81–90 of 96 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of some NOFX lyrics. Jerry spent some time in Michigan A twenty year vacation, after all he had a dime A dime is worth a lot more in Detroit A dime in California, a twenty dollar fine Note that "a dime" refers to a "dime-bag" of weed, or $10 worth of the stuff. 20 years in prison for personal possession in Michigan (at the time), while it was a $20 infraction in California for the same amount.
Is this from The Decline?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who rides a bike in a state where Pot is legal, there are a fair number of people who are smoking and driving, many more than before legalization. And the homeless population seems to have embraced pot as well. The sky hasn't fallen, but when riding I give a wide berth. There is a lot of inconsistency, but the lines between "drug" and "Recreational substance" are certainly blurred, be it for Opiates or Pot…
The only thing I am afraid of people driving high on weed is me getting stuck behind someone going too slow, most likely increasing safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. The risk factors are probably ranked something like alcohol > using mobile/driving while sleep deprived > eating/applying makeup >>>>>>> talking to someone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>high on weed.
Maybe they think they’re driving slow but I haven’t seen any change in speed. Is it worse than texting and driving? probably not, but I suspect it isn’t great either. Pot today is very potent.
They claim that for increased job security... What they don't understand is that they could get a more productive job somewhere else... If they would defund the DEA now, how far could they push back the shutdown?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where do Democrats come in here? This is a direct quote from an individual. Democrats certainly share blame in this mess, I don't think I or anyone in this thread implied otherwise.
Is it even a direct quote? It first appeared in public in 2016, over 15 years after Ehrlichman's death, and has been challenged by numerous people.[1] But I'm not here to argue about the alleged quote, I'm here to dispute the broader claim that the war on drugs was somehow manufactured by Nixon to target his enemies. The war on drugs was bipartisan from the beginning. So if you believe that the racial disparities mig…
This presumes that leftists and civil rights activists weren't also a thorn in the side of Democrats as well as Republicans. Democrats are famous for paying lip service to the causes of racial justice and workers rights, and then failing to deliver for these groups when in office because not enough of them are dedicated to these causes. They are also famous for being just as beholden to corporate interests as Republicans. I can absolutely imagine plenty of Democrats happy to witness law enforcement crack down against these groups. Civil unrest is bad for business after all.
> So if you believe that the racial disparities might be "a deliberate result of the system", as you said, then blame for that would extend far beyond Nixon, right up to our current President.
100% agreed
Hard to think of a government agency with less credibility than the DEA. $5 says the average DEA agent uses more drugs than the average American.
Ah, then allow me to introduce you to the ATF..
Why would any organization fighting for funding be inclined to undermine their reason for existing? And why would any rational person be interested in what they have to say about a topic that is well outside their area of expertise (medicine)?
This. We should by default oppose all expansions of bureaucracy. Only when it is impossible to not expand should it happen.
Why would any organization fighting for funding be inclined to undermine their reason for existing? And why would any rational person be interested in what they have to say about a topic that is well outside their area of expertise (medicine)?
Weed isn't the drug that your hippy parents smoked in the 60s anymore. Years of selective growing increased psychoactive substances to insane levels never found in the plant previously. It was also the logistical problem created by prohibition that made this process beneficial. Sure, people would have done this anyway for the drug to become more potent, but I believe free availability would have countered this development.
Of course even with its potency it is still one of the softer drug. Alcohol can be just as destructive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you find (or know) that the THC is contributing to this effect on top of the CBD?
not saying you're claiming otherwise, but both THC and CBD are derived from marijuana! edit: this comment is wrong.
Didn't know doctors prescribe it. Hemp is relatively closely related to nettles, which are also used for some therapies for arthritis. Maybe there is another component that helps? Could be a coincidence of course.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
oh, true. found some pro marijuana sites that said it came from marijuana, but per more reputable sites it's just contained in marijuana, but derived from hemp. Thanks!
The difference between "marijuana" and "hemp" is only legal, not biological, so a distinction without a difference. Hemp growers use a variety bred to have little THC in it. The species is the same.
Why would any organization fighting for funding be inclined to undermine their reason for existing? And why would any rational person be interested in what they have to say about a topic that is well outside their area of expertise (medicine)?
I believe Marijuana can get quite dangerous by now that can induce psychosis in many people. Some say you need an inclination but to me it seems it can hit anyone. I knew some heavy users and may be biased because of this, but there are reports of similar cases. Weed isn't the drug that your hippy parents smoked in the 60s anymore. Years of selective growing increased psychoactive substances to insane levels never fo…