Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

spectrumnews.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 179 posts

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#91

Post by Ntrails »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #79
pitaj wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is about locking up poor people in order to keep them from voting. Poor people already don't vote in high numbers. > It is about filling our prisons with non-violent offenders so we can force them to work for slave wages, and line the owners of the prisons and the politicians they fund's pockets. That's part of it, but private prisons hold a small minority of the prison population. > It's about political suppres…

A lot of people really believe that marijuana is some horrible substance that will ruin you. My dad was one of those people and I believed him until I tried it in my 20’s and saw that it’s a vice akin to drinking at its worst, and often very positive. I think some people had hidden racist or imperialist intentions and so found what they could hate about blacks and hippies and spread the lies. (Edit: obviously overt r…

> My dad was one of those people and I believed him until I tried it in my 20’s and saw that it’s a vice akin to drinking at its worst, and often very positive.

Not the whole truth, as there are known rare side effects that are significantly detrimental. In my experience it also seems harder/rarer to be a high functioning regular user. But yeah.

If I do accept that position though - I'm not sold the argument is in favour of anything but prohibition

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#92

Post by drewrv »

Thriptic wrote: post #34
stephengillie wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the study would be okay if they merely interviewed individuals who purchased cannabis for their own recreation? What if these individuals were using it recreationally according to a schedule suggested by the interviewers?

Suggesting that study participants use a drug of unknown purity, composition, and dosing would definitely not be ok or safe. Encouraging illegal activity generally is not ok. Interviewing self-professed users without instructing them to use the drug would likely be ok but of limited value.

I don't know about other legal states but here in Washington the purity, composition, and dose of cannabis products are highly regulated and come with standardized labels.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#93

Post by delecti »

komali2 wrote: post #77
hoorayimhelping wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not naive at all. The issue is typically framed as States Rights and it's wrapped around the 10th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This has been an issue since the 1780s, so it will take more than a couple of sentences to give the whole rundown but it's like this. A few states ar…

Wait, peyote is schedule 1? How do they deal with native Americans taking that as part of religious ceremonies?

Exemptions for religious purposes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peyote#United_States

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#94

Post by mywittyname »

cletus wrote: post #47
stevenwoo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drug laws can be selectively enforced to give criminal records to people of color. Then the state can refuse to give people with criminal records the right to vote. There's no immediate gain for a politician to reform these laws (the people affected can't or don't vote), the other legal drugs already have huge lobbies to pay the politician, and the law and order crowd has a sizeable popularity that is hard to budge w…

Not sure why you're being downvoted as I think the empiric evidence supports the position that drug laws (and many others) are selectively enforced on the basis of socioeconomic status and race. Cocaine is a schedule 3 stuff. Cannabis and crack cocaine are schedule 1.

Further support is the fact that most politicians support punitive action against people with drug possession charges, rather than mandating treatment. There's solid evidence that drug crisis can be solved in the long term by access to treatment, and more evidence that punitive measures increase crime and continue the poverty cycle.

The only reason to support the current drug laws is literally because you want more crime and drug use.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#95

Post by ergothus »

cletus wrote: post #47
stevenwoo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drug laws can be selectively enforced to give criminal records to people of color. Then the state can refuse to give people with criminal records the right to vote. There's no immediate gain for a politician to reform these laws (the people affected can't or don't vote), the other legal drugs already have huge lobbies to pay the politician, and the law and order crowd has a sizeable popularity that is hard to budge w…

Not sure why you're being downvoted as I think the empiric evidence supports the position that drug laws (and many others) are selectively enforced on the basis of socioeconomic status and race. Cocaine is a schedule 3 stuff. Cannabis and crack cocaine are schedule 1.

As further suggestive evidence of this, watch the correlation between donors/friends of those same old white guys entering the MJ business, and the rapid "evolution" of the willingness to switch stances on legality.

You can even evaluate this without malice: Some say MJ is dangerous, and some say it's great. The status quo is that it is banned. Changing that creates the risk that it is bad and the change will be blamed on you, but legalizing will not bring you much glory, so you support the status quo until you have sufficient incentive (most likely $$$, but a strong push from the public instead of "meh" would also count).

That said, I find a mix of opportunism and greed to be the most likely explanation.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#96

Post by jedharris »

stephengillie wrote: post #23
Thriptic wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marijuana is defined as a schedule one drug by the DEA, meaning they believe it has no accepted medical value and should not be studied. Being in possession of or trying to purchase this drug for a medical study would therefore be illegal. Publishing the results would be admitting you performed a federal crime and you would be arrested. Additionally, human studies require approval by an on site or third party institu…

But the study would be okay if they merely interviewed individuals who purchased cannabis for their own recreation? What if these individuals were using it recreationally according to a schedule suggested by the interviewers?

Maybe an independent group could manage the schedule and have lab tests done so the drug details could be determined. Then the academic researchers could track the subjects, analyze the results and publish.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#97

Post by tmaly »

To get some historical perspective, this all started back with the stitch in time that saved nine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_...

FDR's pressure on the supreme court brought about the abuses of the commerce clause. Before this, things like Prohibition required a constitutional amendment rather than a law like The Controlled Substances Act of 1970.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#98

Post by mywittyname »

komali2 wrote: post #75
crankylinuxuser wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And thanks to the 13th amendment, once found guilty of a crime, are legal to be slaves. Again.

This is fact, so I'm curious why it's being downvoted. >Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted , shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Did I maybe miss a supreme Court case where that bit of it was neutered?

Probably from the people who think those in prison are not slaves, but are "earning their keep."

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#99

Post by mywittyname »

Rotdhizon wrote: post #56
e40 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This shows the derangement of the people in charge. Why is this? Why this derangement on the subject of cannabis? I've read a fair amount, and every time I've brought it up, I get downvoted to hell. So, I'll ask: Anyone have a hypothesis on why a large number of our leaders, who happen to be older white men, are insanely against this plant?

I feel this way, but apply it to the whole country. A vast majority of people who grew up in the mid to late 90s act like cannabis was created by the devil himself. But why? I get that most people dislike it because it's been illegal all their life, so they look down on it. I like to use Red from that 70s show as a good example. Look how much he hated it, he hated it with his entire being. Why though? It never did an…

It's easy to buy into propaganda when you have no first-hand experience with something. Access to information was much more limited back then and censorship was much easier. It's not like most libraries would have a cannabis section in the 60s.

If I were constantly told by a number of authority figures that Argentina was a war-torn shithole with rampant poverty and violence, I'd likely believe it. I've never been there, I don't know anyone from there, and I have no reason to suspect those who I trust are liars.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#100

Post by nugga »

malvosenior wrote: post #49
e40 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This shows the derangement of the people in charge. Why is this? Why this derangement on the subject of cannabis? I've read a fair amount, and every time I've brought it up, I get downvoted to hell. So, I'll ask: Anyone have a hypothesis on why a large number of our leaders, who happen to be older white men, are insanely against this plant?

I'm very pro weed, and as such have had a lot of conversations with non-smokers about its benefits. What I've come to realize is that a lot of more conservative people are really against any mind altering drug. Yes it's hypocritical that booze isn't classified as "mind altering" and is fully accepted. If I'm totally honest with myself I have to appreciate where they are coming from to a degree. I in no way think that…

Yeah, sometimes I've been wondering if there's a natural unconscious resistance or barrier in ourselves or in the ego programming, that is averse or even hostile to loosening up or the very idea of there being something beyond it that weed and plenty other drugs may come to show, because even when confronted with scientific studies and evidence to the contrary they can often double down or divert the conversation to some argument error or non sequiturs or nonsensical statements.

No one should be forced to do drugs of any kind but what is it with this 'baseline hostility' towards altered states?

Post reply on HN