Start another marijuana thread, please.

PJPOWER · December 2016

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?

my2hands · December 2016

You must he a hit at parties... pun intended lol

PJ_Soul · December 2016

PJPOWER said:
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.

HughFreakingDillon · December 2016

vaggar99 said:
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.

Halifax2TheMax · December 2016

Yes, I think I'll just get stoned for the next two years. Repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly and hugely!!!

vaggar99 · December 2016

HughFreakingDillon said:

vaggar99 said:
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.

weddingparade · December 2016

the grow your own movement is taking off ! start from female clones and don't fertilize for the last 25-30days, while it's flowering

oftenreading · December 2016

PJPOWER said:
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.

HughFreakingDillon · December 2016

oftenreading said:

PJPOWER said:
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.

jeffbr · December 2016

PJ_Soul said:

PJPOWER said:
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 framework for the legalization of weed in Canada looks pretty reasonable to me. People can see it here: http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/task-force-marijuana-groupe-etude/framework-cadre/index-eng.php

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.

PJ_Soul · December 2016

$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.

jeffbr · December 2016

PJ_Soul said:
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.

PJ_Soul · December 2016

Seems okay to me. I think it's fair to measure impairment by THC levels, just like they do with blood alcohol content.

http://www.cannabixtechnologies.com/thc-breathalyzer.html

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-13/pot-breathalyzer-hits-the-street

jeffbr · December 2016

PJ_Soul said:
Seems okay to me. I think it's fair to measure impairment by THC levels, just like they do with blood alcohol content.

http://www.cannabixtechnologies.com/thc-breathalyzer.html

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-13/pot-breathalyzer-hits-the-street

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.

oftenreading · December 2016

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.

PJ_Soul · December 2016

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:
Seems okay to me. I think it's fair to measure impairment by THC levels, just like they do with blood alcohol content.

http://www.cannabixtechnologies.com/thc-breathalyzer.html

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-13/pot-breathalyzer-hits-the-street
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?

jeffbr · December 2016

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:
Seems okay to me. I think it's fair to measure impairment by THC levels, just like they do with blood alcohol content.

http://www.cannabixtechnologies.com/thc-breathalyzer.html

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-13/pot-breathalyzer-hits-the-street
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.

PJ_Soul · December 2016

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:
Seems okay to me. I think it's fair to measure impairment by THC levels, just like they do with blood alcohol content.

http://www.cannabixtechnologies.com/thc-breathalyzer.html

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-13/pot-breathalyzer-hits-the-street
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?

jeffbr · December 2016

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:

jeffbr said:

PJ_Soul said:
Seems okay to me. I think it's fair to measure impairment by THC levels, just like they do with blood alcohol content.

http://www.cannabixtechnologies.com/thc-breathalyzer.html

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-13/pot-breathalyzer-hits-the-street
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.

PJ_Soul · December 2016

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.

Start another marijuana thread, please.

Comments

Categories