Marijuana: The Ultimate Reefer Madness Poll

[Boots]

3words

Big pharma,
Lobbies.

Although weed wasn't going up against big pharma when it was originally banned. But it's definitely kept it out "legally" of most of the population.

I don't smoke as i don't need it... only maybe once every year ++++ in a social situation, but i can see and have heard the medical uses that can replace and fix so many issues that are treated in such a ****** way.

"Get x prescription to combat the effects of y prescription which was given to you because of z symptom" and between having the synthesized chemicals of companies with wishy-washy morals at best or using an "organic" plant with fire?! I think the choice isn't too difficult for most people.

So much more research around micro-dosing and testimonies are coming out, the public will get interested in it and it's whether the gov't wants it to be done in a safe(r) manner or illegally from sketchy people lol

Always interesting when pot is a schedule 1 drug in the US aka no medical benefits but the patented drug Marinol (a drug that uses the active compound in pot) is readily prescribed by doctors instead of cannabis. Really makes you think of how things 'll get some medical value when you can put a patent on it and get some income.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[LePhillou]

Always interesting when pot is a schedule 1 drug in the US aka no medical benefits but the patented drug Marinol (a drug that uses the active compound in pot) is readily prescribed by doctors instead of cannabis. Really makes you think of how things 'll get some medical value when you can put a patent on it and get some income.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Money

Always

Talks

 

[Roadghost]

So I was going through the checkout and picked this "special issue" up on a whim. Reading through the lines later I became appalled at just how bad journalism has become. They go through a dubious history of the weed in USA with unreferenced, unsupported histories about the villains who conspired to outlaw it. As you peruse the pages one thing becomes quite clear: marijuana is becoming a huge industry and Time wants a cut of the advertising cash. They pour accolades on the "trailblazers" who are bringing about its legalization, interviews with predicted billionaires already rich. "Gone are the days when..." blah, blah, blah. It reads at times like it was written by someone who missed the boat years ago, who never realized that pot was available in high school as easily as picking up a pack of smokes. Time does make a valid argument about the uselessness of all the people incarcerated for possessing pot, but overall I found myself quickly disinterested in articles that are not really news. They've left out the "think of the children" gang likely for fear of offending the business interests. If you find this issue of Time informative you're likely the kid who lived a very "Arthur Peabody" controlled, insular life. I had no idea so many people fell off the boat and ended up writing for a living.

 

[Boots]

Did they make the whole "back in the day pot used to have lower THC" argument as well

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Roadghost]

Did they make the whole "back in the day pot used to have lower THC" argument as well

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

They mainly fudge together a history of Marijuana in the U.S. then go on to talk about who is legalizing it, then they talk about who is making it and its medicinal uses. The main medicinal ingredient is cannabidiol (CBD) and it does work on some illnesses, that's fair enough. A lot of it is anecdotal though. The reader is left to trust the writers, something I don't like to do with journalists anymore. This is all about the great things pot can do, how it's great that it has been legalized, yet you can't help but think that Time is grooming potential advertisers for some big contracts. It reads like a sales brochure.

 

[Boots]

Not marijuana, but big news
[video=youtube;j8_Da2Tx-j8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8_Da2Tx-j8[/video]

 

[Boots]

Some more great news: The Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act

 

[IbbadMurtaza]

When 22400 people get arrested over a plant, I think it's safe to say that many police care.

There are a lot of important issues in the world, yes. But one of the greatest injustices is a government taking your liberty away from being able to do what you may with your own body. It's not about getting stoned on a Saturday night with a bowl of doritos in front of you talking about a philosophical subject; it's about reclaiming your liberty to do what you want with your body. It's about getting rid of the stigma surrounding those who use illegal drugs. It's not about the plant anymore, it's the principle that the government instills when they indirectly say "you, a responsible adult, cannot do this with your own body, despite the fact that you harm no one else but yourself".

What an injustice it is when you are treated like a child who cannot make rational decisions for yourself. To say there are much more important issues skims over the fact that your basic principles as a rational adult are not taken seriously. To me, that's one of the most important issues we face.

Lastly, this is about shifting from a predominately emotionally based legal system to a science/rational based legal system. Why the hell is pot, mushrooms, LSD, DMT etc illegal when you can't harm yourself on them? Why are they illegal when science has shown that pot helps people with many disorders, that mushrooms can aid people who have depression/cluster headaches; that LSD helps those with terminal illnesses cope with their inevitable and near death? The science shows these drugs are not as bad as they are made out to be by the gov't, yet they are still illegal. We need more laws based on science, not primitive notions of emotionally charged laws that clearly haven't prevented anyone from doing drugs.

I agree with you, but the problem comes in when people consume marijuana and operate a vehicle. This time, they're not only causing harm to their body, but also endangering the lives of others.


Rev ON!

 

[Boots]

I agree with you, but the problem comes in when people consume marijuana and operate a vehicle. This time, they're not only causing harm to their body, but also endangering the lives of others.


Rev ON!

I don't mean to sound like I'm defending that, but that's barely as problematic as people make it out to be. Anecdotal alert: Probably 99 percent of my friends who drive high are perfectly normal, if anything more cautious. Don't know if I've said it before on this thread, but I actually wish most people drove like my friends when they are high, there'd probably be less accidents.


Much of the general public likes to put drunk driving and driving high in the same category. I think that's ridiculous. They operate on different receptors of the brain and it's pretty clear that the receptors which alcohol act on inhibit ones ability to drive on a physiological level (think balance, coordination etc). And you don't have these issues under moderate doses of pot.

 

[JP0160]

Just to add my $0.02 because the poll is closed, I smoked for the past 14 years but recently have switched to vaporizing shatter or phoenix tears or honey oil. Its quick and discreet, hardly any smell and virtually no smoke. I get my meds in oral syringes for precise dosing, squeeze a little onto my vape coil, screw the top on and I'm good to carry it around and have it whenever I need it without anyone the wiser. 3 or 4 puffs to get me going in the morning, and one or 2 whenever I need to top up. I used to smoke for fun but with the incredibly potent stuff you can get now I've tossed all my back pain meds and gotten off my anxiety scrip and replaced both with quality medical grade concentrates.

I agree with the driving penalties, and think the age restriction should be at LEAST 19.

 

[Iceman]

I agree with you, but the problem comes in when people consume marijuana and operate a vehicle. This time, they're not only causing harm to their body, but also endangering the lives of others.
There laws to deal with impaired driving already in place.

Rev ON!

Really no different than alcohol. Does everyone who drinks drive drunk? Same for pot. Legalizing pot does not mean that we'll have high drivers everywhere.

Sent from my SM-A500W using Tapatalk

 

[Joe Bass]

I heard somewhere that 1 in 4 teenagers have been in a car where the driver was high. Probably heard it on the radio. Has to be true because I haven't read it on the Internet yet.
That ratio is pretty high imo. I mean, it's not 4 out of 5 dentist type numbers, but still.

Sent from my purple GTAMotorcycle.com mobile app

 

[Iceman]

I heard somewhere that 1 in 4 teenagers have been in a car where the driver was high. Probably heard it on the radio. Has to be true because I haven't read it on the Internet yet.
That ratio is pretty high imo. I mean, it's not 4 out of 5 dentist type numbers, but still.

Sent from my purple GTAMotorcycle.com mobile app

And how many in a car where the driver has drank a drink or two? Every coin has a flip side.

Sent from my SM-A500W using Tapatalk

 

[Roadghost]

I don't mean to sound like I'm defending that, but that's barely as problematic as people make it out to be. Anecdotal alert: Probably 99 percent of my friends who drive high are perfectly normal, if anything more cautious. Don't know if I've said it before on this thread, but I actually wish most people drove like my friends when they are high, there'd probably be less accidents.


Much of the general public likes to put drunk driving and driving high in the same category. I think that's ridiculous. They operate on different receptors of the brain and it's pretty clear that the receptors which alcohol act on inhibit ones ability to drive on a physiological level (think balance, coordination etc). And you don't have these issues under moderate doses of pot.

This is 100% true. Scientifically the driving while stoned argument doesn't hold up. Marijuana is a head high. Booze is a body high. Marijuana effects a certain segment of the brain. Alcohol inhibits your blood's ability to carry oxygen throwing off your coordination and balance by impairing your muscles and brain. The before and after tests of subjects doing a driving test on pot were clearly set up for propaganda purposes. Look for a lot of this to get blown out of the water over the next few years. I don't believe the impairment argument will stand up to a legal test once the facts are in.

 

[Boots]

I wish they'd do a study here on a closed course of operating a vehicle on pot. Doubt they would because I feel like they'd know the results would come back in pots favour and the last thing they'd wanna do is propagate that it's good to get high and drive.



Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Boots]

I heard somewhere that 1 in 4 teenagers have been in a car where the driver was high. Probably heard it on the radio. Has to be true because I haven't read it on the Internet yet.
That ratio is pretty high imo. I mean, it's not 4 out of 5 dentist type numbers, but still.

Sent from my purple GTAMotorcycle.com mobile app

I feel like it might even be higher than that to be honest. Maybe when I wasn't a teenage but now it seems to be 90 percent or more have been in the car with a high driver.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[PLau]

I don't mean to sound like I'm defending that, but that's barely as problematic as people make it out to be. Anecdotal alert: Probably 99 percent of my friends who drive high are perfectly normal, if anything more cautious. Don't know if I've said it before on this thread, but I actually wish most people drove like my friends when they are high, there'd probably be less accidents.


Much of the general public likes to put drunk driving and driving high in the same category. I think that's ridiculous. They operate on different receptors of the brain and it's pretty clear that the receptors which alcohol act on inhibit ones ability to drive on a physiological level (think balance, coordination etc). And you don't have these issues under moderate doses of pot.

Key point here is "moderate doses of pot", as well as an individual's tolerance.

As much as you want to argue that a high driver is better than a drunk driver, if we're comparing one competent driver to another, there is no arguing that a sober driver is a better driver than a drunk, high, or otherwise impaired driver.

Just keep it off the streets altogether - wouldn't have any issue with laws similar to drunk driving laws - question then becomes how will they enforce it and where will they draw the line?

Just to add my $0.02 because the poll is closed, I smoked for the past 14 years but recently have switched to vaporizing shatter or phoenix tears or honey oil. Its quick and discreet, hardly any smell and virtually no smoke. I get my meds in oral syringes for precise dosing, squeeze a little onto my vape coil, screw the top on and I'm good to carry it around and have it whenever I need it without anyone the wiser. 3 or 4 puffs to get me going in the morning, and one or 2 whenever I need to top up. I used to smoke for fun but with the incredibly potent stuff you can get now I've tossed all my back pain meds and gotten off my anxiety scrip and replaced both with quality medical grade concentrates.

I agree with the driving penalties, and think the age restriction should be at LEAST 19.

Not sure if it's because I'm the user, but I feel that vaporized shatter smells even less than people who vape flavored oils.

 

[Boots]

By moderate I mean anything less than a strong edible/a dab hit.

Even then to some people who use often that might not even affect them enough to impair their driving. Which is why I don't agree with how they're going to determine whether someone's DUI or not.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[raginduck]

I wish they'd do a study here on a closed course of operating a vehicle on pot. Doubt they would because I feel like they'd know the results would come back in pots favour and the last thing they'd wanna do is propagate that it's good to get high and drive.



Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

there are enough studies done already to know to answer. Driving while high can not be compared to driving drunk.. unless ofcoarse you're looking at revenue generation.
With the new proposed laws... regular heavy smokers will probably be over the limit even if they haven't smoked in a days...
The only good thing about legalization IMO.... my guy dropped his prices and will drop them more next year to stay in business.
I will never pay taxes on it!

 

[Boots]

Anyone here into research chems?

This came in the other day (100 percent legal) And if this isn't a testament to how much of an epic failure the war on drugs is, i don't know what is.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk