• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Can we talk about marijuana?

I was just thinking out loud maybe that is part of the reason why there is apprehension to legalizing marijuana. I can drink a few beers and not be altered. Without any kind of regulation, it looks like the same can not be said about marijuana.

Another honest question for those in support of legalizing marijuana....are you in favor of production being regulated and standardized? My general sense for most is no.

-Mike

actually good questions

I think we all understand that each person will have different tolerances, so I am not going to spend any time addressing that
I did mention, earlier, that I did support decriminalization for medicinal purposes, so let's set that question aside for the moment, and address regulation


right now, we have a local woman who has become a standing joke. She maintains an ingrown toenail so she can have a marijuana prescription for the pain. I am really not kidding. I could not make anything that ridiculous up. Anyway, she uses her prescription to allow her the legal allowance to grow her own "medicine" This she sells for profit, that she does not pay taxes on. This would not be so bad under normal circumstances, but she collects welfare. She gets food stamps, and a housing allowance. All she does is sit at home, get high, and sell her pot, while taxpayers pay her bills
can you think of a better reason to regulate marijuana? A loophole in CA law makes her lifestyle legal.

My own personal opinion is that there should be a conditional decriminalization. I think there should be a permit required to have any live marijuana plants. I think $50 would be a good price, to cover the paperwork. I think anyone with any violent crime, a felony criminal history, or an impaired driving conviction should be rendered ineligible. I think it should be taxed like cigarettes or alcohol. I think the taxes should go to treatment facilities for long term body damage do to smoking. I think cultivation should be limited to property zoned for agg use, and should be no smaller than a 10 acre parcel, with a limited number of plants per person (just to keep the derelicts from trashing homes they rent..I have been a landlord. druggies are the worst)
 
fingerbun said:
In Australia, at least, alcohol kind of isn't standardised, in that I can buy wine or beer of different strengths.

The same is true in the USA. There are standards and regulations to follow during the production process to ensure those alcohol levels are not too high.

-Mike
 
So yes, your guess that some apprehension might be because of the uncertainty of how high one might get is definitely a possibility; but IME, the people who are against legalizing it aren't against it for this reason. It usually has to do with issues of morality and ethics.

Personally I'm confused about legalizing it, but I do think it's partly a moral / ethical argument. How much right does society have to interfere with a person's choices? How much responsibility does society have to protect someone from themselves, or to prevent them from doing harm to others?

All based on some agreed position as to how harmful it is (or is not), what the dangers are (or are not), and how it compares to other drugs, legal and illegal.

Surely if dope usage were more predictable it would have bearing on those moral arguments.
 
Hi. I started smoking as a teenager, not often, maybe once a month. I then put it aside whilst I served in the military for six years. When I left the military I started working as a musician and almost everyone I was working with was smoking. I used to enjoy being stoned and decided to make an informed decision about wether or not to take it up again. I read about the history of it's use in various cultures, studied the source material quoted by both sides of the argument and lastly read various accounts of why it was first criminalised. Nine years later I have more than one business, thirteen employees, a happy family life and I am booked solid for the next six months with my music. I also smoke cannabis about five times a week. Just for the record I do not drink any more or do any other drugs apart from coffee.
The deciding factor for me in choosing to make cannabis a part of my life was the discovery of the endocannabinoid system in our bodies. Dr Robert Melamede has done some great work in researching and making public this natural system, and if you care to google his research or watch some of his videos on YouTube there is some great information available.
To take the science regarding cannabinoids to an extreme, if you believe cannabis is harmful and don't wish to be hypocritical then you are condemning yourself to life where you cannot have warm baths or showers, should stay away from yoghurt, definitely not eat chocolate, and if you have a baby in your family and you believe cannabinoids are harmful then guess what, no breastmilk for them.
In closing, I have never read a scientific study showing negative effects from cannabis that has been able to have the results replicated in another study, and I have never read a study showing positive effects without finding other studies that back up the results.
You can either keep your head in the sand or find out the facts from the source material.
 
regulation and taxation are foregone conclusions. The sooner smokers accept this, the sooner decriminalization processes will resume
It is commonly accepted that 2/3 of Americans do not use marijuana. That voting majority will not allow legalization without seeing personal gain. They have to reason to do that. If the smokers hold fast to zero regulation it will never be legalized, and the current group that are eating away at the current laws will take the privileged away one step at a time

Right now, In CA, smokers have to willingly give up their second amendment rights just to posses a prescription. They lose the right to posses, own, or transport firearms or ammunition just for having a prescription. That does not mean they have to use marijuana, just having that 215 recommendation on file constitutes an assumption of use.
 
you are doing the same thing as you did last night...I do not know what your compulsion to have the last word stems from, but it does not indicate that you are successful, righteous, or even that your point was accepted. You could have stayed out of this if you did not want to argue, but instead you posted a pic that was meant to insult and elicit a response. There was no reason to post what you did aside from insult or desire for a response. Then to try to the blame for the response you incited just showed a desire to manipulate others. ...
if you really want to stop, just do so. Don't post another thread referring to this, as you did last night, just step away from it

And somehow YOUR responses trying to stir the pot are any different? Telling me I enjoy manipulating others and that I have a compulsion to always get the last word really helps. Also, I didn't know a picture of two bunnies fighting was insulting. It more or less meant to be some humour for this downwardly spiralling thread.
 
And somehow YOUR responses trying to stir the pot are any different? Telling me I enjoy manipulating others and that I have a compulsion to always get the last word really helps. Also, I didn't know a picture of two bunnies fighting was insulting. It more or less meant to be some humour for this downwardly spiralling thread.

what do you really think you are adding to this discussion? Sure you posted pics of bunnies, but the derogatory context was done in such a way as to elicit a response, that you now wish to deny. You have added nothing but a pointless argument, and a belief that somehow getting in the last word makes you the victor in the discussion. That may have worked great for a 13 year old aspiring queen of a trailer park somewhere in the southwest, but it is not really necessary here...
If you do not want to deal with me, then don't. you are welcome to add me to your ignore list and not be compelled to respond to my posts.
 
At the end of the day anecdotal evidence is still anecdotal evidence, and considering it is outlawed almost everywhere you will never get a fair representation of it's true side effects as there is always going to be people who will not answer truthfully due to fear of repercussion.
That, coupled with the fact that there are numerous factors that come into play in regards to usage, the environment in which it is used (both culturally and environmentally), the type of marijuana being used (i.e. naturally grown or hydroponic) and last but certainly not the least the individual all make it almost impossible to judge its impact correctly.
 
part of the problem is that it has become exponentially more potent in the time since CA has deemed it legal for medicinal use. The people who say they used it in the 60 and 70s have absolutely no idea what it is like now. That means that the side effects are much greater as well. From a scientific standpoint the latest harvest of Cronic (nickname for the highest potency marijuana) contains 50-70% more harmful carcinogens then tobacco. Those who claim to have smoked for years, have not smoked this...
part of the problem is the federal law. because marijuana is still classified as a section one intoxicant, it is against federal law to spend taxpayer money to study the harmful effects. All the current studies are privately funded, for marijuana promotion. Since there is more money in sales than treatment, the results are questionable at best, and outright lies at worst.
To be really honest, this is actually a good argument for limited decriminalization
 
Lee H said:
part of the problem is that it has become exponentially more potent in the time since CA .......
......Since there is more money in sales than treatment, the results are questionable at best, and outright lies at worst.
To be really honest, this is actually a good argument for limited decriminalization

Hi lee. Good to hear your point of view, and I agree with you in that I would love to see more studies done and with the results made public and put through peer review. I have to say though that the information I have found on the subject contradicts some of what you wrote in your post. If you could pass on the source of your information it would be appreciated.
First is the supposed increase in potency. We hear in the mass media claims that cannabis today is anywhere from ten times more potent and upwards than it was in the 60's and 70's. This is a straight put fallacy, and if it were true it would be a horticultural miracle.
Even if it were true, cannabis users do a thing called self-titrating, which basically means they adjust their dosage according to the potency of the cannabis.
In addition, you talk about increased side effects. So you mean smokers today spend more time laughing, eating, making love, listening to and creating great music? And it is even more intense?
Seriously though, if anyone encounters cannabis with the cannabinoids in such a ratio as to make the experience both overwhelming and unpleasant the first time they try it, they simply reduce the amount they have the next time, or avoid that strain/ crop in the future. I have a weekly jam I go to where one of the participants smokes a strain that I won't touch, simply because the two times I had it I felt I wasn't playing as well as normal and didn't enjoy the jam. Solution, I take my own.
As you stated, cannabis when smoked produces many more carcinogens than tobacco. An interesting study on this was done by Dr Tonkin of Harvard. It is worth taking the time to read his work, but to summarize it off the top of my head it showed that cannabis smoke may in fact have a protective effect on the lungs, and when smoked by itself (not mixing it with tobacco) it can be of benefit to asthmatics and people suffering emphysema.
How did you come to the conclusion all studies are privately funded? And how is having independent studies done a bad thing? Are you trying to say the university of madrid's study of the effect of cannabinoids on cancerous cells cannot be trusted because they were funded by a local dealer who just wanted to sell more dope? This studies results mirrored those of a university conducted study in the 70's in the states. Was it the same cartel that funded both?
Again I agree with you that some studies contain outright lies. As stated in a previous post I look for studies that are peer reviewed, have a look at the methodology myself, and try to find studies with similar objectives to see if the results are replicateable. My position on cannabis is based on scientific study, and if further research shows negative effects then I can tell you now I will stop using it, or at the least factor the new information into the equation.
Peace

.
 
seriously... we arent allowed to swear or disagree with each other, but the admission of being a common criminal is perfectly allowed? this forum is so incredibly backwards sometimes. so much for PG.

we want to protect everyone from being offended. well coming into OT and seeing 13 pages of this crap offends ME.
 
seriously... we arent allowed to swear or disagree with each other, but the admission of being a common criminal is perfectly allowed? this forum is so incredibly backwards sometimes. so much for PG.

we want to protect everyone from being offended. well coming into OT and seeing 13 pages of this crap offends ME.

We definitely are allowed to disagree with each other so long as we do so respectfully, and we can even swear on occasion so long as it's nothing offensive or completely obscene.

Likewise, you are allowed to ignore this thread and not read it if it offends you in some way...
 
seriously... we arent allowed to swear or disagree with each other, but the admission of being a common criminal is perfectly allowed? this forum is so incredibly backwards sometimes. so much for PG.

we want to protect everyone from being offended. well coming into OT and seeing 13 pages of this crap offends ME.

I don't think anyone expects us to agree all the time. I see nothing wrong with discussion, in which we do not agree. Often another point of view, makes someone rethink their own opinions
 
Simo...if that was indeed what you were meaning, I'm with you 100%. My apologies if my post appeared to be inciting an argument.

No worries, I'd already typed my reply and everything :D

But I hope NOONE is disputing that someone getting stoned (or drunk or otherwise intoxicated), getting in a car, and killing someone is a problem.

Nope, simply trying to point out that when there is an accident involving an intoxicated driver, it is not the fault of the intoxicant anymore than it is the fault of the car itself.

It is the fault of the individual who gets in the front seat, and makes the decision to turn the key when they really shouldn't, and they know they shouldn't.

I know that you do not WANT to believe this, but I see pot smokers pick fights all the time.
Let me make this clear, so you understand. Bloodshot eyes+ stinking of marijuana= stoned pot smoker. That is not just something that works out occasionally, but all the time. I have been bouncing in bars for longer than some members here have been alive, and after a while picking out drug users is as easy as picking out who uses some type of hair product

It is not a case of not wanting to believe it, it is simply a case of something seeming so far fetched and ludicrous that I cannot even fathom it, and I am moving through a logical process to try and decipher some sort of explanation for the behaviour you have described.

Yes, Bloodshot eyes + Stinking of marijuana = pot smoker.

Now, how do you tell if said pot smoker is drunk? How do you tell if he has taken speed, or meth, or LSD aswell? How do you tell what their background is, whether they are a generally violent person or not? What other issues are going on in their life? What potential psychological disorder they could have?

Do you know where all the normal stoned pot smokers are?? All manner of places, mostly at home, on the couch, playing video games. Not in bars beating up their girlfriends. The people you are talking about sound like the type of people who engage in this sort of behaviour already, and also happen to smoke pot. You are telling me they are either drunk, or trying to sell drugs in order to make enough money to get drunk. This doesn't sound like the average working class citizen.


Now if you claim that pot smokers become violent because of other substances you lose a certain degree of validity. Either marijuana is a gateway drug, and leads to other intoxicants, Pot smokers are prone to mixing intoxicants, or everyone is effected the same, and the idea that it effects everyone differently is invalid. You decide which, but each is a trap

Pot is often heavily mixed with other drugs, do you know why? Because it is practically harmless. It doesn't conflict with many other drugs, and it is a readily accessable drug that a lot of people are familiar with. Most people use it like salt, or spices, add a little bit (or a lot) to your experience for flavour, whether it be LSD, Heroin, MDMA, Benzos whatever, nearly anything you can smoke a joint with and all that will happen is things will get a little more chilled and generally psychedelic.

It isn't pot users who take up other drugs, it is other drug users who smoke pot. And as I said, they mix it because it is safe. Down a few shots while you are on quite a lot of drugs and you'll wind up in hospital at the very least, but you could smoke a whole ounce and chances are you'd still be fine (and probably fall asleep).

I see very little validity to the gateway drug theory other than two reasons, both of them induced by the illegal state of marijuana. One: You buy it from a drug dealer, drug dealers sell other drugs. Thusly, you are exposed to other drugs, and Two: You are lead to believe marijuana is dangerous, will make you crazy, and it sent from the devil, then you smoke it and have a great time. Makes you wonder, what else has the government being lying to you about?

Personally, the gateway drug idea makes no sense to me, mainly because I don't see anything detrimental with responsible use of other drugs either.


Also, for some reason it would appear you are taking the demographic you work with to be somewhat representative of the entire human population. Like I said, most stoners I know don't even go to bars, unless they are gigging.

Can you use marijuana and not get high? Sure I'll look up some info online, just wondering what you all have to say.

Yep. Many first time users get next to no effects, and for a lot of people it takes a fair while for some of the effects of the drug to be noticeable. Like with many other drugs, as your brain learns to recognise the effects (both automatically, and you personally recognising them), it is easier to pick them out.

Another honest question for those in support of legalizing marijuana....are you in favor of production being regulated and standardized? My general sense for most is no.

Yes, definitely. I think you should be able to grow it at home, and even sell it to friends in small quantities just like you can grow your own vegetables and sell them, however it should be produced to quality standards set by the government, and have some sort of standardised dosage information on the packaging.

I think the same for all other drugs. People are dying every day because the drugs they get sold are not what they thought they were, or were not as potent as they should have been, or were cut with god know what. There are two major risks with a lot of drugs in my opinion: 1. You don't know what you are buying, and 2. You might get caught.

Legalising them removes both those risks, and pretty much all it comes down to in order to remain safe after that is to educate yourself on the effects of the drug before you make the decision to take it, which would be printed on the packaging as well as available online etc. take the drugs in a safe environment that you are comfortable with, and be responsible. Don't do anything stupid, or at least don't do anything you wouldn't normally do, and have fun.
 
every time someone has a problem with something someone says, its regarded as trolling and moderators swoop in like the swat team to make sure no one gets upset.

And you coming into this thread and calling it crap probably offends several people, namely those trying to address a social issue in a mature and adult manner. Your point?

theres nothing "adult" about drug use. its childish and stupid. im pretty sure talking about stealing cars or breaking into peoples' houses would get a thread closed. yet, drug use is TOTALLY okay. tired of seeing it. if im going to get infractions for words that arent censored, i dont want to have to see people talking about their illegal drug habits.
 
theres nothing "adult" about drug use. its childish and stupid.

Don't take this as sarcasm or get offended or anything; Personally I am interested to hear your view on the subject, please elaborate. I didn't think there was a person around who would rite off all drug use as "childish and stupid", infact to do so sounds quite childish and stupid in itself, but that is just my opinion. Like I said, I am interested to hear what you have to say.


I mean, I thought most adults drank coffee. They probably take painkillers when they need them to, as well as drink alcohol on occasion and in moderation, and some of them even smoke cigarettes. I'm sure you were taking about ILLEGAL drugs, however many people fail to realise that there is fundamentally no difference between the two aside from the legality.
 
^^^ see, this makes a point I stated earlier.
the above poster (Simo98) is OBVIOUSLY someone who supports marijuana use, but does so using opinion instead of facts.

A perfect example is me stating that I have seen people smoke marijuana and become violent. The poster has no idea what I have seen, but calls it ridiculous. (I am trying to overlook the fact that in doing so is in a sense calling me a liar.)
Then he goes on to say that "normal pot smokers are at home on a couch, and not in bars

Here is the deal. He makes his own assessment of what he believes the "normal" smoker to be the standard by which he wants them judged. He bases his statement on what I have personally seen, as being ridiculous, on his own assessment. Which of course is the assessment of a pot smoker, and therefore subject to personal bias.
In doing this he sets a standard of behavior for all "normal" pot smokers. If there is such a standard and all pot smokers act the same, then all smokers drive and do other things which endanger society while using drugs. If there is no standard of behavior, and people do act upon individual impulses when high, then his assessment of the normal pot smoker is in error, and he therefore cannot claim that my post was ridiculous without contradicting himself. It is either one way or another. Either there is a standard and typical way for all users to act, or it effects each person differently. You do not get to use one argument for one situation, and then change it to support your interests in another. Even by stating that a "normal" smoker acts in a certain way, you admit that there are those who are abnormal. That means that not everyone can be categorized, and therefore you cannot call behavior ridiculous until you have considered every single contingency

Then he goes on to say that marijuana is often mixed with other drugs...This was not something he should have said, at all. This is an admission that marijuana is a gateway drug to harder drugs. If he knows this, and other marijuana smokers know this, he has just stated that marijuana smokers knowingly indulge in the use of harder and more dangerous drugs. If his statement of "normal" behavior supports this, he further hurts the case for marijuana smokers, yet he goes on to say that he sees no validity to the theory that marijuana is a gateway drug. This is yet another contradiction in his own statements, that does nothing but hurt his claim when it is carefully considered

I could go on and on picking this apart, but it is pointless. I think I will give the kid the benefit of the doubt, and believe that he was under the influence when typing that...because the alternative is not encouraging
 
every time someone has a problem with something someone says, its regarded as trolling and moderators swoop in like the swat team to make sure no one gets upset.



theres nothing "adult" about drug use. its childish and stupid. im pretty sure talking about stealing cars or breaking into peoples' houses would get a thread closed. yet, drug use is TOTALLY okay. tired of seeing it. if im going to get infractions for words that arent censored, i dont want to have to see people talking about their illegal drug habits.
Gee, someone more reactionary than me ...