cynicism behind acceptance of gambling or destructive substance taxes etc, but I’m not sure what the implied connection between legalization efforts and the rejection of destratification tools is. Hasn’t recreational marijuana legalization at the state level largely been a product of popular initiatives? IE a combination of signature gathering and supportive voter turnout?

Even in places where it hasn’t been adopted, it seems to enjoy a level of popularity that can make it politically expensive to reject. Red ass South Dakotans passed a recreational use bill through with signatures and votes, only to have it squashed by the courts. They’re planning to go again next year, and it’s a pretty broad (and vocal) group in favor. Small town moms are advocating for it on Facebook.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point?

I think generally they are initiated by interest groups/persuasive investor types who stand to directly benefit from the legalization. The signature gathering happens outside of co-operative grocery stores, indie book stores, bike shops, etc. Of course the audience is inclined to sign the petition because they're capable of casual use without serious repercussion, or at least believe that to be a common experience. But in my mind the vast majority of these people are not informed enough to grasp the aforementioned socioeconomic implications, i.e. that the tax revenues generated likely won't advance their shared best interests.

The indie bookstores and food co-ops in Wentworth, South Dakota?

tragabigzanda wrote:my big hangup with all this dumb legalization is that for some of these states it's literally the best economic plan they can come up with. Accelerated virtual degrees ltowards a living wage? Nah, let's just let the low-income people get stoned more easily and put the taxes towards tax rebates.

why is it dumb? b/c there are other ways to generate tax revenue? i would say generating tax revenue while also correcting ridiculously out of date marijuana laws is the opposite of dumb.

and your perception of who's buying legal marijuana archaic, legal marijuana isn't cheap. fentanyl, however, is.