I wish that we had this same attitude towards chemicals sprayed on crops where it seems to be everything is fine until proven to be harmful. Yet with weed it is harmful until proven safe. Also, I suspect there is plenty of research on the safety of weed
edit: to all of those arguing that there may be/ are dangers to weed, I don't disagree. How about the fact that I can choose to not ingest weed, I have to eat and it is quite difficult to find disclosures about chemicals sprayed on the food available, and many of these chemical have been researched far less then weed.
GP didn't say research on weed wasn't needed, the point is obvious double standards and that agtech should be - but isn't - this thorough (or more, actually, but that's beside the point). So what is notable here is that this call for research doesn't come from being reasonable, it comes from partiality with plausible deniability.
Studies on it were very hard to do for years because it was a controlled substance. I do enjoy edibles (probably do them once a month) and in my case I am 100% sure it has changed my memory somewhat. I'm ok with that risk because I do enjoy it but I would like to know more about people who have been doing this for decades.
It has been cultivated for yielding extreme levels of THC. It isn't just some weed anymore that induces a small high, it is extremely psychoactive an can easily cause psychosis. Problem is you cannot really determine how much THC you consumed. Your are either stoned or stoned, so high dosages aren't really needed anyway.
I think with legalization you could limit these values to more healthy values again.
You absolutely SHOULD wash everything before you put it in your body, but there are a lot of chemicals that plants can/do absorb that can't be washed off.
Example: RoundUp
RoundUp sprayed onto a field will cause the plants to dry out. Intended purpose: Spray this on the weeds to kill them. Unintended usage: Is your wheat/corn/soybeans still wet because it's raining during harvest? Douse the field in Roundup, and the crop will dry out while still covered in water.
You end up ingesting it, because it's INSIDE the corn/wheat/soybeans. BUT it doesn't end there, think about the thousands of products that the corn/soybeans/wheat gets processed into.
You can't wash a loaf of bread.
Sounds like all good things but I dont see how this will make it through such a divided senate where obstructionism is the de-facto opposition strategy.
Schedule I drugs
— High abuse potential.
— There is no accepted use for these drugs in medical practice.
— They cannot be prescribed.
— Drugs include heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and mescaline.
Schedule II drugs — High potential for abuse and dependence.
— Generally require non-refillable, written prescription.
— Drugs include morphine , codeine , methadone , oxycodone , hydromorphone , meperidine , fentanyl , cocaine...
[1] https://uptowho.com/contents/UTD.htm?35/43/36535?source=see_...
Note: the above is a free version of UpToDate (physician portal that is widely used in the field.)
The same reasoning means the original classification of "high abuse potential" is difficult to overturn as well.
Now, you might offset that by having MORE cannabis business revenue nationally, instead of just in the legalized states, but don't think the IRS isn't getting their piece of the pie already....
Regardless of what states have done, without Federal legalization, marijuana businesses are cut off from most financial products provided by the "mainstream" financial institutions, including aid from the Federal Government during emergencies (e.g. the current pandemic). So this step would be quite impactful.
When Oregon first started its recreational program in 2016, they collected about $20M in taxes [1]. In 2020, it was $133M. Other states are similar. It has a lot to do with $$$, it always does. Politicians sell ideas using emotions, but we have to dig deeper.
[1] https://www.oregon.gov/DOR/programs/gov-research/Documents/F...
I can save $42.50 on my next iphone simply by buying it in the county where my job is, before I head home.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
Just pass a bill removing it from the Schedule 1 list! It's absolutely illogical for it to be on that list.
> limited retail sales transactions at the state level to 10 ounces of cannabis at a time
What's the intent of a rule like that? Prevent one 21 year old from buying a pound for his under-21 friends? I feel like alcohol has proven that this is pretty futile. Is there some other point?
If you're buying more than ten ounces of marijuana at a time, you're buying it for resale. Even a heavy user would have a hard time justifying that large of a purchase.
Despite being legal, illegal pot I believe is still cheaper / in demand in places.
But I look forward to being able to use credit cards with services like Sava. The last time I used a delivery service they could take cash or sketchy apps which link to your debit card.
https://www.marijuanamoment.net/biden-remains-opposed-to-mar...
This is more about nudging the Overton window, declaring that it's something they will consider seriously. They want people to see what such a bill could look like, and what would be in it, to see how they react.
It's possible that the Democrats will pick up a few Senate seats in 2022, making passage more feasible. If so, Biden's veto becomes relevant, but it's also subject to internal party negotiations. They could provide various ways to mitigate his concerns, or simply make clear that it would greatly improve the party's standing.
That's a problem for a couple of years from now, when things will be different. They're just laying the groundwork.
So the word seems appropriate even if part of the familiar venacular.
> States will control the possession, production, or distribution of cannabis, the draft says, while shipping marijuana into states that have not legalized it will be prohibited.
As opposed to the status quo where in principle the federal government could decide to prosecute... shall we say "marijuana market participants"? in states where it is legal.
One somewhat related item -- the federal prohibition of alcohol (Amendment 18) and its repeal (Amendment 21) -- stems from the commerce clause, which enumerates the powers held by the Federal legislative branch: including the regulation of intrastate and interstate commerce. IANAL or a constitutional scholar, so grains of salt.
Fun fact: though the 21st amendment came into being in 1933, Mississippi was one of the last states to repeal a state-wide dry law in 1966. [0]
21?
Haven't we as a society progressed past this pernicious discrimination!
Regulate medical marijuana like any other non-scheduled drug and leave cultural decisions concerning recreational use to the states, where it belongs. Use federal funding stipulations as leverage when needed.
On the other hand, there are methods with which to use weed that confer 0% risk of lung cancer and my anecdotal evidence suggests more and more people are using those methods.
Either way, the tide is clearly turning with so many states refusing to comply with the federal ban, and the federal government refusing to punish those states for it, that it is clear it will happen eventually.
Also, this isn't the 80s-90s. The religious right is much less influential. I could see a bunch of Republicans getting on board with decriminalization if the Democrats phrased it the right way. Unfortunately, they may not want to phrase it the right way and prefer to try to push it through with unfavorable wording just to say the other side is obstructionist.
I personally think the ACA is an awful bill, but I'm pretty alone among Democrats with that opinion.
You don't need to be a cynic, just listen to what they're saying.
And I do think that evangelicals still have quite a stranglehold on the party, but they have more pressing priorities.
Going so far as to hypothesize bad faith in the proposing of a bill like this to make the Republicans look bad.
A ton of Democrats would much rather have seen a very different bill, at least a Medicare-for-all plan, but that was simply not on the table. Others would have preferred a bill with a much freer market, but that wasn't possible either unless they got cross-aisle support, which failed to materialize. Nobody thinks of it as their ideal bill.
Most see it as a marginal improvement over the previous law, because it allows more people to have health insurance. That made it a "big [effing] deal" despite nearly universal criticism.
They tried to declare dispensaries and liquor stores non-essential in CO, and the run on stores caused a couple super spreader events within hours before they reversed their decision. A brewery near by made some awesome glasses that say "Denver Prohibition 3/23/2020 3PM - 3/23/2020 5PM Never Forget".
I smoked it once, and I hated the taste. It left a lingering taste in the back of my throat.
I think its possible some of it is just me getting older? But there are plenty of studies out there which suggest some link here so it wouldn't surprise me.
Alcohol, weed, cigarettes, etc. all do some kind of damage to your body. If anything we should raise cigarettes to 21. And yes, even weed, especially smoking weed, does damage to your body, even if it's massively less than the other two I said.
(And getting drafted... well that should just go away all together).
Guess it shows how much smoking cigarettes has been reduced in society (or how out of touch I am...).
For sugar, what do you actually ban? Added sugar? There's plenty of sugar in fruits, especially when you juice them. How do you enforce this? Seems like a nightmare to figure out.
Caffeine is interesting. It's actually physically addictive. I can't find any studies on long term effects of caffeine in children, though.
And, of course, there's exactly 0 support to do any of that, which can't be ignored. Probably a better use of everyone's time to improve health education.