So it's the biggest import from Mexico still... but the numbers have gone way down since states began legalizing it. Stands to reason more states legalizing would lead to further decreases in how much gets sent, and a national decriminalization (combined with most states setting up licensing for dispensaries) would lead to reducing it to essentially zero.
It makes sense from an economic standpoint. American farms are way more efficient than Mexican farms, it’s one of the few things I can say we are unequivocally the best at. There are some practices we could not engage in, but if we go full Corp farming Cartels literally couldn’t complete. As a point to this. It costs 6 cents to make a pack of smokes, and most of the farming is done in Virginia and the Carolinas, for American production. If we legalize at the fed mj will likely go through a similar state of economics.
Well shit let's get on that.
Also, I read a news story, I wanna say some time in 2016, that RCMP seized a shipment of illegally smuggled fentanyl, and the amount was measured in like multiple kilos, which is enough to kill EVERY PERSON IN CANADA. I may be getting some details wrong but yeah.
I wonder if people have tried to weapons fentanyl. That's gotta be like the most illegal possible thing.
Yes. Russia used it to break a hostage situation and it ended up killing 130 civilians (out of 850 in the theater).
Good Lord... That's absolutely chilling.
I still dont get why they thought hostage taking would work. When, in the past century, has Russia shown that they give a single fuck about their citizens? They used to put them in camps because they liked the wrong paintings. They used to base their entire military around "have the enemy murder our soldiers until they run out of bullets or freeze to death". Russia as a superpower was built on using it's civilians as an expendable resource.
A significant amount of interactions within that subculture are driven by the fact that weed is illegal. The price for weed will drop drastically when it becomes legalized, which will change the culture. For example, you won't have the communal blunt where everyone has to contribute because realistically you should be able to buy a blunt for a couple of bucks at the gas station.
I think the biggest factor that will limit Big Tobacco is that there just isn't enough volume compared to tobacco products.
Not really, it hasn't really truly been a struggle to get weed in like a decade. You have to do some shady shit some times, maybe run into some social awkwardness, but you're doing illegal shit, so shit might get weird. Availability however has not been an issue at least so far as I've heard it from my local pot heads.
No the reason you throw down for a blunt is the same reason you bring a bottle of wine to dinner. Frankly if someone tries to drum that shit out of the culture with some corporate addiction shit I will be pissed.
Its always been more like wine or craft beer or cider when you have the options, and on a bunch of levels because they aren't just different in taste like cigars, they are often different in exact effect as well.
Hmmm... maybe that will be a divide that forms. You'll have your PBR of weed, Just the shwagiest garbage imaginable so you can just smoke a shit load of bad weed (which is actually exactly what you want for certain situations, like kayaking on a river), and then the like far from the tree cider from right down the street here in Salem.
Huh apparently I'm gunna be a weed snob...
I'm envisioning the weed snobs infusing their IPA's with buds and melding with the beer snobs. :P
A significant amount of interactions within that subculture are driven by the fact that weed is illegal. The price for weed will drop drastically when it becomes legalized, which will change the culture. For example, you won't have the communal blunt where everyone has to contribute because realistically you should be able to buy a blunt for a couple of bucks at the gas station.
I think the biggest factor that will limit Big Tobacco is that there just isn't enough volume compared to tobacco products.
Not really, it hasn't really truly been a struggle to get weed in like a decade. You have to do some shady shit some times, maybe run into some social awkwardness, but you're doing illegal shit, so shit might get weird. Availability however has not been an issue at least so far as I've heard it from my local pot heads.
No the reason you throw down for a blunt is the same reason you bring a bottle of wine to dinner. Frankly if someone tries to drum that shit out of the culture with some corporate addiction shit I will be pissed.
Its always been more like wine or craft beer or cider when you have the options, and on a bunch of levels because they aren't just different in taste like cigars, they are often different in exact effect as well.
Hmmm... maybe that will be a divide that forms. You'll have your PBR of weed, Just the shwagiest garbage imaginable so you can just smoke a shit load of bad weed (which is actually exactly what you want for certain situations, like kayaking on a river), and then the like far from the tree cider from right down the street here in Salem.
Huh apparently I'm gunna be a weed snob...
I'm envisioning the weed snobs infusing their IPA's with buds and melding with the beer snobs. :P
Honestly, I'd rather have to fight Phillip Morris lobbyists in DC again in the future rather than Mexican Drug Cartels in any venue now. Doing legalization right would be better than doing it wrong, but doing it at all is still better than today.
+13
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Honestly, I'd rather have to fight Phillip Morris lobbyists in DC again in the future rather than Mexican Drug Cartels in any venue now. Doing legalization right would be better than doing it wrong, but doing it at all is still better than today.
As much as I hate to say it, we have socially past the need for prohibition...this is a job for lobbyists. Now I'll wash my mouth out.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I mean, technically there was never a need for prohibition, and it was lobbyists of the day that got us into the mess
+10
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I mean, technically there was never a need for prohibition, and it was lobbyists of the day that got us into the mess
prohibition of booze did arise in a panic about the effects of alcohol on society, and at the time the panic was actually pretty justified. alcohol consumption was like 3x higher than it is now according to what I've read.
now, obviously prohibition wasn't the best way to combat this but it did seem to contribute to a decline in consumption of alcohol
unlike the prohibition of marijuana which was mainly based in racial panic
I mean, technically there was never a need for prohibition, and it was lobbyists of the day that got us into the mess
prohibition of booze did arise in a panic about the effects of alcohol on society, and at the time the panic was actually pretty justified. alcohol consumption was like 3x higher than it is now according to what I've read.
now, obviously prohibition wasn't the best way to combat this but it did seem to contribute to a decline in consumption of alcohol
unlike the prohibition of marijuana which was mainly based in racial panic
Yeah this. If I recall correctly, the issues with alcohol were exacerbated by the fact that it was difficult to get clean water. So booze tended to be safer to drink. Eventually clean water became much more readily available and cars were invented but everyone just continued to drink their asses off. Things were getting pretty bad so they banned it. Idk whether there was a better way to go about reducing consumption but it seemed to work to an extent.
I did read something the other day about lobbyists being involved in the banning of marijuana but I can't remember where I read it or what industry they lobbied for.
The temperance movement that pushed for prohibition existed almost as long as our country existed, but really gained steam in the early 19th century. Prohibition wasn't just a sudden response to a health crisis but was the culmination of a long existing movement to reduce and then eliminate alcohol consumption in the US.
+6
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
The section on the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 brings up a couple of different industries that have been accused of lobbying to ban it, but the section also makes a convincing argument that those industries would have benefited from continued legal status.
Hearst newspapers railed against the plant, but hemp would have been a cheaper alternative to wood pulp and probably would have saved Hearst a lot of money.
DuPont was accused of trying to ban hemp in order to encourage use of its new synthetic product, nylon. But hemp and nylon fulfill different roles. Nylon was developed as a substitute for silk in clothing, and hemp’s qualities made it more suitable for industrial purposes.
In fact, there doesn’t really appear to be a shady cabal of capitalist greed orchestrating the decades-long march toward cannabis prohibition; just good old fashioned American moralizing and the deep-seated fear that someone, somewhere, was having a good time.
knitdan on
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The section on the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 brings up a couple of different industries that have been accused of lobbying to ban it, but the section also makes a convincing argument that those industries would have benefited from continued legal status.
Hearst newspapers railed against the plant, but hemp would have been a cheaper alternative to wood pulp and probably would have saved Hearst a lot of money.
DuPont was accused of trying to ban hemp in order to encourage use of its new synthetic product, nylon. But hemp and nylon fulfill different roles. Nylon was developed as a substitute for silk in clothing, and hemp’s qualities made it more suitable for industrial purposes.
In fact, there doesn’t really appear to be a shady cabal of capitalist greed orchestrating the decades-long march toward cannabis prohibition; just good old fashioned American moralizing and the deep-seated fear that someone, somewhere, was having a good time.
Specifically, someone, somewhere was having a good time oh and completely coincidentally not white.
Cost reductions are bad for established businesses. It makes it easier for competitors to enter the game while it has little to no effect on profits if competition keeps markets efficient. The increase number of competitors can leave the overall business with the same space but each business individually smaller.
While the effect would normally be seen only with fixed costs. The (in)complexities of finance mean that marginal costs can have a fixed cost component or effect (IE the capital you need to float for the duration of the production process)
This would likely(almost assuredly) have been known academically by economists at the time as well as intuitively by business people.
Buuuut actual estimations suggest that hemp is more expensive to make paper out of than wood. Both due to yield and also due to production cycle. (Hemp is harvested once a year, which means you have to make all your paper in a week or you have to store it for the entire year as you produce)
When I was overseas in the military there was quite a few canabis brews. Not sure they contained any THC or CBD, and they tasted like shit,but it was there.
Stateside, there is a humble county brew or something at yardhouse that is made from cannabis plants, that is quite tasty. And then, there's this, which is my favorite commerial.
I actually was sort of hoping that we'd have a reliable way to test for impairment while driving (medications and otherwise) as part of the legalization effort. There really needs to be a gold standard of what counts as impaired, I don't care if it's from lack sleep, nyquil, sudafed or ayahuasca there's a point at which operating machinery on a loading dock or driving the family car is a danger to the person and others. It's bullshit that if you eat a chocolate on Friday night after work instead of get black out drunk you're putting your job on the line. There's going to have to be something independent of toxicology that measures motor function and hand-eye coordination or something.
What we have now are field sobriety tests, they do a pretty good job but are conducted by humans so subject to error/bias. That's the best we got for now.
I meant more for things like workplace injury where the first thing they do is drug test the forklift driver to see if he's drunk to avoid paying any claims. If hes a safe recreational marijuana user, he's still fucked even if he's currently 100% sober.
I'm hopeful that changes moving forward.
Realistically, until it is 100% legal at the federal level, the company would probably fire them anyway for smoking it at all. Lots of a companies still consider it a fire-able offense to smoke it in your off-time because of it's questionable legality.
A significant amount of interactions within that subculture are driven by the fact that weed is illegal. The price for weed will drop drastically when it becomes legalized, which will change the culture. For example, you won't have the communal blunt where everyone has to contribute because realistically you should be able to buy a blunt for a couple of bucks at the gas station.
I don't know, man. The whole communal blunt thing will more likely go away due to the quality of what is available and why mix when you are toking exactly what you want. I just got my medical marijuana card in Massachusetts and visited my first dispensary. It's like a welcoming center for bud. They have daily menus for you to choose from and describe each strain so you know exactly what you're in for. Hell, the app Leafly describes every strain, the hybrid make ups, where they came from, what to expect, and even will show you which dispensaries near you have that strain (or not if none currently do).
If I have some Moonshine Haze, why would I want to mix it with Grape Ape? Those are two totally different strains with completely different effects. At that point, you might as well get a hybrid. You get to personalize and choose what you want instead of taking whatever is available because your hookup is the only one you have, so get whatever you can. Additionally, I've gone from "Well, let's hold the good stuff for now because we're almost out," to "Meh, I'll just go pick some more up tomorrow at the dispensary." That will be why the communal blunt/joint goes away. There won't be the need for it unless you want to do it. The supply will be more constant and the choices varied.
If beer were illegal, you'd just combine whatever shitty beer you have around and have a party. But if you it's legal, then you have your options and why would you mix a beautiful vanilla porter with a crappy Bud Light?
Le_Goat on
While I agree that being insensitive is an issue, so is being oversensitive.
+1
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
I actually was sort of hoping that we'd have a reliable way to test for impairment while driving (medications and otherwise) as part of the legalization effort. There really needs to be a gold standard of what counts as impaired, I don't care if it's from lack sleep, nyquil, sudafed or ayahuasca there's a point at which operating machinery on a loading dock or driving the family car is a danger to the person and others. It's bullshit that if you eat a chocolate on Friday night after work instead of get black out drunk you're putting your job on the line. There's going to have to be something independent of toxicology that measures motor function and hand-eye coordination or something.
What we have now are field sobriety tests, they do a pretty good job but are conducted by humans so subject to error/bias. That's the best we got for now.
I meant more for things like workplace injury where the first thing they do is drug test the forklift driver to see if he's drunk to avoid paying any claims. If hes a safe recreational marijuana user, he's still fucked even if he's currently 100% sober.
I'm hopeful that changes moving forward.
Realistically, until it is 100% legal at the federal level, the company would probably fire them anyway for smoking it at all. Lots of a companies still consider it a fire-able offense to smoke it in your off-time because of it's questionable legality.
Yes It's true and It's also right way I think.
Part of the issue, I think, is testing. We still don't have a solid, accurate way to test if anyone is currently under the influence (short of leaving out some donuts with a sign that says "Only for stoners"(wow, is it clear enough that I've never actually smoked anything?)), so the best we can do is a, "have you smoked(eaten/dabbed/insert method of application here) in the last ~2 weeks"?
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
I actually was sort of hoping that we'd have a reliable way to test for impairment while driving (medications and otherwise) as part of the legalization effort. There really needs to be a gold standard of what counts as impaired, I don't care if it's from lack sleep, nyquil, sudafed or ayahuasca there's a point at which operating machinery on a loading dock or driving the family car is a danger to the person and others. It's bullshit that if you eat a chocolate on Friday night after work instead of get black out drunk you're putting your job on the line. There's going to have to be something independent of toxicology that measures motor function and hand-eye coordination or something.
What we have now are field sobriety tests, they do a pretty good job but are conducted by humans so subject to error/bias. That's the best we got for now.
I meant more for things like workplace injury where the first thing they do is drug test the forklift driver to see if he's drunk to avoid paying any claims. If hes a safe recreational marijuana user, he's still fucked even if he's currently 100% sober.
I'm hopeful that changes moving forward.
Realistically, until it is 100% legal at the federal level, the company would probably fire them anyway for smoking it at all. Lots of a companies still consider it a fire-able offense to smoke it in your off-time because of it's questionable legality.
Yes It's true and It's also right way I think.
Part of the issue, I think, is testing. We still don't have a solid, accurate way to test if anyone is currently under the influence (short of leaving out some donuts with a sign that says "Only for stoners"(wow, is it clear enough that I've never actually smoked anything?)), so the best we can do is a, "have you smoked(eaten/dabbed/insert method of application here) in the last ~2 weeks"?
ehh... they can blood test for actual thc, so they know more or less if someone has smoked in the last several hours, but the effect is very heavily impacted my tolerance. What would have most people stuck to a couch, may do nothing at all to a heavy smoker.
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
My understanding was that blood test for THC was wildly misunderstood, and varied significantly and not necessarily in a regular relation to the passage of time/amount smoked.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
I actually was sort of hoping that we'd have a reliable way to test for impairment while driving (medications and otherwise) as part of the legalization effort. There really needs to be a gold standard of what counts as impaired, I don't care if it's from lack sleep, nyquil, sudafed or ayahuasca there's a point at which operating machinery on a loading dock or driving the family car is a danger to the person and others. It's bullshit that if you eat a chocolate on Friday night after work instead of get black out drunk you're putting your job on the line. There's going to have to be something independent of toxicology that measures motor function and hand-eye coordination or something.
What we have now are field sobriety tests, they do a pretty good job but are conducted by humans so subject to error/bias. That's the best we got for now.
I meant more for things like workplace injury where the first thing they do is drug test the forklift driver to see if he's drunk to avoid paying any claims. If hes a safe recreational marijuana user, he's still fucked even if he's currently 100% sober.
I'm hopeful that changes moving forward.
Realistically, until it is 100% legal at the federal level, the company would probably fire them anyway for smoking it at all. Lots of a companies still consider it a fire-able offense to smoke it in your off-time because of it's questionable legality.
Yes It's true and It's also right way I think.
Part of the issue, I think, is testing. We still don't have a solid, accurate way to test if anyone is currently under the influence (short of leaving out some donuts with a sign that says "Only for stoners"(wow, is it clear enough that I've never actually smoked anything?)), so the best we can do is a, "have you smoked(eaten/dabbed/insert method of application here) in the last ~2 weeks"?
ehh... they can blood test for actual thc, so they know more or less if someone has smoked in the last several hours, but the effect is very heavily impacted my tolerance. What would have most people stuck to a couch, may do nothing at all to a heavy smoker.
It sucks but wouldn’t be any different than how we treat drinking. Some people can operate just fine with the .08 blood alcohol average but most can’t so we make the cutoff there.
I actually was sort of hoping that we'd have a reliable way to test for impairment while driving (medications and otherwise) as part of the legalization effort. There really needs to be a gold standard of what counts as impaired, I don't care if it's from lack sleep, nyquil, sudafed or ayahuasca there's a point at which operating machinery on a loading dock or driving the family car is a danger to the person and others. It's bullshit that if you eat a chocolate on Friday night after work instead of get black out drunk you're putting your job on the line. There's going to have to be something independent of toxicology that measures motor function and hand-eye coordination or something.
What we have now are field sobriety tests, they do a pretty good job but are conducted by humans so subject to error/bias. That's the best we got for now.
I meant more for things like workplace injury where the first thing they do is drug test the forklift driver to see if he's drunk to avoid paying any claims. If hes a safe recreational marijuana user, he's still fucked even if he's currently 100% sober.
I'm hopeful that changes moving forward.
Realistically, until it is 100% legal at the federal level, the company would probably fire them anyway for smoking it at all. Lots of a companies still consider it a fire-able offense to smoke it in your off-time because of it's questionable legality.
Yes It's true and It's also right way I think.
Part of the issue, I think, is testing. We still don't have a solid, accurate way to test if anyone is currently under the influence (short of leaving out some donuts with a sign that says "Only for stoners"(wow, is it clear enough that I've never actually smoked anything?)), so the best we can do is a, "have you smoked(eaten/dabbed/insert method of application here) in the last ~2 weeks"?
ehh... they can blood test for actual thc, so they know more or less if someone has smoked in the last several hours, but the effect is very heavily impacted my tolerance. What would have most people stuck to a couch, may do nothing at all to a heavy smoker.
It sucks but wouldn’t be any different than how we treat drinking. Some people can operate just fine with the .08 blood alcohol average but most can’t so we make the cutoff there.
yeah, there's not really another way to write those laws, and no smoking and driving is a fairly reasonable law. maybe angle for a medical exception or whatever, but edge cases are going to exist
My understanding was that blood test for THC was wildly misunderstood, and varied significantly and not necessarily in a regular relation to the passage of time/amount smoked.
It is. They are able to test for the presence of THC in your system but there's no agreed upon standard for what constitutes intoxication. So considering how long the stuff stays in your system, habitual users would essentially never be able to legally drive with the test available today.
I actually was sort of hoping that we'd have a reliable way to test for impairment while driving (medications and otherwise) as part of the legalization effort. There really needs to be a gold standard of what counts as impaired, I don't care if it's from lack sleep, nyquil, sudafed or ayahuasca there's a point at which operating machinery on a loading dock or driving the family car is a danger to the person and others. It's bullshit that if you eat a chocolate on Friday night after work instead of get black out drunk you're putting your job on the line. There's going to have to be something independent of toxicology that measures motor function and hand-eye coordination or something.
What we have now are field sobriety tests, they do a pretty good job but are conducted by humans so subject to error/bias. That's the best we got for now.
I meant more for things like workplace injury where the first thing they do is drug test the forklift driver to see if he's drunk to avoid paying any claims. If hes a safe recreational marijuana user, he's still fucked even if he's currently 100% sober.
I'm hopeful that changes moving forward.
Realistically, until it is 100% legal at the federal level, the company would probably fire them anyway for smoking it at all. Lots of a companies still consider it a fire-able offense to smoke it in your off-time because of it's questionable legality.
Yes It's true and It's also right way I think.
Part of the issue, I think, is testing. We still don't have a solid, accurate way to test if anyone is currently under the influence (short of leaving out some donuts with a sign that says "Only for stoners"(wow, is it clear enough that I've never actually smoked anything?)), so the best we can do is a, "have you smoked(eaten/dabbed/insert method of application here) in the last ~2 weeks"?
There's never gonna be a good test.
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
I actually was sort of hoping that we'd have a reliable way to test for impairment while driving (medications and otherwise) as part of the legalization effort. There really needs to be a gold standard of what counts as impaired, I don't care if it's from lack sleep, nyquil, sudafed or ayahuasca there's a point at which operating machinery on a loading dock or driving the family car is a danger to the person and others. It's bullshit that if you eat a chocolate on Friday night after work instead of get black out drunk you're putting your job on the line. There's going to have to be something independent of toxicology that measures motor function and hand-eye coordination or something.
What we have now are field sobriety tests, they do a pretty good job but are conducted by humans so subject to error/bias. That's the best we got for now.
I meant more for things like workplace injury where the first thing they do is drug test the forklift driver to see if he's drunk to avoid paying any claims. If hes a safe recreational marijuana user, he's still fucked even if he's currently 100% sober.
I'm hopeful that changes moving forward.
Realistically, until it is 100% legal at the federal level, the company would probably fire them anyway for smoking it at all. Lots of a companies still consider it a fire-able offense to smoke it in your off-time because of it's questionable legality.
Yes It's true and It's also right way I think.
Part of the issue, I think, is testing. We still don't have a solid, accurate way to test if anyone is currently under the influence (short of leaving out some donuts with a sign that says "Only for stoners"(wow, is it clear enough that I've never actually smoked anything?)), so the best we can do is a, "have you smoked(eaten/dabbed/insert method of application here) in the last ~2 weeks"?
There's never gonna be a good test.
I'd argue that we can't really know that until it gets moved to a higher number on the schedule, so that scientists can actually look at it reasonably. Presumably, once we can start looking at this stuff, we can at least get a test that doesn't pass an atypical smoker while they are lighting up, and fail a heavy user after a month of abstinence.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
I actually was sort of hoping that we'd have a reliable way to test for impairment while driving (medications and otherwise) as part of the legalization effort. There really needs to be a gold standard of what counts as impaired, I don't care if it's from lack sleep, nyquil, sudafed or ayahuasca there's a point at which operating machinery on a loading dock or driving the family car is a danger to the person and others. It's bullshit that if you eat a chocolate on Friday night after work instead of get black out drunk you're putting your job on the line. There's going to have to be something independent of toxicology that measures motor function and hand-eye coordination or something.
What we have now are field sobriety tests, they do a pretty good job but are conducted by humans so subject to error/bias. That's the best we got for now.
I meant more for things like workplace injury where the first thing they do is drug test the forklift driver to see if he's drunk to avoid paying any claims. If hes a safe recreational marijuana user, he's still fucked even if he's currently 100% sober.
I'm hopeful that changes moving forward.
Realistically, until it is 100% legal at the federal level, the company would probably fire them anyway for smoking it at all. Lots of a companies still consider it a fire-able offense to smoke it in your off-time because of it's questionable legality.
Yes It's true and It's also right way I think.
Part of the issue, I think, is testing. We still don't have a solid, accurate way to test if anyone is currently under the influence (short of leaving out some donuts with a sign that says "Only for stoners"(wow, is it clear enough that I've never actually smoked anything?)), so the best we can do is a, "have you smoked(eaten/dabbed/insert method of application here) in the last ~2 weeks"?
There's never gonna be a good test.
I'd argue that we can't really know that until it gets moved to a higher number on the schedule, so that scientists can actually look at it reasonably. Presumably, once we can start looking at this stuff, we can at least get a test that doesn't pass an atypical smoker while they are lighting up, and fail a heavy user after a month of abstinence.
Another issue isn't just lighting up, but now it's also edibles. Those things take 1-2 hours to start taking effect, and then it can last for up to 6 hours afterwards, and it's totally discreet. You cannot smell a damn thing on clothes or breath.
And then you have to throw CBD into the mix. I've taken 1:1 capsules to help with arthritis and I barely felt any psychoactive effect, despite there being 5mg of THC in the capsule. CBD can negate a lot of those effects, so simply going by THC level isn't going to be accurate either.
While I agree that being insensitive is an issue, so is being oversensitive.
I actually was sort of hoping that we'd have a reliable way to test for impairment while driving (medications and otherwise) as part of the legalization effort. There really needs to be a gold standard of what counts as impaired, I don't care if it's from lack sleep, nyquil, sudafed or ayahuasca there's a point at which operating machinery on a loading dock or driving the family car is a danger to the person and others. It's bullshit that if you eat a chocolate on Friday night after work instead of get black out drunk you're putting your job on the line. There's going to have to be something independent of toxicology that measures motor function and hand-eye coordination or something.
What we have now are field sobriety tests, they do a pretty good job but are conducted by humans so subject to error/bias. That's the best we got for now.
I meant more for things like workplace injury where the first thing they do is drug test the forklift driver to see if he's drunk to avoid paying any claims. If hes a safe recreational marijuana user, he's still fucked even if he's currently 100% sober.
I'm hopeful that changes moving forward.
Realistically, until it is 100% legal at the federal level, the company would probably fire them anyway for smoking it at all. Lots of a companies still consider it a fire-able offense to smoke it in your off-time because of it's questionable legality.
Yes It's true and It's also right way I think.
Part of the issue, I think, is testing. We still don't have a solid, accurate way to test if anyone is currently under the influence (short of leaving out some donuts with a sign that says "Only for stoners"(wow, is it clear enough that I've never actually smoked anything?)), so the best we can do is a, "have you smoked(eaten/dabbed/insert method of application here) in the last ~2 weeks"?
There's never gonna be a good test.
I'd argue that we can't really know that until it gets moved to a higher number on the schedule, so that scientists can actually look at it reasonably. Presumably, once we can start looking at this stuff, we can at least get a test that doesn't pass an atypical smoker while they are lighting up, and fail a heavy user after a month of abstinence.
The way cannabinoids metabolize makes it basically impossible to figure out if someone is high right this moment other than via behavior.
Like right now I'm probably chock full of cannabinoids from last night's bowl, but I am severely not high (which is really the true tragedy here). The fact they are there in no way proves active intoxication.
Edit: sorry rereading research, what I'm full of is marijuana metabolites not the actual cannabinoids themselves.
Sleep on
+2
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
Right, but if THC research opens up due to decreased regulations, it might be possible to find less inaccurate methods.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
I actually was sort of hoping that we'd have a reliable way to test for impairment while driving (medications and otherwise) as part of the legalization effort. There really needs to be a gold standard of what counts as impaired, I don't care if it's from lack sleep, nyquil, sudafed or ayahuasca there's a point at which operating machinery on a loading dock or driving the family car is a danger to the person and others. It's bullshit that if you eat a chocolate on Friday night after work instead of get black out drunk you're putting your job on the line. There's going to have to be something independent of toxicology that measures motor function and hand-eye coordination or something.
What we have now are field sobriety tests, they do a pretty good job but are conducted by humans so subject to error/bias. That's the best we got for now.
I meant more for things like workplace injury where the first thing they do is drug test the forklift driver to see if he's drunk to avoid paying any claims. If hes a safe recreational marijuana user, he's still fucked even if he's currently 100% sober.
I'm hopeful that changes moving forward.
Realistically, until it is 100% legal at the federal level, the company would probably fire them anyway for smoking it at all. Lots of a companies still consider it a fire-able offense to smoke it in your off-time because of it's questionable legality.
Yes It's true and It's also right way I think.
Part of the issue, I think, is testing. We still don't have a solid, accurate way to test if anyone is currently under the influence (short of leaving out some donuts with a sign that says "Only for stoners"(wow, is it clear enough that I've never actually smoked anything?)), so the best we can do is a, "have you smoked(eaten/dabbed/insert method of application here) in the last ~2 weeks"?
ehh... they can blood test for actual thc, so they know more or less if someone has smoked in the last several hours, but the effect is very heavily impacted my tolerance. What would have most people stuck to a couch, may do nothing at all to a heavy smoker.
It sucks but wouldn’t be any different than how we treat drinking. Some people can operate just fine with the .08 blood alcohol average but most can’t so we make the cutoff there.
No one can operate a vehicle just fine at .08 though which is mostly where that level comes into play
Right, but if THC research opens up due to decreased regulations, it might be possible to find less inaccurate methods.
Unfortunately, that's not likely to start until the federal government finally decriminalizes it. Almost all of those types of studies come from federal grants, which aren't going to be dished out for something that is still federally a crime. Even for medical dispensaries, they cannot accept credit cards for the same reason. States can provide some funding, but even then, it's going to be minimal compared to a federally backed funding. Not to get political, but none of that will happen for another 3 years at a minimum.
While I agree that being insensitive is an issue, so is being oversensitive.
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
Right, but if THC research opens up due to decreased regulations, it might be possible to find less inaccurate methods.
Unfortunately, that's not likely to start until the federal government finally decriminalizes it. Almost all of those types of studies come from federal grants, which aren't going to be dished out for something that is still federally a crime. Even for medical dispensaries, they cannot accept credit cards for the same reason. States can provide some funding, but even then, it's going to be minimal compared to a federally backed funding. Not to get political, but none of that will happen for another 3 years at a minimum.
I'd argue that we can't really know that until it gets moved to a higher number on the schedule, so that scientists can actually look at it reasonably.
Brody on
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
I actually was sort of hoping that we'd have a reliable way to test for impairment while driving (medications and otherwise) as part of the legalization effort. There really needs to be a gold standard of what counts as impaired, I don't care if it's from lack sleep, nyquil, sudafed or ayahuasca there's a point at which operating machinery on a loading dock or driving the family car is a danger to the person and others. It's bullshit that if you eat a chocolate on Friday night after work instead of get black out drunk you're putting your job on the line. There's going to have to be something independent of toxicology that measures motor function and hand-eye coordination or something.
What we have now are field sobriety tests, they do a pretty good job but are conducted by humans so subject to error/bias. That's the best we got for now.
I meant more for things like workplace injury where the first thing they do is drug test the forklift driver to see if he's drunk to avoid paying any claims. If hes a safe recreational marijuana user, he's still fucked even if he's currently 100% sober.
I'm hopeful that changes moving forward.
Realistically, until it is 100% legal at the federal level, the company would probably fire them anyway for smoking it at all. Lots of a companies still consider it a fire-able offense to smoke it in your off-time because of it's questionable legality.
Yes It's true and It's also right way I think.
Part of the issue, I think, is testing. We still don't have a solid, accurate way to test if anyone is currently under the influence (short of leaving out some donuts with a sign that says "Only for stoners"(wow, is it clear enough that I've never actually smoked anything?)), so the best we can do is a, "have you smoked(eaten/dabbed/insert method of application here) in the last ~2 weeks"?
ehh... they can blood test for actual thc, so they know more or less if someone has smoked in the last several hours, but the effect is very heavily impacted my tolerance. What would have most people stuck to a couch, may do nothing at all to a heavy smoker.
It sucks but wouldn’t be any different than how we treat drinking. Some people can operate just fine with the .08 blood alcohol average but most can’t so we make the cutoff there.
No one can operate a vehicle just fine at .08 though which is mostly where that level comes into play
While some of the studies/tests they've done on driving under the influence of marijuana have actually shown some people to drive better.
While I'm not advocating for driving under the influence (though by the current standards I guess I'm guilty of it) the way the drug impacts your faculties as compared to other drugs like alcohol is quite different. I've also seen a doctor recommend a dosage of CBD for a woman I know that had great anxiety commuting back and forth on the highway each day.
I actually was sort of hoping that we'd have a reliable way to test for impairment while driving (medications and otherwise) as part of the legalization effort. There really needs to be a gold standard of what counts as impaired, I don't care if it's from lack sleep, nyquil, sudafed or ayahuasca there's a point at which operating machinery on a loading dock or driving the family car is a danger to the person and others. It's bullshit that if you eat a chocolate on Friday night after work instead of get black out drunk you're putting your job on the line. There's going to have to be something independent of toxicology that measures motor function and hand-eye coordination or something.
What we have now are field sobriety tests, they do a pretty good job but are conducted by humans so subject to error/bias. That's the best we got for now.
I meant more for things like workplace injury where the first thing they do is drug test the forklift driver to see if he's drunk to avoid paying any claims. If hes a safe recreational marijuana user, he's still fucked even if he's currently 100% sober.
I'm hopeful that changes moving forward.
Realistically, until it is 100% legal at the federal level, the company would probably fire them anyway for smoking it at all. Lots of a companies still consider it a fire-able offense to smoke it in your off-time because of it's questionable legality.
Yes It's true and It's also right way I think.
Part of the issue, I think, is testing. We still don't have a solid, accurate way to test if anyone is currently under the influence (short of leaving out some donuts with a sign that says "Only for stoners"(wow, is it clear enough that I've never actually smoked anything?)), so the best we can do is a, "have you smoked(eaten/dabbed/insert method of application here) in the last ~2 weeks"?
ehh... they can blood test for actual thc, so they know more or less if someone has smoked in the last several hours, but the effect is very heavily impacted my tolerance. What would have most people stuck to a couch, may do nothing at all to a heavy smoker.
It sucks but wouldn’t be any different than how we treat drinking. Some people can operate just fine with the .08 blood alcohol average but most can’t so we make the cutoff there.
No one can operate a vehicle just fine at .08 though which is mostly where that level comes into play
While some of the studies/tests they've done on driving under the influence of marijuana have actually shown some people to drive better.
While I'm not advocating for driving under the influence (though by the current standards I guess I'm guilty of it) the way the drug impacts your faculties as compared to other drugs like alcohol is quite different. I've also seen a doctor recommend a dosage of CBD for a woman I know that had great anxiety commuting back and forth on the highway each day.
There are whole classes of drugs that people can legally drive while taking despite mental and physical effects. A cynical person might say that’s because they wouldn’t be marketable otherwise bc driving = ability to work in much of the US.
+2
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
I actually was sort of hoping that we'd have a reliable way to test for impairment while driving (medications and otherwise) as part of the legalization effort. There really needs to be a gold standard of what counts as impaired, I don't care if it's from lack sleep, nyquil, sudafed or ayahuasca there's a point at which operating machinery on a loading dock or driving the family car is a danger to the person and others. It's bullshit that if you eat a chocolate on Friday night after work instead of get black out drunk you're putting your job on the line. There's going to have to be something independent of toxicology that measures motor function and hand-eye coordination or something.
What we have now are field sobriety tests, they do a pretty good job but are conducted by humans so subject to error/bias. That's the best we got for now.
I meant more for things like workplace injury where the first thing they do is drug test the forklift driver to see if he's drunk to avoid paying any claims. If hes a safe recreational marijuana user, he's still fucked even if he's currently 100% sober.
I'm hopeful that changes moving forward.
Realistically, until it is 100% legal at the federal level, the company would probably fire them anyway for smoking it at all. Lots of a companies still consider it a fire-able offense to smoke it in your off-time because of it's questionable legality.
Yes It's true and It's also right way I think.
Part of the issue, I think, is testing. We still don't have a solid, accurate way to test if anyone is currently under the influence (short of leaving out some donuts with a sign that says "Only for stoners"(wow, is it clear enough that I've never actually smoked anything?)), so the best we can do is a, "have you smoked(eaten/dabbed/insert method of application here) in the last ~2 weeks"?
ehh... they can blood test for actual thc, so they know more or less if someone has smoked in the last several hours, but the effect is very heavily impacted my tolerance. What would have most people stuck to a couch, may do nothing at all to a heavy smoker.
It sucks but wouldn’t be any different than how we treat drinking. Some people can operate just fine with the .08 blood alcohol average but most can’t so we make the cutoff there.
No one can operate a vehicle just fine at .08 though which is mostly where that level comes into play
While some of the studies/tests they've done on driving under the influence of marijuana have actually shown some people to drive better.
While I'm not advocating for driving under the influence (though by the current standards I guess I'm guilty of it) the way the drug impacts your faculties as compared to other drugs like alcohol is quite different. I've also seen a doctor recommend a dosage of CBD for a woman I know that had great anxiety commuting back and forth on the highway each day.
There are whole classes of drugs that people can legally drive while taking despite mental and physical effects. A cynical person might say that’s because they wouldn’t be marketable otherwise bc driving = ability to work in much of the US.
Maybe we should just let the cars do the driving.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Right, but if THC research opens up due to decreased regulations, it might be possible to find less inaccurate methods.
So the thing is that testing is the one thing we actually have reasonable research on with weed, because law enforcement has been mighty interested in that research being done.
Digging back in on some reading, what actually hangs out for the month is the metabolites left behind by weed. This is what gets caught via urinalysis and hair follicle testing. Blood testing goes straight for THC levels which is acctually more accurate on an hour to hour basis, but in chronic users can still pull false positives from as far out as 24 hours. This is what is generally used in the case of workplace accidents. What it doesn't help is stuff like roadside stops.
I think the major hurdle there is what concentration necessarily indicates intoxication on that blood test. That's probably the variable that needs figuring out...
I_volunteer_as_tribute.gif
Sleep on
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
Right, but if THC research opens up due to decreased regulations, it might be possible to find less inaccurate methods.
So the thing is that testing is the one thing we actually have reasonable research on with weed, because law enforcement has been mighty interested in that research being done.
Digging back in on some reading, what actually hangs out for the month is the metabolites left behind by weed. This is what gets caught via urinalysis and hair follicle testing. Blood testing goes straight for THC levels which is acctually more accurate on an hour to hour basis, but in chronic users can still pull false positives from as far out as 24 hours. This is what is generally used in the case of workplace accidents. What it doesn't help is stuff like roadside stops.
I guess my point was that if it doesn't help with roadside stops, it also doesn't help your employer know if you are currently high, or just smoke a lot at home.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Posts
I still dont get why they thought hostage taking would work. When, in the past century, has Russia shown that they give a single fuck about their citizens? They used to put them in camps because they liked the wrong paintings. They used to base their entire military around "have the enemy murder our soldiers until they run out of bullets or freeze to death". Russia as a superpower was built on using it's civilians as an expendable resource.
I'm envisioning the weed snobs infusing their IPA's with buds and melding with the beer snobs. :P
That started about five years ago.
prohibition of booze did arise in a panic about the effects of alcohol on society, and at the time the panic was actually pretty justified. alcohol consumption was like 3x higher than it is now according to what I've read.
now, obviously prohibition wasn't the best way to combat this but it did seem to contribute to a decline in consumption of alcohol
unlike the prohibition of marijuana which was mainly based in racial panic
Yeah this. If I recall correctly, the issues with alcohol were exacerbated by the fact that it was difficult to get clean water. So booze tended to be safer to drink. Eventually clean water became much more readily available and cars were invented but everyone just continued to drink their asses off. Things were getting pretty bad so they banned it. Idk whether there was a better way to go about reducing consumption but it seemed to work to an extent.
I did read something the other day about lobbyists being involved in the banning of marijuana but I can't remember where I read it or what industry they lobbied for.
The section on the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 brings up a couple of different industries that have been accused of lobbying to ban it, but the section also makes a convincing argument that those industries would have benefited from continued legal status.
Hearst newspapers railed against the plant, but hemp would have been a cheaper alternative to wood pulp and probably would have saved Hearst a lot of money.
DuPont was accused of trying to ban hemp in order to encourage use of its new synthetic product, nylon. But hemp and nylon fulfill different roles. Nylon was developed as a substitute for silk in clothing, and hemp’s qualities made it more suitable for industrial purposes.
In fact, there doesn’t really appear to be a shady cabal of capitalist greed orchestrating the decades-long march toward cannabis prohibition; just good old fashioned American moralizing and the deep-seated fear that someone, somewhere, was having a good time.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Specifically, someone, somewhere was having a good time oh and completely coincidentally not white.
While the effect would normally be seen only with fixed costs. The (in)complexities of finance mean that marginal costs can have a fixed cost component or effect (IE the capital you need to float for the duration of the production process)
This would likely(almost assuredly) have been known academically by economists at the time as well as intuitively by business people.
Buuuut actual estimations suggest that hemp is more expensive to make paper out of than wood. Both due to yield and also due to production cycle. (Hemp is harvested once a year, which means you have to make all your paper in a week or you have to store it for the entire year as you produce)
When I was overseas in the military there was quite a few canabis brews. Not sure they contained any THC or CBD, and they tasted like shit,but it was there.
Stateside, there is a humble county brew or something at yardhouse that is made from cannabis plants, that is quite tasty. And then, there's this, which is my favorite commerial.
Yes It's true and It's also right way I think.
If I have some Moonshine Haze, why would I want to mix it with Grape Ape? Those are two totally different strains with completely different effects. At that point, you might as well get a hybrid. You get to personalize and choose what you want instead of taking whatever is available because your hookup is the only one you have, so get whatever you can. Additionally, I've gone from "Well, let's hold the good stuff for now because we're almost out," to "Meh, I'll just go pick some more up tomorrow at the dispensary." That will be why the communal blunt/joint goes away. There won't be the need for it unless you want to do it. The supply will be more constant and the choices varied.
If beer were illegal, you'd just combine whatever shitty beer you have around and have a party. But if you it's legal, then you have your options and why would you mix a beautiful vanilla porter with a crappy Bud Light?
Part of the issue, I think, is testing. We still don't have a solid, accurate way to test if anyone is currently under the influence (short of leaving out some donuts with a sign that says "Only for stoners"(wow, is it clear enough that I've never actually smoked anything?)), so the best we can do is a, "have you smoked(eaten/dabbed/insert method of application here) in the last ~2 weeks"?
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
ehh... they can blood test for actual thc, so they know more or less if someone has smoked in the last several hours, but the effect is very heavily impacted my tolerance. What would have most people stuck to a couch, may do nothing at all to a heavy smoker.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
It sucks but wouldn’t be any different than how we treat drinking. Some people can operate just fine with the .08 blood alcohol average but most can’t so we make the cutoff there.
yeah, there's not really another way to write those laws, and no smoking and driving is a fairly reasonable law. maybe angle for a medical exception or whatever, but edge cases are going to exist
It is. They are able to test for the presence of THC in your system but there's no agreed upon standard for what constitutes intoxication. So considering how long the stuff stays in your system, habitual users would essentially never be able to legally drive with the test available today.
There's never gonna be a good test.
I'd argue that we can't really know that until it gets moved to a higher number on the schedule, so that scientists can actually look at it reasonably. Presumably, once we can start looking at this stuff, we can at least get a test that doesn't pass an atypical smoker while they are lighting up, and fail a heavy user after a month of abstinence.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
And then you have to throw CBD into the mix. I've taken 1:1 capsules to help with arthritis and I barely felt any psychoactive effect, despite there being 5mg of THC in the capsule. CBD can negate a lot of those effects, so simply going by THC level isn't going to be accurate either.
The way cannabinoids metabolize makes it basically impossible to figure out if someone is high right this moment other than via behavior.
Like right now I'm probably chock full of cannabinoids from last night's bowl, but I am severely not high (which is really the true tragedy here). The fact they are there in no way proves active intoxication.
Edit: sorry rereading research, what I'm full of is marijuana metabolites not the actual cannabinoids themselves.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
No one can operate a vehicle just fine at .08 though which is mostly where that level comes into play
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
While some of the studies/tests they've done on driving under the influence of marijuana have actually shown some people to drive better.
While I'm not advocating for driving under the influence (though by the current standards I guess I'm guilty of it) the way the drug impacts your faculties as compared to other drugs like alcohol is quite different. I've also seen a doctor recommend a dosage of CBD for a woman I know that had great anxiety commuting back and forth on the highway each day.
There are whole classes of drugs that people can legally drive while taking despite mental and physical effects. A cynical person might say that’s because they wouldn’t be marketable otherwise bc driving = ability to work in much of the US.
Maybe we should just let the cars do the driving.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
So the thing is that testing is the one thing we actually have reasonable research on with weed, because law enforcement has been mighty interested in that research being done.
Digging back in on some reading, what actually hangs out for the month is the metabolites left behind by weed. This is what gets caught via urinalysis and hair follicle testing. Blood testing goes straight for THC levels which is acctually more accurate on an hour to hour basis, but in chronic users can still pull false positives from as far out as 24 hours. This is what is generally used in the case of workplace accidents. What it doesn't help is stuff like roadside stops.
I think the major hurdle there is what concentration necessarily indicates intoxication on that blood test. That's probably the variable that needs figuring out...
I_volunteer_as_tribute.gif
I guess my point was that if it doesn't help with roadside stops, it also doesn't help your employer know if you are currently high, or just smoke a lot at home.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain