If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(PennLive)   Patients will be allowed to inhale their medical marijuana, just not from joints, bowls or bongs. So apples, toilet paper tubes, and crushed coke cans it is then   ( pennlive.com) divider line
    More: Stupid, Physician, medical marijuana, Medicine, medical marijuana patients, medical marijuana dispensaries, medical marijuana program, leaf medical marijuana, Medical Marijuana Advisory  
•       •       •

3227 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Apr 2018 at 2:59 AM (13 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



65 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-04-17 01:55:07 AM  
I love my Grasshopper. Not affiliated with Hopper Labs, just a happy customer.
 
2018-04-17 03:13:37 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-04-17 03:19:12 AM  
The Greens in Australia just tried to put forward legalising pot, but the two major parties pulled out the tired old "gateway drug" and "wont someone think of the children" arguments.  Farking dumb farks.
 
2018-04-17 03:27:59 AM  

Langdon_777: The Greens in Australia just tried to put forward legalising pot, but the two major parties pulled out the tired old "gateway drug" and "wont someone think of the children" arguments.  Farking dumb farks.


Good. They would be more successful if they stuck to medical mj laws only. If people need medical mj they can go get a perscription and then buy a pill form it from a pharmacy. I 100% support this. Treat it as any other medicine. Otherwise if recreationally legal, Australia ends up as 'everyone-be-stoned-out-of-their-mind-​all-the-time-America'. We don't need that nonsense here.
 
2018-04-17 03:46:18 AM  

Langdon_777: The Greens in Australia just tried to put forward legalising pot, but the two major parties pulled out the tired old "gateway drug" and "wont someone think of the children" arguments.  Farking dumb farks.


I need to grow my own strain of pot named Gateway Drug.
 
2018-04-17 03:51:38 AM  

Langdon_777: The Greens in Australia just tried to put forward legalising pot, but the two major parties pulled out the tired old "gateway drug" and "wont someone think of the children" arguments.  Farking dumb farks.


I tried it once, and it led me to a career selling my body and soul to the first bidder no matter the price.

Politics: Not Even Once.
 
2018-04-17 03:59:05 AM  

LiberalConservative: Langdon_777: The Greens in Australia just tried to put forward legalising pot, but the two major parties pulled out the tired old "gateway drug" and "wont someone think of the children" arguments.  Farking dumb farks.

Good. They would be more successful if they stuck to medical mj laws only. If people need medical mj they can go get a perscription and then buy a pill form it from a pharmacy. I 100% support this. Treat it as any other medicine. Otherwise if recreationally legal, Australia ends up as 'everyone-be-stoned-out-of-their-mind-​all-the-time-America'. We don't need that nonsense here.


 I think a baby ate your dingo there, mate !
 
2018-04-17 04:02:00 AM  
It's not a bad idea to prescribe medical cannabis to be vaporized. The way they came up with the idea is dumb as fark but that's less important.
 
2018-04-17 04:07:06 AM  

I dont want to be on this planet anymore: LiberalConservative: Langdon_777: The Greens in Australia just tried to put forward legalising pot, but the two major parties pulled out the tired old "gateway drug" and "wont someone think of the children" arguments.  Farking dumb farks.

Good. They would be more successful if they stuck to medical mj laws only. If people need medical mj they can go get a perscription and then buy a pill form it from a pharmacy. I 100% support this. Treat it as any other medicine. Otherwise if recreationally legal, Australia ends up as 'everyone-be-stoned-out-of-their-mind-​all-the-time-America'. We don't need that nonsense here.

 I think a baby ate your dingo there, mate !


Yeah LC lives in the same place I do and we are known as the pot capital of Australia.  Any of us could find pot within 30 minutes if we put our mind to it (rock up to the front bar of any pub.)  Legalising it just removes the criminals from the equation.
 
2018-04-17 04:08:25 AM  

LiberalConservative: Langdon_777: The Greens in Australia just tried to put forward legalising pot, but the two major parties pulled out the tired old "gateway drug" and "wont someone think of the children" arguments.  Farking dumb farks.

Good. They would be more successful if they stuck to medical mj laws only. If people need medical mj they can go get a perscription and then buy a pill form it from a pharmacy. I 100% support this. Treat it as any other medicine. Otherwise if recreationally legal, Australia ends up as 'everyone-be-stoned-out-of-their-mind-​all-the-time-America'. We don't need that nonsense here.


Oh, shut up with your nonsense.
 
2018-04-17 04:15:01 AM  
Pppshhaw there, Subby.  A tater is the maxmo,and I speak from the voice of experience.
 
2018-04-17 04:36:52 AM  

LiberalConservative: Langdon_777: The Greens in Australia just tried to put forward legalising pot, but the two major parties pulled out the tired old "gateway drug" and "wont someone think of the children" arguments.  Farking dumb farks.

Good. They would be more successful if they stuck to medical mj laws only. If people need medical mj they can go get a perscription and then buy a pill form it from a pharmacy. I 100% support this. Treat it as any other medicine. Otherwise if recreationally legal, Australia ends up as 'everyone-be-stoned-out-of-their-mind-​all-the-time-America'. We don't need that nonsense here.


Yeah! Keep Australia "everyone-drunk-off-their-ass-all-the-​time"! None of this "stoned" nonsense.

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-04-17 04:54:34 AM  
Stupid, subby? WTF?

It's really not. The part that causes the majority of the health concerns about taking cannabis has been eliminated. It doesn't take a degree in rocket surgery to figure out that's smart.
 
2018-04-17 05:01:25 AM  

Langdon_777: Legalising it just removes the criminals from the equation.


It does no such thing.

http://www.westword.com/marijuana/col​o​rados-black-market-for-marijuana-how-b​ig-is-it-9280870

The black marketers are putting out a product that many if not most weed buyers perceive to be of a quality comparable to store bought, and they are formidable competitors to legal sellers on price because they aren't subject to taxes, licensing, or costly regulation.  They also sell to under-21s, who are a substantial part of the market.
 
2018-04-17 05:18:57 AM  

tirob: Langdon_777: Legalising it just removes the criminals from the equation.

It does no such thing.

http://www.westword.com/marijuana/colo​rados-black-market-for-marijuana-how-b​ig-is-it-9280870

The black marketers are putting out a product that many if not most weed buyers perceive to be of a quality comparable to store bought, and they are formidable competitors to legal sellers on price because they aren't subject to taxes, licensing, or costly regulation.  They also sell to under-21s, who are a substantial part of the market.


Did you take the time to read your link?  It states that legalization has greatly reduced the black market sales in Colorado, which is right now the most mature legal market.  Over time the black armed sales in other legal states should drop accordingly.

There will always be some form of black market, there are still people who distill and distribute moonshine, some people will always be ridiculously cheap and have an aversion to paying taxes.

 Being able to minimize the size of that black market, however, is a success.
 
2018-04-17 06:01:59 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: tirob: Langdon_777: Legalising it just removes the criminals from the equation.

It does no such thing.

http://www.westword.com/marijuana/colo​rados-black-market-for-marijuana-how-b​ig-is-it-9280870

The black marketers are putting out a product that many if not most weed buyers perceive to be of a quality comparable to store bought, and they are formidable competitors to legal sellers on price because they aren't subject to taxes, licensing, or costly regulation.  They also sell to under-21s, who are a substantial part of the market.

Did you take the time to read your link?  It states that legalization has greatly reduced the black market sales in Colorado, which is right now the most mature legal market.  Over time the black armed sales in other legal states should drop accordingly.

There will always be some form of black market, there are still people who distill and distribute moonshine, some people will always be ridiculously cheap and have an aversion to paying taxes.

 Being able to minimize the size of that black market, however, is a success.


But it didn't stop the black market immediately, the way ending Prohibition immediately ended all moonshining.

/cannabevets is concerned
//next up: a Gish Gallop
 
2018-04-17 06:20:45 AM  
I knew a guy that made the coolest pipe out of pink see thru PVC pipe a pipe bowl and the stopper from boxed wine. It worked so well.
 
2018-04-17 06:41:56 AM  
A banana makes a great pipe.

Ok, it did in 1971 or 1972 when I followed the instructions in "Frendz" magazine. The beauty of it was, if you got busted, you could eat the evidence.
 
2018-04-17 06:52:19 AM  

hashtag.acronym: Langdon_777: The Greens in Australia just tried to put forward legalising pot, but the two major parties pulled out the tired old "gateway drug" and "wont someone think of the children" arguments.  Farking dumb farks.

I need to grow my own strain of pot named Gateway Drug.


Then trademark the shiat outta it, and become the world's coolest patent troll! :D
 
2018-04-17 06:57:53 AM  

tirob: Langdon_777: Legalising it just removes the criminals from the equation.

It does no such thing.

http://www.westword.com/marijuana/colo​rados-black-market-for-marijuana-how-b​ig-is-it-9280870

The black marketers are putting out a product that many if not most weed buyers perceive to be of a quality comparable to store bought, and they are formidable competitors to legal sellers on price because they aren't subject to taxes, licensing, or costly regulation.  They also sell to under-21s, who are a substantial part of the market.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-04-17 08:27:42 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Did you take the time to read your link?


Yes.

Your response to my post leads me to believe that *you* didn't read it carefully, however.  And you appear not to have read the post that I answered, in which it was asserted that    [l]egalising [weed] just removes the criminals from the equation.

TuteTibiImperes: It states that legalization has greatly reduced the black market sales in Colorado, which is right now the most mature legal market.


No.  The assertion made in my link was that legalization has "undoubtedly" cut into black market sales.  But the writer of the article gave no figures on how much black market sales have "undoubtedly" been reduced since the start of legal at retail.

TuteTibiImperes: Over time the black armed sales in other legal states should drop accordingly


I'll believe that when I see it.

TuteTibiImperes: There will always be some form of black market, there are still people who distill and distribute moonshine,


1.  True.  2.  Most consumers of spirits will pay a small premium for the taxed product because they don't want to take the risk of imbibing something that contains wood alcohol or antifreeze.  By way of contrast, the weed market, or much of it, doesn't distinguish between the stuff that's on the street and store bought; this is one of the things that continues to make street weed competitive with the pot that's sold in stores.

TuteTibiImperes: Being able to minimize the size of that black market, however, is a success.


Appears to be a minimal "success" so far.
 
2018-04-17 08:32:55 AM  

uttertosh: Stupid, subby? WTF?

It's really not. The part that causes the majority of the health concerns about taking cannabis has been eliminated


The majority?  Really?  I'll buy the idea that users ingest fewer carcinogens from vaping than they do from smoking, but what other health hazards connected with weed use does vaping allegedly alleviate?
 
2018-04-17 08:33:35 AM  

holdmybones: LiberalConservative: Langdon_777: The Greens in Australia just tried to put forward legalising pot, but the two major parties pulled out the tired old "gateway drug" and "wont someone think of the children" arguments.  Farking dumb farks.

Good. They would be more successful if they stuck to medical mj laws only. If people need medical mj they can go get a perscription and then buy a pill form it from a pharmacy. I 100% support this. Treat it as any other medicine. Otherwise if recreationally legal, Australia ends up as 'everyone-be-stoned-out-of-their-mind-​all-the-time-America'. We don't need that nonsense here.

Oh, shut up with your nonsense.


So

Langdon_777: I dont want to be on this planet anymore: LiberalConservative: Langdon_777: The Greens in Australia just tried to put forward legalising pot, but the two major parties pulled out the tired old "gateway drug" and "wont someone think of the children" arguments.  Farking dumb farks.

Good. They would be more successful if they stuck to medical mj laws only. If people need medical mj they can go get a perscription and then buy a pill form it from a pharmacy. I 100% support this. Treat it as any other medicine. Otherwise if recreationally legal, Australia ends up as 'everyone-be-stoned-out-of-their-mind-​all-the-time-America'. We don't need that nonsense here.

 I think a baby ate your dingo there, mate !

Yeah LC lives in the same place I do and we are known as the pot capital of Australia.  Any of us could find pot within 30 minutes if we put our mind to it (rock up to the front bar of any pub.)  Legalising it just removes the criminals from the equation.


If you live here

holdmybones: LiberalConservative: Langdon_777: The Greens in Australia just tried to put forward legalising pot, but the two major parties pulled out the tired old "gateway drug" and "wont someone think of the children" arguments.  Farking dumb farks.

Good. They would be more successful if they stuck to medical mj laws only. If people need medical mj they can go get a prescription and then buy a pill form it from a pharmacy. I 100% support this. Treat it as any other medicine. Otherwise if recreationally legal, Australia ends up as 'everyone-be-stoned-out-of-their-mind-​all-the-time-America'. We don't need that nonsense here.

Oh, shut up with your nonsense.


No.
So you think trying to pass specific medical mj laws are nonsense?
 
2018-04-17 08:35:43 AM  

LiberalConservative: holdmybones: LiberalConservative: Langdon_777: The Greens in Australia just tried to put forward legalising pot, but the two major parties pulled out the tired old "gateway drug" and "wont someone think of the children" arguments. Farking dumb farks.

Good. They would be more successful if they stuck to medical mj laws only. If people need medical mj they can go get a prescription and then buy a pill form it from a pharmacy. I 100% support this. Treat it as any other medicine. Otherwise if recreationally legal, Australia ends up as 'everyone-be-stoned-out-of-their-mind-​all-the-time-America'. We don't need that nonsense here.

Oh, shut up with your nonsense.
Let's tryt that
No.
So you think trying to pass specific medical mj laws are nonsense?


Lets try that again...
No.
So you think trying to pass specific medical mj laws are nonsense?
/not sure what happened, preview looked fine.
 
2018-04-17 08:43:22 AM  

LiberalConservative: LiberalConservative: holdmybones: LiberalConservative: Langdon_777: The Greens in Australia just tried to put forward legalising pot, but the two major parties pulled out the tired old "gateway drug" and "wont someone think of the children" arguments. Farking dumb farks.

Good. They would be more successful if they stuck to medical mj laws only. If people need medical mj they can go get a prescription and then buy a pill form it from a pharmacy. I 100% support this. Treat it as any other medicine. Otherwise if recreationally legal, Australia ends up as 'everyone-be-stoned-out-of-their-mind-​all-the-time-America'. We don't need that nonsense here.

Oh, shut up with your nonsense.
Let's tryt that
No.
So you think trying to pass specific medical mj laws are nonsense?

Lets try that again...
No.
So you think trying to pass specific medical mj laws are nonsense?
/not sure what happened, preview looked fine.


Passing specific MMJ laws is fine.

This...
Otherwise if recreationally legal, Australia ends up as 'everyone-be-stoned-out-of-their-mind-​all-the-time-America'. We don't need that nonsense here.

Is the nonsense of which I speak.
 
2018-04-17 08:47:20 AM  

uttertosh: Stupid, subby? WTF?

It's really not. The part that causes the majority of the health concerns about taking cannabis has been eliminated. It doesn't take a degree in rocket surgery to figure out that's smart.


outlawing methods of ingestion is a good idea to you?
 
2018-04-17 09:00:53 AM  

spleef420: uttertosh: Stupid, subby? WTF?

It's really not. The part that causes the majority of the health concerns about taking cannabis has been eliminated. It doesn't take a degree in rocket surgery to figure out that's smart.

outlawing methods of ingestion is a good idea to you?


I have to agree.  Smoking MJ is about the same as smoking tobacco from a health standpoint.  If parents are allowed to smoke cigarettes in their house with kids, what difference does it make if it's weed?  It doesn't make sense to ban one, but not the other.
 
2018-04-17 09:03:36 AM  

holdmybones: LiberalConservative: LiberalConservative: holdmybones: LiberalConservative: Langdon_777: The Greens in Australia just tried to put forward legalising pot, but the two major parties pulled out the tired old "gateway drug" and "wont someone think of the children" arguments. Farking dumb farks.

Good. They would be more successful if they stuck to medical mj laws only. If people need medical mj they can go get a prescription and then buy a pill form it from a pharmacy. I 100% support this. Treat it as any other medicine. Otherwise if recreationally legal, Australia ends up as 'everyone-be-stoned-out-of-their-mind-​all-the-time-America'. We don't need that nonsense here.

Oh, shut up with your nonsense.
Let's tryt that
No.
So you think trying to pass specific medical mj laws are nonsense?

Lets try that again...
No.
So you think trying to pass specific medical mj laws are nonsense?
/not sure what happened, preview looked fine.

Passing specific MMJ laws is fine.

This...
Otherwise if recreationally legal, Australia ends up as 'everyone-be-stoned-out-of-their-mind-​all-the-time-America'. We don't need that nonsense here.

Is the nonsense of which I speak.


Well, at least we agree on something. There is a common ground here for many people, regardless of recreational stance. Is why the Greens would be better off concentrating on medical mj laws. I also support the current decriminalised status of mj in Australia. Maybe another point we can agree on (maybe).
 
2018-04-17 10:06:49 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-04-17 10:21:56 AM  

spleef420: uttertosh: Stupid, subby? WTF?

It's really not. The part that causes the majority of the health concerns about taking cannabis has been eliminated. It doesn't take a degree in rocket surgery to figure out that's smart.

outlawing methods of ingestion is a good idea to you?


For medical purposes? 100% For recreation? Hell no!

The huge difference is in the impact on one's health, and I don't think that should be compromised on from a medical perspective. That said, I really do feel that folks who toke on their own dime and time should be allowed to get as much bronchitis as they dammed well please!

Don't confuse the two.
 
2018-04-17 10:22:25 AM  

LiberalConservative: holdmybones: LiberalConservative: LiberalConservative: holdmybones: LiberalConservative: Langdon_777: The Greens in Australia just tried to put forward legalising pot, but the two major parties pulled out the tired old "gateway drug" and "wont someone think of the children" arguments. Farking dumb farks.

Good. They would be more successful if they stuck to medical mj laws only. If people need medical mj they can go get a prescription and then buy a pill form it from a pharmacy. I 100% support this. Treat it as any other medicine. Otherwise if recreationally legal, Australia ends up as 'everyone-be-stoned-out-of-their-mind-​all-the-time-America'. We don't need that nonsense here.

Oh, shut up with your nonsense.
Let's tryt that
No.
So you think trying to pass specific medical mj laws are nonsense?

Lets try that again...
No.
So you think trying to pass specific medical mj laws are nonsense?
/not sure what happened, preview looked fine.

Passing specific MMJ laws is fine.

This...
Otherwise if recreationally legal, Australia ends up as 'everyone-be-stoned-out-of-their-mind-​all-the-time-America'. We don't need that nonsense here.

Is the nonsense of which I speak.

Well, at least we agree on something. There is a common ground here for many people, regardless of recreational stance. Is why the Greens would be better off concentrating on medical mj laws. I also support the current decriminalised status of mj in Australia. Maybe another point we can agree on (maybe).


I think the passing of medical laws, and the acknowledgement that there are medicinal and healing qualities, has been key to efforts to decriminalize and legalize both medicinal and recreational weed.It has also helped to reduce the stigma associated with those who enjoy weed.

Decriminalization is a step in the right direction, as probably the biggest detriment of the global prohibition on weed has been the mass imprisonment of (often targeted) generally harmless and otherwise law-abiding citizens. However, it leaves too much grey area for interpretation of whether it's legal to grow, do you have to give it away, how does one obtain it?, is the sale still criminalized? Lots of problems that aren't resolved. Full legalization is the only logical conclusion. Communities in the states don't have to have rec stores (i live in colorado springs, and we have zero), but those who want the tax revenue are free to.

To the original point I took issue with - I live in Colorado (one of our several weed ground zeros), and am a mmj card holder. Of the 20 or so people i regularly interact with, one other person partakes in weed. Of the many people I generally "know" out here, maybe 1/3 smoke/vape/eat sporadically, at best. Anecdotal? Sure as shiat, but you aren't even offering anecdotes on your weird assertion that all of the US wants to be high all the time. Where would one even come up with such a strange idea?
 
2018-04-17 10:23:13 AM  

tirob: uttertosh: Stupid, subby? WTF?

It's really not. The part that causes the majority of the health concerns about taking cannabis has been eliminated

The majority?  Really?  I'll buy the idea that users ingest fewer carcinogens from vaping than they do from smoking, but what other health hazards connected with weed use does vaping allegedly alleviate?


My f*cking asthma.

Get bent, troll.
 
2018-04-17 10:32:25 AM  

klahn: spleef420: uttertosh: Stupid, subby? WTF?

It's really not. The part that causes the majority of the health concerns about taking cannabis has been eliminated. It doesn't take a degree in rocket surgery to figure out that's smart.

outlawing methods of ingestion is a good idea to you?

I have to agree.  Smoking MJ is about the same as smoking tobacco from a health standpoint.  If parents are allowed to smoke cigarettes in their house with kids, what difference does it make if it's weed?  It doesn't make sense to ban one, but not the other.


Except that it isn't. Cannabis isn't carcinogenic.
 
2018-04-17 10:52:07 AM  
Just proves that Pennsylvania lawmakers are more stupid than pot smokers.
What a trip.

here, y'all have earned it
-Yakety Sax- Music
Youtube ZnHmskwqCCQ
 
2018-04-17 10:53:41 AM  

uttertosh: tirob: uttertosh: Stupid, subby? WTF?

It's really not. The part that causes the majority of the health concerns about taking cannabis has been eliminated

The majority?  Really?  I'll buy the idea that users ingest fewer carcinogens from vaping than they do from smoking, but what other health hazards connected with weed use does vaping allegedly alleviate?

My f*cking asthma.

Get bent, troll.


Don't wast your electrons, Tosh. He been folded, spindled, mutilated and bent already.
 
2018-04-17 10:57:39 AM  

holdmybones: I think the passing of medical laws, and the acknowledgement that there are medicinal and healing qualities, has been key to efforts to decriminalize and legalize both medicinal and recreational weed.It has also helped to reduce the stigma associated with those who enjoy weed.

Decriminalization is a step in the right direction, as probably the biggest detriment of the global prohibition on weed has been the mass imprisonment of (often targeted) generally harmless and otherwise law-abiding citizens. However, it leaves too much grey area for interpretation of whether it's legal to grow, do you have to give it away, how does one obtain it?, is the sale still criminalized? Lots of problems that aren't resolved. Full legalization is the only logical conclusion. Communities in the states don't have to have rec stores (i live in colorado springs, and we have zero), but those who want the tax revenue are free to.

To the original point I took issue with - I live in Colorado (one of our several weed ground zeros), and am a mmj card holder. Of the 20 or so people i regularly interact with, one other person partakes in weed. Of the many people I generally "know" out here, maybe 1/3 smoke/vape/eat sporadically, at best. Anecdotal? Sure as shiat, but you aren't even offering anecdotes on your weird assertion that all of the US wants to be high all the time. Where would one even come up with such a strange idea?


Cheers for the civil chat, is cool.
I don't understand the sentiment that mj either has to be criminal schedule 1 or completely legalised. Plenty of middle and rational positions can be taken. So no, I disagree that full legalisation is the logical next step from decriminalisation. That stance is typically taken by full pro-legalisation groups to push their agenda. All that would be needed for a middle ground, as with all laws, is clearly delineated boundaries and limits on what is allowed and isnt allowed. From my experience with friends over the decades (in an essentially decriminalised but still illegal state) users of mj were VERY aware of what is and isnt permitted - almost all ignored the laws however. As to your second point, I see four clear interconnected sources that can very easily give the impressions that there is an "American high culture" (yeah, a poor term); constant media coverage of mj in the past 5 years, vocal spin proponents of recreational use (there are no negatives to mj, maaaaan), the actually legalisation in a number of states, and longterm portrayal of drug culture in entertainment industry. Though I acknowledge that the impression from those sources may not be the reality, this is how one would come to that strange idea.
 
2018-04-17 11:30:41 AM  
Cannabevets thinks that his friend made a leap from cannabis to meth, and then that caused him to knife murder someone. Two opposite effect drugs. It wasn't cannabis that caused him to use meth, he had a predisposition to it, like he had for murder. Cannabis had nothing to do with any of it.
 
2018-04-17 11:36:13 AM  

anuran: klahn: spleef420: uttertosh: Stupid, subby? WTF?

It's really not. The part that causes the majority of the health concerns about taking cannabis has been eliminated. It doesn't take a degree in rocket surgery to figure out that's smart.

outlawing methods of ingestion is a good idea to you?

I have to agree.  Smoking MJ is about the same as smoking tobacco from a health standpoint.  If parents are allowed to smoke cigarettes in their house with kids, what difference does it make if it's weed?  It doesn't make sense to ban one, but not the other.

Except that it isn't. Cannabis isn't carcinogenic.


Actually, I'm betting that most, if not all, burnt plant matter contains carcinogens of some sort.

I mean, you're 100% correct that cannabinoids aren't carcinogens, but that's kind of the whole point of the article - that removing the 'burning' from the equation by vaping, actually mitigates the vast majority of the negative health effects that smoking is associated with. (Besides the carcinogens, there are CO and CO2 inhalation concerns, plus all the nasty airway blockages associated with smoke inhalation).

Seriously - vaping is SO much better a method of inhaling cannabinoids. I made the switch myself years ago, and haven't looked back.
 
2018-04-17 11:38:45 AM  

LiberalConservative: holdmybones: I think the passing of medical laws, and the acknowledgement that there are medicinal and healing qualities, has been key to efforts to decriminalize and legalize both medicinal and recreational weed.It has also helped to reduce the stigma associated with those who enjoy weed.

Decriminalization is a step in the right direction, as probably the biggest detriment of the global prohibition on weed has been the mass imprisonment of (often targeted) generally harmless and otherwise law-abiding citizens. However, it leaves too much grey area for interpretation of whether it's legal to grow, do you have to give it away, how does one obtain it?, is the sale still criminalized? Lots of problems that aren't resolved. Full legalization is the only logical conclusion. Communities in the states don't have to have rec stores (i live in colorado springs, and we have zero), but those who want the tax revenue are free to.

To the original point I took issue with - I live in Colorado (one of our several weed ground zeros), and am a mmj card holder. Of the 20 or so people i regularly interact with, one other person partakes in weed. Of the many people I generally "know" out here, maybe 1/3 smoke/vape/eat sporadically, at best. Anecdotal? Sure as shiat, but you aren't even offering anecdotes on your weird assertion that all of the US wants to be high all the time. Where would one even come up with such a strange idea?

Cheers for the civil chat, is cool.
I don't understand the sentiment that mj either has to be criminal schedule 1 or completely legalised. Plenty of middle and rational positions can be taken. So no, I disagree that full legalisation is the logical next step from decriminalisation. That stance is typically taken by full pro-legalisation groups to push their agenda. All that would be needed for a middle ground, as with all laws, is clearly delineated boundaries and limits on what is allowed and isnt allowed. From my experience with friends over the decades ( ...


While I don't disagree entirely regarding your points around why it must be totally legal or totally illegal....this is America and we do things in backwards, horrible ways. And, with anything, once there is attention to be had around a topic, the most vocal and involved will find a way to push their agenda. I'm pro legalization because I don't see a legislative alternative, but also because I don't think there is a huge public danger around removing legal barriers to gain access to weed (with restrictions).

Regarding media and "pot culture" - my take is that young people (18-30) are the target audience for both modern media and the recreational (and by extension in non-rec states) pot businesses. Media and film respond to what's happening in American society, and the increasing tidal shift in legislation and public opinion have put the topic in the mainstream news, which allows more leeway to have casual reference and use in film and tv. Also, many of our shows are based in states that permit medicinal and/or rec weed, so it's really not seen as a big deal or risque.

All of that said, I suppose I can see how one might think we're far more accepting as a country than we are. There is still a huge stigma around the topic, and it will be years before it's on level ground with even alcohol. I still am not comfortable stepping out to smoke when with my in-laws, and would never think of ducking out to get high in the middle of the day while with my kids, but most people I know have no issue enjoying a beer or a few margaritas while with their children. Most people are ok in theory with weed, but are still old fashioned in how they react in reality. Even in Colorado, where it's been legal on one level or another for years.

Good talk. Civility isn't dead just yet.
 
2018-04-17 11:44:12 AM  

LiberalConservative: So no, I disagree that full legalisation is the logical next step from decriminalisation


So, you don't want people to be prosecuted just for taking it, but you do want drug cartels to be the ONLY people to control the production and profits?

Can you justify this to me please?
 
2018-04-17 11:54:42 AM  

holdmybones: Good talk. Civility isn't dead just yet.


Yes, good civil chat... wait we are on fark right? :P
Did read your entire post. The mention of 'restrictions' does intrigue me. Do you mean in terms of safety restrictions?
While we have different views on level of legality, it was great to get to understand another's view. America... well... complicated I guess. Seems a polarised society on so many facets.
 
2018-04-17 12:16:55 PM  

uttertosh: LiberalConservative: So no, I disagree that full legalisation is the logical next step from decriminalisation

So, you don't want people to be prosecuted just for taking it, but you do want drug cartels to be the ONLY people to control the production and profits?

Can you justify this to me please?


Sure. Well maybe explain is a better word. I grew up in a city where it was illegal yet not criminal to grow up to 12 plants for personal use, no selling permitted. If you were caught with a small amount on your person you were given a fine. Do anything more and you face criminal prosecution. The laws have since changed, they are now down to one plant for personal use (which i think is too low). I expect such concessions for growing for private use were designed to help reduce the ability for organised crime to control a market. The idea that full legalisation is the only way to prevent organised crime from having a monopoly is... narrow thinking. And in my opinion, the stance that full recreational legalisation is the only option is also narrow thinking. Whole range of other options should be tabled and explored; but this doesn't seem to be occurring in America, where black/white and all or nothing appears more popular.
 
2018-04-17 12:33:07 PM  

LiberalConservative: holdmybones: Good talk. Civility isn't dead just yet.

Yes, good civil chat... wait we are on fark right? :P
Did read your entire post. The mention of 'restrictions' does intrigue me. Do you mean in terms of safety restrictions?
While we have different views on level of legality, it was great to get to understand another's view. America... well... complicated I guess. Seems a polarised society on so many facets.


Restrictions, to me, are things like age limits (18 or 21 - i'm up for a debate), regulation around growing practices and to mitigate against moldy or otherwise toxic product making it to market and environmental impact, packaging styles and warnings, registering dispensaries with the state (or State), evaluating limits and accurate ways to measure impairment while driving, rules against intake while driving....I'm sure I'm missing some. These are all considerations that I feel aren't covered by a decriminalized but not-quite-legal state.

We are incredibly polarized - although, this single topic is somewhat above the fray currently, and seems to be enjoying support from both parties. Maybe the only topic getting such a response right now.

And, to your point in the response to someone else that I can see while I type this (personal use laws historically in Australia) - I would have to see what "limited legalization/decriminalization" would look like on paper to gauge my opinion. I would immediately point out that in America's urban centers, having individuals growing 12 (or even 3-4) plants for personal use isn't really feasible. There isn't the space to safely grow, and the energy consumption would almost certainly work against many more worthwhile goals of reducing energy consumption (not to mention potentially devastating fires). Allowing registered dispensaries to serve as the provider of small amounts of weed seems harmless to me - if people are ok cultivating small amounts on their own, anyway. I guess I fail to see a difference between hands-off decriminalization and legal recreation.
 
2018-04-17 12:47:00 PM  

holdmybones: LiberalConservative: holdmybones: Good talk. Civility isn't dead just yet.

Yes, good civil chat... wait we are on fark right? :P
Did read your entire post. The mention of 'restrictions' does intrigue me. Do you mean in terms of safety restrictions?
While we have different views on level of legality, it was great to get to understand another's view. America... well... complicated I guess. Seems a polarised society on so many facets.

Restrictions, to me, are things like age limits (18 or 21 - i'm up for a debate), regulation around growing practices and to mitigate against moldy or otherwise toxic product making it to market and environmental impact, packaging styles and warnings, registering dispensaries with the state (or State), evaluating limits and accurate ways to measure impairment while driving, rules against intake while driving....I'm sure I'm missing some. These are all considerations that I feel aren't covered by a decriminalized but not-quite-legal state.

We are incredibly polarized - although, this single topic is somewhat above the fray currently, and seems to be enjoying support from both parties. Maybe the only topic getting such a response right now.

And, to your point in the response to someone else that I can see while I type this (personal use laws historically in Australia) - I would have to see what "limited legalization/decriminalization" would look like on paper to gauge my opinion. I would immediately point out that in America's urban centers, having individuals growing 12 (or even 3-4) plants for personal use isn't really feasible. There isn't the space to safely grow, and the energy consumption would almost certainly work against many more worthwhile goals of reducing energy consumption (not to mention potentially devastating fires). Allowing registered dispensaries to serve as the provider of small amounts of weed seems harmless to me - if people are ok cultivating small amounts on their own, anyway. I guess I fail to see a difference ...


Thanks again. Yeah, all reasonable restriction points that I agree would need defining. Ambiguity doesn't help anyone. Your last paragraph does raise points I had not considered. They are interesting and I'll have to ruminate on them.
 
2018-04-17 01:17:58 PM  

uttertosh: tirob: uttertosh: Stupid, subby? WTF?

It's really not. The part that causes the majority of the health concerns about taking cannabis has been eliminated

The majority?  Really?  I'll buy the idea that users ingest fewer carcinogens from vaping than they do from smoking, but what other health hazards connected with weed use does vaping allegedly alleviate?

My f*cking asthma.


Wait a minute.  Are you telling me that smoking weed causes asthma, while vaping it doesn't?

What I meant was that weed use/abuse has been linked to health hazards such as psychosis and brain damage, among others.  Do you know that vaping weed lessens the danger of contracting these diseases compared to smoking it?

anuran: Cannabis isn't carcinogenic.


Oh?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti​c​les/PMC4642772/

johnphantom: Cannabevets thinks that his friend made a leap from cannabis to meth, and then that caused him to knife murder someone. Two opposite effect drugs. It wasn't cannabis that caused him to use meth, he had a predisposition to it, like he had for murder. Cannabis had nothing to do with any of it.


I assume you mean me.  Did you hang out with us back when I was in college?  Your keen psychological insights into my friend would lead me to believe that you must have known him too.

Yeah, they're two opposite effect substances all right.  So are port and nuts, and they go together.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f4c_1​4​45469608

This city is in the heart of CA marijuana growing country.  I had relatives living there until very recently.  Meth use is a huge problem in the area.  See also:

http://www.times-standard.com/article/​NJ/20170204/NEWS/170209924
 
2018-04-17 02:08:54 PM  

anuran: klahn: spleef420: uttertosh: Stupid, subby? WTF?

It's really not. The part that causes the majority of the health concerns about taking cannabis has been eliminated. It doesn't take a degree in rocket surgery to figure out that's smart.

outlawing methods of ingestion is a good idea to you?

I have to agree.  Smoking MJ is about the same as smoking tobacco from a health standpoint.  If parents are allowed to smoke cigarettes in their house with kids, what difference does it make if it's weed?  It doesn't make sense to ban one, but not the other.

Except that it isn't. Cannabis isn't carcinogenic.


Cannabis isn't.  But smoke is extremely carcinogenic.  It doesn't matter what you are burning.  If you are inhaling smoke, you are playing with lung cancer.  This is especially true if you smoke it without a filter.
 
2018-04-17 02:46:35 PM  

tirob: Yeah, they're two opposite effect substances all right.  So are port and nuts, and they go together.


I've never heard of anyone mixing meth in cannabis.
 
2018-04-17 02:53:36 PM  
PA seems like a stupid place.
 
2018-04-17 03:07:51 PM  

johnphantom: tirob: Yeah, they're two opposite effect substances all right.  So are port and nuts, and they go together.

I've never heard of anyone mixing meth in cannabis.


Neither have I.  But people who use one sometimes use the other, too.  Did you read the articles I put up?  Are you familiar with Humboldt County, CA?  It's a place that's overrun with weed.  And meth.
 
2018-04-17 03:23:12 PM  

LiberalConservative: uttertosh: LiberalConservative: So no, I disagree that full legalisation is the logical next step from decriminalisation

So, you don't want people to be prosecuted just for taking it, but you do want drug cartels to be the ONLY people to control the production and profits?

Can you justify this to me please?

Sure. Well maybe explain is a better word. I grew up in a city where it was illegal yet not criminal to grow up to 12 plants for personal use, no selling permitted. If you were caught with a small amount on your person you were given a fine. Do anything more and you face criminal prosecution. The laws have since changed, they are now down to one plant for personal use (which i think is too low). I expect such concessions for growing for private use were designed to help reduce the ability for organised crime to control a market. The idea that full legalisation is the only way to prevent organised crime from having a monopoly is... narrow thinking. And in my opinion, the stance that full recreational legalisation is the only option is also narrow thinking. Whole range of other options should be tabled and explored; but this doesn't seem to be occurring in America, where black/white and all or nothing appears more popular.


Oh! Nice surprise from you. Well, I will surely accept being allowed to grow for personal, and I would be all the better off for that change in the law. I do, however, also love the convenience of the Dutch coffee - shop system, which really does seem very well controlled, and incredibly civil in my experiences when travelling there.

I really am most looking forward to change in the way our police here in Sweden handle cannabis users, and public opinion regarding medical applications and recreation, to become somewhat less fearful and hostile.

Like you say, there is a LOT of ironing out to be done of what is feasible for every nation individually, but I think we can agree that the current method is funding cartels, whilst criminalising regular folks just wanting to relax, and that's horribly unjust.
 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report