I, for one, think it should be legalized with no strings from the government attached. If someone wants to grow a weed forest in their backyard, let them. Why even regulate something so beneficial and harmless, right?
I, for one, think it should be legalized with no strings from the government attached. If someone wants to grow a weed forest in their backyard, let them. Why even regulate something so beneficial and harmless, right?
Well the growing limits are about money. The government/country can't benefit from the tax income if everyone is growing a forest of weed in their backyards. The only reason any government considers legalizing is because of the economic benefits it provides. Without the tax factor we wouldn't even be talking about this. And those who like for things like social programs, the justice system, and healthcare to be better funded, they should be pretty happy about the tax factor too. It's the single biggest benefit of legalization. Without that, I would probably be protesting against legalization! Plus you need other regulations to prevent kids from getting it and people driving while high. From what has been announced so far, all of the regulations seem very reasonable. The one that interests (and worries) me the most is that they plan on pricing weed based on THC content... makes me concerned about just how expensive decent weed is going to be. I mean, I expect a price increase for sure, and that's okay, because weed prices now are so low ($25 for an eighth of best you can buy). If that went up to maybe $40 or something, I'm okay with that. But I'm concerned good weed will be way overprices like I heard they did in Seattle at first. Well, hopefully the figure out that that would only hurt in the long run.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
conservatives are the biggest potheads in this country, they just don't have the guts to stand up for it. that's where liberals come in.
got any data to back that up? I have serious doubts about that.
observations. i've lived in Texas and California. always been around conservatives in both places. its my observation that conservatives that smoke pot can't get enough of it.
I, for one, think it should be legalized with no strings from the government attached. If someone wants to grow a weed forest in their backyard, let them. Why even regulate something so beneficial and harmless, right?
It isn't harmless. If you want harmless, go for homeopathy. Like all things with any actual potency to affect a different state, marijuana can have positive and negative effects. The increased risk of psychosis related to use in early/mid teens is well documented, for one. The refusal of some to acknowledge potential risks associated with weed use weakens the case of the pro-legalization side and makes it easier for those who wish to dismiss it to do so.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I, for one, think it should be legalized with no strings from the government attached. If someone wants to grow a weed forest in their backyard, let them. Why even regulate something so beneficial and harmless, right?
It isn't harmless. If you want harmless, go for homeopathy. Like all things with any actual potency to affect a different state, marijuana can have positive and negative effects. The increased risk of psychosis related to use in early/mid teens is well documented, for one. The refusal of some to acknowledge potential risks associated with weed use weakens the case of the pro-legalization side and makes it easier for those who wish to dismiss it to do so.
agreed.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I, for one, think it should be legalized with no strings from the government attached. If someone wants to grow a weed forest in their backyard, let them. Why even regulate something so beneficial and harmless, right?
Well the growing limits are about money. The government/country can't benefit from the tax income if everyone is growing a forest of weed in their backyards. The only reason any government considers legalizing is because of the economic benefits it provides. Without the tax factor we wouldn't even be talking about this. And those who like for things like social programs, the justice system, and healthcare to be better funded, they should be pretty happy about the tax factor too. It's the single biggest benefit of legalization. Without that, I would probably be protesting against legalization! Plus you need other regulations to prevent kids from getting it and people driving while high. From what has been announced so far, all of the regulations seem very reasonable. The one that interests (and worries) me the most is that they plan on pricing weed based on THC content... makes me concerned about just how expensive decent weed is going to be. I mean, I expect a price increase for sure, and that's okay, because weed prices now are so low ($25 for an eighth of best you can buy). If that went up to maybe $40 or something, I'm okay with that. But I'm concerned good weed will be way overprices like I heard they did in Seattle at first. Well, hopefully the figure out that that would only hurt in the long run.
The biggest issue for me is the per se THC limits for being considered "impaired". It is what Washington State did as well. It is troubling because THC can remain in the system, and a regular smoker can be unimpaired but certainly have a higher per se limit than a new smoker who took a hit, is blazed, but may register a lower per se amount. I would much rather see impairment tests. Regardless of why you're impaired. Pot, booze, prescription meds, sleep deprivation, etc... Doesn't matter to me why you're impaired, you shouldn't be driving impaired. But to have arbitrary per se limits without any scientific basis is frustrating.
Also, "Taxes should be high enough to limit the growth of consumption, but low enough to compete effectively with the illicit market." As long as they pay attention to pricing they can probably find the right balance, but it is tricky. Your buddy who sells you weed isn't interested in limiting the growth of consumption, so any taxing will have a negative effect on attracting buyers to the legal market, but I understand that taxes are a big part of the reason to legalize so I'm not suggesting they don't tax weed. They just need to make sure they do it in a way that encourages supporting the legal market. When recreational pot shops in Washington started operating it was hard to find supply initially, and weed was about $50 a gram. I wasn't interested in that, and didn't purchase weed in recreational shops for many months after they opened. Now that supply is good, and taxes were adjusted, I have my choice of good $25/gram weed all day long.
Mostly I think it is a good framework and I hope it becomes reality. Good luck, Canada! Hopefully the U.S. will follow your lead federally in 4 years when we can find new, more progressive leadership. Until then we may have to live in fear of Jeff Sessions and a renewed war on drugs.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
$25/gram?!?! That is crazy expensive!! Good lord, that's what I pay for an 1/8 now! $25 grams would mean that 1/8s would go for what? $75?! If that happened here, I'd definitely go back to the illegal market.
They have an actual breathalyzer for weed now, which will apparently come into use at least in Vancouver soon, and it registers impairment for about 3 - 4 hours after using. So it seems to me that the expectation is that you don't drive within a few hours of smoking up. Seems very reasonable.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
They have an actual breathalyzer for weed now, which will apparently come into use at least in Vancouver soon, and it registers impairment for about 3 - 4 hours after using.
Do you have a link to it? I'd like to see that. My concern is that it doesn't register impairment. It likely registers nanograms per milliliter of THC. Again, the problem there is that the ng/ml may be arbitrary, and someone could have a lower number and be impaired and a regular smoker, especially a medical patient will have a higher reading and not be impaired.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Thanks for the links. This is a step in the right direction. You said "I think it's fair to measure impairment by THC levels, just like they do with blood alcohol content." I don't disagree with that. My only issue is that these devices don't measure impairment. And as far as I know we don't have good science behind levels yet. In fact, in the 2nd article you linked it said: "“The scientific community is going to have a food fight for the next decade over how these [THC figures] relate to impairment,” he says."
That was the basis for my concern expressed a couple of posts above. Sure, we can measure THC. But that doesn't necessarily reliably provide us information about impairment. Perhaps a combination of this test, along with field sobriety tests will paint a clearer picture, but field sobriety tests can be subjectively interpreted by a cop, and if he has been having a bad day, so will you. But research continues, and I absolutely support finding a good, scientific test for impairment. Impaired drivers need to be punished and their driving privileges revoked. I don't mean to sound like an apologist for impaired driving in any way. I just don't want to see non-impaired drivers getting jacked up because of a non-scientific, arbitrary, per se limit being passed into law.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I'll read those links about the cannabis breathalyzers later. For the time being I know that three different "oral fluid" (ie saliva) measuring devices are being tested by police forces in Canada to see what might work. The oral fluid analysis at least measures current/very recent use, as in hours, and research is in progress attempting to correlate with impairment in function, but this is obviously a "stay tuned" area.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Thanks for the links. This is a step in the right direction. You said "I think it's fair to measure impairment by THC levels, just like they do with blood alcohol content." I don't disagree with that. My only issue is that these devices don't measure impairment. And as far as I know we don't have good science behind levels yet. In fact, in the 2nd article you linked it said: "“The scientific community is going to have a food fight for the next decade over how these [THC figures] relate to impairment,” he says."
That was the basis for my concern expressed a couple of posts above. Sure, we can measure THC. But that doesn't necessarily reliably provide us information about impairment. Perhaps a combination of this test, along with field sobriety tests will paint a clearer picture, but field sobriety tests can be subjectively interpreted by a cop, and if he has been having a bad day, so will you. But research continues, and I absolutely support finding a good, scientific test for impairment. Impaired drivers need to be punished and their driving privileges revoked. I don't mean to sound like an apologist for impaired driving in any way. I just don't want to see non-impaired drivers getting jacked up because of a non-scientific, arbitrary, per se limit being passed into law.
I personally don't think it should matter. I figure if someone has THC in their system within a couple hours of consuming, it's reasonable to expect them to refrain from driving even if they don't think they're too impaired to. Someone who hasn't used any weed within that time aren't going to be falsely accused of using with these things, right?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Thanks for the links. This is a step in the right direction. You said "I think it's fair to measure impairment by THC levels, just like they do with blood alcohol content." I don't disagree with that. My only issue is that these devices don't measure impairment. And as far as I know we don't have good science behind levels yet. In fact, in the 2nd article you linked it said: "“The scientific community is going to have a food fight for the next decade over how these [THC figures] relate to impairment,” he says."
That was the basis for my concern expressed a couple of posts above. Sure, we can measure THC. But that doesn't necessarily reliably provide us information about impairment. Perhaps a combination of this test, along with field sobriety tests will paint a clearer picture, but field sobriety tests can be subjectively interpreted by a cop, and if he has been having a bad day, so will you. But research continues, and I absolutely support finding a good, scientific test for impairment. Impaired drivers need to be punished and their driving privileges revoked. I don't mean to sound like an apologist for impaired driving in any way. I just don't want to see non-impaired drivers getting jacked up because of a non-scientific, arbitrary, per se limit being passed into law.
I personally don't think it should matter. I figure if someone has THC in their system within a couple hours of consuming, it's reasonable to expect them to refrain from driving even if they don't think they're too impaired to. Someone who hasn't used any weed within that time aren't going to be falsely accused of using with these things, right?
So your primary concern isn't impairment, but rather consumption? Assuming foolproof tests are available to establish precise consumption timelines, then I am fine with a 2 hour window. But I would much rather have the focus be on impairment. If we know that someone who didn't consume for 2 hours or more will never be impaired, then that works for me. If we know that someone who used 1 hour ago and has .02 ng in their system isn't impaired, then that's even better in my opinion. As Oftenreading said, and the article you linked said, science is still working on the correlation to impairment issue, and debate continues. Until then, if we can have a satisfactory method based on hours since last consumption and a precise and accurate way to measure that, it should work as a stopgap measure.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Thanks for the links. This is a step in the right direction. You said "I think it's fair to measure impairment by THC levels, just like they do with blood alcohol content." I don't disagree with that. My only issue is that these devices don't measure impairment. And as far as I know we don't have good science behind levels yet. In fact, in the 2nd article you linked it said: "“The scientific community is going to have a food fight for the next decade over how these [THC figures] relate to impairment,” he says."
That was the basis for my concern expressed a couple of posts above. Sure, we can measure THC. But that doesn't necessarily reliably provide us information about impairment. Perhaps a combination of this test, along with field sobriety tests will paint a clearer picture, but field sobriety tests can be subjectively interpreted by a cop, and if he has been having a bad day, so will you. But research continues, and I absolutely support finding a good, scientific test for impairment. Impaired drivers need to be punished and their driving privileges revoked. I don't mean to sound like an apologist for impaired driving in any way. I just don't want to see non-impaired drivers getting jacked up because of a non-scientific, arbitrary, per se limit being passed into law.
I personally don't think it should matter. I figure if someone has THC in their system within a couple hours of consuming, it's reasonable to expect them to refrain from driving even if they don't think they're too impaired to. Someone who hasn't used any weed within that time aren't going to be falsely accused of using with these things, right?
So your primary concern isn't impairment, but rather consumption? Assuming foolproof tests are available to establish precise consumption timelines, then I am fine with a 2 hour window. But I would much rather have the focus be on impairment. If we know that someone who didn't consume for 2 hours or more will never be impaired, then that works for me. If we know that someone who used 1 hour ago and has .02 ng in their system isn't impaired, then that's even better in my opinion. As Oftenreading said, and the article you linked said, science is still working on the correlation to impairment issue, and debate continues. Until then, if we can have a satisfactory method based on hours since last consumption and a precise and accurate way to measure that, it should work as a stopgap measure.
I don't even have a concern. I am honestly not bothered if someone who thinks they can smoke weed and then drive is kept from driving for a couple of hours. Simple as that. I figure if you're going to consume weed, then make sure you don't need to drive a car for at least a couple hours. I know that isn't the norm now, and that many people feel comfortable driving after consuming, but for the sake of legalization, I think it's completely fine to put a restriction like this on users no matter how okay they think they are behind the wheel. So impairment, consumption.... same shit in my book as far as driving goes. I'm totally okay with a 0% tolerance level on this one. There is no way to measure each individual's level of impairment without gauging consumption anyhow, unless cops become telepathic, so isn't it a moot issue?
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Thanks for the links. This is a step in the right direction. You said "I think it's fair to measure impairment by THC levels, just like they do with blood alcohol content." I don't disagree with that. My only issue is that these devices don't measure impairment. And as far as I know we don't have good science behind levels yet. In fact, in the 2nd article you linked it said: "“The scientific community is going to have a food fight for the next decade over how these [THC figures] relate to impairment,” he says."
That was the basis for my concern expressed a couple of posts above. Sure, we can measure THC. But that doesn't necessarily reliably provide us information about impairment. Perhaps a combination of this test, along with field sobriety tests will paint a clearer picture, but field sobriety tests can be subjectively interpreted by a cop, and if he has been having a bad day, so will you. But research continues, and I absolutely support finding a good, scientific test for impairment. Impaired drivers need to be punished and their driving privileges revoked. I don't mean to sound like an apologist for impaired driving in any way. I just don't want to see non-impaired drivers getting jacked up because of a non-scientific, arbitrary, per se limit being passed into law.
I personally don't think it should matter. I figure if someone has THC in their system within a couple hours of consuming, it's reasonable to expect them to refrain from driving even if they don't think they're too impaired to. Someone who hasn't used any weed within that time aren't going to be falsely accused of using with these things, right?
So your primary concern isn't impairment, but rather consumption? Assuming foolproof tests are available to establish precise consumption timelines, then I am fine with a 2 hour window. But I would much rather have the focus be on impairment. If we know that someone who didn't consume for 2 hours or more will never be impaired, then that works for me. If we know that someone who used 1 hour ago and has .02 ng in their system isn't impaired, then that's even better in my opinion. As Oftenreading said, and the article you linked said, science is still working on the correlation to impairment issue, and debate continues. Until then, if we can have a satisfactory method based on hours since last consumption and a precise and accurate way to measure that, it should work as a stopgap measure.
I don't even have a concern. I am honestly not bothered if someone who thinks they can smoke weed and then drive is kept from driving for a couple of hours. Simple as that. I figure if you're going to consume weed, then make sure you don't need to drive a car for at least a couple hours. I know that isn't the norm now, and that many people feel comfortable driving after consuming, but for the sake of legalization, I think it's completely fine to put a restriction like this on users no matter how okay they think they are behind the wheel. So impairment, consumption.... same shit in my book as far as driving goes. I'm totally okay with a 0% tolerance level on this one. There is no way to measure each individual's level of impairment without gauging consumption anyhow, unless cops become telepathic, so isn't it a moot issue?
So if you're good with 0 tolerance, do you mean .00 ng THC? So you're basically fucked if you are a regular smoker or a medical patient? Behavioral impairment is absolutely the issue with regards to public safety. So that is my focus. I personally don't drive (or even leave the house) after I smoke, so I wait until I'm home for the night before sparking up. But people have and may continue to get roped into a DUI because of what their blood shows, rather than what their behavior or impairment shows (or doesn't).
http://blog.norml.org/2016/05/10/study-per-se-driving-limits-for-thc-ill-advised/ "However, the AAA report concludes, “[A] quantitative threshold for per se laws for THC following cannabis use cannot be scientifically reported.” This is because the body metabolizes THC in a manner that is significantly distinct from alcohol. In particular, acute effects of cannabinoids lag well behind the presence of maximum THC/blood levels. Additionally, residual levels of THC may be present in blood for extended periods of time, long after any psychomotor-related effects have ceased.
The Automobile Association’s finding is similar to that of the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which acknowledges: “It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person’s THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects. … It is inadvisable to try and predict effects based on blood THC concentrations alone.”
NORML has long articulated a similar opposition to the imposition of per se driving thresholds for THC and/or its metabolites, stating, “[R]ecently adopted statewide per se limits and zero tolerant per se thresholds in the United States criminally prohibiting the operation of a motor vehicle by persons with the trace presence of cannabinoids or cannabinoid metabolites in their blood or urine are not based upon scientific evidence or consensus. … [T]he enforcement of these strict liability standards risks inappropriately convicting unimpaired subjects of traffic safety violations, including those persons who are consuming cannabis legally in accordance with other state statutes.”"
As I've said, I hope we are able to use new testing methods and science to better correlate usage and timelines with behavioral impairment rather than relying on an arbitrary number to decide whether someone should get a DUI.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
No, I'm good with zero tolerance re not having smoked in 2 or 3 hours, which is what those breathalyzers read, and what I thought we were talking about. We are not in danger of being busted for having THC in our bloodstreams or our hair, lol. I don't see how being a medical patient is relevant. Either you've gotten high in the past few hours or not. It's pretty simple.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
No, I'm good with zero tolerance re not having smoked in 2 or 3 hours, which is what those breathalyzers read, and what I thought we were talking about. We are not in danger of being busted for having THC in our bloodstreams or our hair, lol. I don't see how being a medical patient is relevant. Either you've gotten high in the past few hours or not. It's pretty simple.
I hope you're right. I was talking about DUI's and Canada's framework doesn't necessarily mention breathalyzers. That is something you talked about, and I agree that it is a hopeful future technology. Neither of the links you provided are for devices currently in use, I don't believe. They're being tested and studied, but currently THC testing is done with fluid samples, and DUI determinations are made from pro se THC levels in that fluid. So you're convinced that you have no concerns because of a future technology. I'm concerned because I live in a state that uses pro se limits to determine DUIs, when there is no scientific consensus on behavioral impairment based on those levels. That's where risk to medical patients comes into play for sure. So you are absolutely welcome to look to the future for comfort, but I'm more concerned with the reality of today.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
No, I'm good with zero tolerance re not having smoked in 2 or 3 hours, which is what those breathalyzers read, and what I thought we were talking about. We are not in danger of being busted for having THC in our bloodstreams or our hair, lol. I don't see how being a medical patient is relevant. Either you've gotten high in the past few hours or not. It's pretty simple.
I hope you're right. I was talking about DUI's and Canada's framework doesn't necessarily mention breathalyzers. That is something you talked about, and I agree that it is a hopeful future technology. Neither of the links you provided are for devices currently in use, I don't believe. They're being tested and studied, but currently THC testing is done with fluid samples, and DUI determinations are made from pro se THC levels in that fluid. So you're convinced that you have no concerns because of a future technology. I'm concerned because I live in a state that uses pro se limits to determine DUIs, when there is no scientific consensus on behavioral impairment based on those levels. That's where risk to medical patients comes into play for sure. So you are absolutely welcome to look to the future for comfort, but I'm more concerned with the reality of today.
And by "fluid samples" you're referring to urine and blood, as per your link, correct? Because I would agree that those are much less likely to accurately correlate with impairment and recent use, as even the legislators and the police are aware. From your link above I wasn't clear if people are being "forced", as they put it, to give urine or blood samples simply for roadside stops, or if that would really only apply if there was an accident, for instance.
I do know that the use of the oral fluid detectors is being investigated in the US as well so maybe you'll have that soon.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
And I have to say I think the "medical patient" argument is irrelevant. It's not like the weed is going to discriminate in who it makes high. If a medicinal mj patient is getting high then they shouldn't be driving, just like if someone is taking morphine or dilaudid for pain shouldn't drive if it affects their perceptions and judgment. If the driving is an issue then use a CBD product.
But the edibles issue is a vexing one, in terms of testing, because someone can be very impaired by edibles and the level of THC in the blood/urine/saliva can be very low, due to the differences in metabolism between eaten vs. smoked/inhaled THC.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
And I have to say I think the "medical patient" argument is irrelevant. It's not like the weed is going to discriminate in who it makes high. If a medicinal mj patient is getting high then they shouldn't be driving, just like if someone is taking morphine or dilaudid for pain shouldn't drive if it affects their perceptions and judgment. If the driving is an issue then use a CBD product.
But the edibles issue is a vexing one, in terms of testing, because someone can be very impaired by edibles and the level of THC in the blood/urine/saliva can be very low, due to the differences in metabolism between eaten vs. smoked/inhaled THC.
To answer your post above, yes blood and urine. Those tests are typically compulsory after a failed field sobriety test.
My point about medical patients was that they typically smoke more regularly and will have higher THC levels in their systems even after a couple of hours. They aren't impaired, but are above arbitrary legal limits based on available tests. That's why I'm interested in a breathalyzer test if it can more accurately measure recent use.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
The Emerys opened new cannabis shops in Montreal knowing that they were in breach of the current laws and that Montreal police were unlikely to look kindly on it (different culture than in Vancouver/Victoria). I get that they are protesting, but it seems pointless right now, as we all know that the legalization train is proceeding down the tracks. Particularly dumb for him to call Trudeau "a disgrace", in my opinion, given that Trudeau is the only politician to take this on at the Federal level. This screams "publicity stunt" to me.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
The Emerys opened new cannabis shops in Montreal knowing that they were in breach of the current laws and that Montreal police were unlikely to look kindly on it (different culture than in Vancouver/Victoria). I get that they are protesting, but it seems pointless right now, as we all know that the legalization train is proceeding down the tracks. Particularly dumb for him to call Trudeau "a disgrace", in my opinion, given that Trudeau is the only politician to take this on at the Federal level. This screams "publicity stunt" to me.
Yeah, I agree this was a dumb move on Emery's part. Why is he trashing the one person leading the charge in legalization? I haven't read up on Emery's stance lately though. Is he perhaps against regulation and is pissed that it's not just a utopia of decriminalization without any regulation at all? If so, the guy should lay off the weed, haha. No, but I respect Emery kind of He certainly made real sacrifices in the fight... Did he have a real role in the eventual legalization of weed? I would say yes, he probably did. I have never really understood a lot of his methods, but he's still had an impact I think, especially as far as Vancouver goes. I this we might not be enjoying the arrangement that we've got going in Vancouver without Emery's long term involvement in the cause... Although I think many other players probably had a bigger role - the unnamed many who built all the dispensaries and resisted the law as far as that goes get most of the credit IMO. Of course, many of them were probably inspired by Emery, so....
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Today the National Academy of Sciences released a comprehensive review of research on marijuana and concluded that marijuana does indeed have medical value.
The review concluded: “One of the therapeutic uses of cannabis and cannabinoids is to treat chronic pain in adults. The committee found evidence to support that patients who were treated with cannabis or cannabinoids were more likely to experience a significant reduction in pain symptoms. For adults with multiple sclerosis-related muscle spasms, there was substantial evidence that short-term use of certain “oral cannabinoids” - man-made, cannabinoid-based medications that are orally ingested - improved their reported symptoms. Furthermore, in adults with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, there was conclusive evidence that certain oral cannabinoids were effective in preventing and treating those ailments.”
This is not the first time that the scientific community has made claims about marijuana as medicine.
Hopefully this report will spur further debate about removing Marijuana from Schedule 1 status. Sure wish Obama had done something about this while he had the ability. I don't anticipate any major, positive federal changes in a Trump / Sessions administration.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Good luck to Canada on their legalization efforts. Unfortunately leadership in the US (both Dem and Rep) have proven to be scared and inept in this regard, so the best we can hope for is status quo at this point.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I've never tried marijuana but have always been curious of how it would feel to be high. The reason I have not tried it is because there is evidence that it leads to schizophrenia and bad psychosis. For all you smokers on here, do you not feel worried that you may develop schizophrenia? My brother in laws brother is now severely schizophrenic due to smoking marijuana. Plus, I am a university student, don't need marijuana making me unmotivated and affecting my memory and concentration.
Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
Comments
Plus you need other regulations to prevent kids from getting it and people driving while high. From what has been announced so far, all of the regulations seem very reasonable. The one that interests (and worries) me the most is that they plan on pricing weed based on THC content... makes me concerned about just how expensive decent weed is going to be. I mean, I expect a price increase for sure, and that's okay, because weed prices now are so low ($25 for an eighth of best you can buy). If that went up to maybe $40 or something, I'm okay with that. But I'm concerned good weed will be way overprices like I heard they did in Seattle at first. Well, hopefully the figure out that that would only hurt in the long run.
-EV 8/14/93
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
-EV 8/14/93
The biggest issue for me is the per se THC limits for being considered "impaired". It is what Washington State did as well. It is troubling because THC can remain in the system, and a regular smoker can be unimpaired but certainly have a higher per se limit than a new smoker who took a hit, is blazed, but may register a lower per se amount. I would much rather see impairment tests. Regardless of why you're impaired. Pot, booze, prescription meds, sleep deprivation, etc... Doesn't matter to me why you're impaired, you shouldn't be driving impaired. But to have arbitrary per se limits without any scientific basis is frustrating.
Also, "Taxes should be high enough to limit the growth of consumption, but low enough to compete effectively with the illicit market." As long as they pay attention to pricing they can probably find the right balance, but it is tricky. Your buddy who sells you weed isn't interested in limiting the growth of consumption, so any taxing will have a negative effect on attracting buyers to the legal market, but I understand that taxes are a big part of the reason to legalize so I'm not suggesting they don't tax weed. They just need to make sure they do it in a way that encourages supporting the legal market. When recreational pot shops in Washington started operating it was hard to find supply initially, and weed was about $50 a gram. I wasn't interested in that, and didn't purchase weed in recreational shops for many months after they opened. Now that supply is good, and taxes were adjusted, I have my choice of good $25/gram weed all day long.
Mostly I think it is a good framework and I hope it becomes reality. Good luck, Canada! Hopefully the U.S. will follow your lead federally in 4 years when we can find new, more progressive leadership. Until then we may have to live in fear of Jeff Sessions and a renewed war on drugs.
They have an actual breathalyzer for weed now, which will apparently come into use at least in Vancouver soon, and it registers impairment for about 3 - 4 hours after using. So it seems to me that the expectation is that you don't drive within a few hours of smoking up. Seems very reasonable.
http://www.cannabixtechnologies.com/thc-breathalyzer.html
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-13/pot-breathalyzer-hits-the-street
"“The scientific community is going to have a food fight for the next decade over how these [THC figures] relate to impairment,” he says."
That was the basis for my concern expressed a couple of posts above. Sure, we can measure THC. But that doesn't necessarily reliably provide us information about impairment. Perhaps a combination of this test, along with field sobriety tests will paint a clearer picture, but field sobriety tests can be subjectively interpreted by a cop, and if he has been having a bad day, so will you. But research continues, and I absolutely support finding a good, scientific test for impairment. Impaired drivers need to be punished and their driving privileges revoked. I don't mean to sound like an apologist for impaired driving in any way. I just don't want to see non-impaired drivers getting jacked up because of a non-scientific, arbitrary, per se limit being passed into law.
http://blog.norml.org/2016/05/10/study-per-se-driving-limits-for-thc-ill-advised/
"However, the AAA report concludes, “[A] quantitative threshold for per se laws for THC following cannabis use cannot be scientifically reported.” This is because the body metabolizes THC in a manner that is significantly distinct from alcohol. In particular, acute effects of cannabinoids lag well behind the presence of maximum THC/blood levels. Additionally, residual levels of THC may be present in blood for extended periods of time, long after any psychomotor-related effects have ceased.
The Automobile Association’s finding is similar to that of the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which acknowledges: “It is difficult to establish a relationship between a person’s THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects. … It is inadvisable to try and predict effects based on blood THC concentrations alone.”
NORML has long articulated a similar opposition to the imposition of per se driving thresholds for THC and/or its metabolites, stating, “[R]ecently adopted statewide per se limits and zero tolerant per se thresholds in the United States criminally prohibiting the operation of a motor vehicle by persons with the trace presence of cannabinoids or cannabinoid metabolites in their blood or urine are not based upon scientific evidence or consensus. … [T]he enforcement of these strict liability standards risks inappropriately convicting unimpaired subjects of traffic safety violations, including those persons who are consuming cannabis legally in accordance with other state statutes.”"
As I've said, I hope we are able to use new testing methods and science to better correlate usage and timelines with behavioral impairment rather than relying on an arbitrary number to decide whether someone should get a DUI.
I do know that the use of the oral fluid detectors is being investigated in the US as well so maybe you'll have that soon.
But the edibles issue is a vexing one, in terms of testing, because someone can be very impaired by edibles and the level of THC in the blood/urine/saliva can be very low, due to the differences in metabolism between eaten vs. smoked/inhaled THC.
My point about medical patients was that they typically smoke more regularly and will have higher THC levels in their systems even after a couple of hours. They aren't impaired, but are above arbitrary legal limits based on available tests. That's why I'm interested in a breathalyzer test if it can more accurately measure recent use.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-cannabis-culture-shops-police-raids-1.3900254
The Emerys opened new cannabis shops in Montreal knowing that they were in breach of the current laws and that Montreal police were unlikely to look kindly on it (different culture than in Vancouver/Victoria). I get that they are protesting, but it seems pointless right now, as we all know that the legalization train is proceeding down the tracks. Particularly dumb for him to call Trudeau "a disgrace", in my opinion, given that Trudeau is the only politician to take this on at the Federal level. This screams "publicity stunt" to me.
People in North America spent $53.3 billion on legal, medical, and illicit marijuana in 2016. That's more cash than Americans blow in a year at McDonald's and Starbucks combined.
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-canada-marijuana-spending-legal-illicit-2017-1
The reason I have not tried it is because there is evidence that it leads to schizophrenia and bad psychosis.
For all you smokers on here, do you not feel worried that you may develop schizophrenia?
My brother in laws brother is now severely schizophrenic due to smoking marijuana.
Plus, I am a university student, don't need marijuana making me unmotivated and affecting my memory and concentration.