791–800 of 918 posts
This change is not gonna legalize it, but will just make it “less illegal” acknowledging its medical use. While logically it make sense to move in this direction, I am afraid that ultimate consequences might be few large companies dominating the market completely and probably growing stuff offshore. If it gets a pass for recreational use then we will see weed induced soda in vending machines at school in couple of ge…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In response to uninformed sibling comments reflexively fearing cannabis use in drivers, see here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/ > Cannabis users perceive their driving under the influence as impaired and more cautious, and given a dose of 7 mg THC (about a third of a joint), drivers rated themselves as impaired even though their driving performance was not; in contrast, at a BAC 0.04% (slightl…
I find it far more likely it has not been studied to the degree alcohol has been, and as a larger sample of users is tested these results will change. I’ve heard every drug under the sun affect adhd for people lately, so I don’t know if that’s a divining rod for truth. Had a guy say Fentanyl really helped his adhd… hm okay. I think our definitions and condition criteria need to separate into more discerning terms for…
You mention that "results will change", but given that it's a lit review, I'm not sure which results you're talking about. I'm sure you read the contents of the link, so I'll ask directly - which study in particular did you find issue with? What do you think they did wrong?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A safe, productive and prosperous society cannot be built by drug addicts. Historian Niall Ferguson has argued that the British Empire was built on a collective caffeine and sugar high, from imported tea and cane sugar from its colonies and trading partners.
Neither sugar nor caffeine has the same effects as drugs like alcohol and marijuana. It's pretty asinine to classify them as even being in the same category.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it does mean that it will actually, for the first time ever in living memory, be possible for someone to fully federally legally possess a THC-active form of cannabis without further Congressional action. I'm not sure if a state-legal cannabis supply chain could be fully federally legal in this context, but imagine if a pharma company goes through the FDA approval process for a THC pill and then doctors prescribe…
Agree with the sentiment but isn't legal marinol roughly fulfilling that niche of THC pill? You could already get THC script, in that context this seems like a half hearted concession for flower to stall and poison legalization efforts by giving a victory poisoned with DEA licensing that inserts the nasty tendrils of the weed hating DEA into medical flower.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its super weird how america can make things half legal. In canada the responsibilities are divided up between different levels of government. None of this legal at one level but not another level bullshit.
It’s easier to pull this off when the number of states fits on one hand.
A bigger factor is that the Canadian prohibition was only controlled at the federal level in the first place, like all Canadian criminal law, so only the federal government had to legislate to change it. The provinces have however done lots of subsequent legislation to regulate the details (e.g. distribution channels and the exact minimum age limit) in a wide variety of ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's typically far more monetary value in product in any weed shop than there is cash, likely by an order of magnitude. Many of the purchases are done electronically, so there's not as much cash as you might think in most dispensaries.
How are these purchases done electronically if the stores cannot process credit cards? After there dispensaries more commonly using crypto that I don't know about?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you can imagine who works at them You might want to be more careful then. This empty space is a well known rhetorical device used to allude that you're making a negative judgement about people.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you can imagine who works at them You might want to be more careful then. This empty space is a well known rhetorical device used to allude that you're making a negative judgement about people.
What it meant was, if you work at a place with all the cash controls of a casino, you have to be stoned to steal petty cash from them. You’re going to get caught, and you’re going to get a felony over a small amount of money. Nobody sober does that. It was not meant as “all stoners are thieves” but as “you’d have to be high to think that’s a good idea”. And since nearly everyone who works at a dispensary is high all…
Weed being illegal on a federal level has had some interesting effects. Because of these laws, all legal weed has to be grown, processed, and retailed within a single state. So much industry and local employment has been created by the legal barriers in place. It’s probably still a net positive to release the federal restriction, but I hope all these small/mid sized businesses don’t get gulped up by big tobacco or ot…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is why if you want to steal from dispensaries, just work in security, like your brother. Who's to say he's not stealing, and simply not bragging to you about it?
I said he’s a supervisor, not in security. He’s not an idiot. He’d be caught very quickly. Cash controls are such that everyone is. I don’t know if every state is like mine, but here they have to do complete inventory every night. You can steal but they’ll know it happened by the end of the day and then start checking the footage. It happens.
But he is high every single moment at work by your reasoning, yes?