News:

TESTAMONIAL:  "I was still a bit rattled by the spectacular devastation."

Main Menu

Paid to smoke Pot

Started by Adios, July 28, 2010, 05:25:08 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Adios

Quote from: Jenne on July 28, 2010, 06:55:38 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 28, 2010, 06:49:14 PM
Quote from: Jenne on July 28, 2010, 06:45:21 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 28, 2010, 06:40:12 PM
Quote from: Jenne on July 28, 2010, 06:22:04 PM
...possibly more paranoid, depending...

Paranoia isn't necessarily a bad thing, if people are actually out to get you.

THEY IS!  THEY IS!

Well, when they can take time off of Idol and cheez curls to do so...

I'd much prefer that to alcohol. At least Cannabis doesn't cause violent tendencies. Pot smokers aren't likely to go out and commit domestic abuse while high. Alcohol on the other hand...

Now, the anti-pot-legalization crowd will tell you the stats say that pot users aren't all that responsible, either.  As in a drain on society since they eat but don't produce, and the hallicunations can make them do stuff they wouldn't normally do, like letting kids drown (the original premise of the OP) and running them over while driving. 

Substance abuse is substance abuse, imo, as I'm coming to find out.  The relative safety of the actual substance tends to be in the hand of the user, though certainly some are definitely more fatal than others.

huh?

Jenne

Woops, here I was conflating the other fread (the Russian kids dying one)...lol.

MAH BAD

Adios

Quote from: Jenne on July 28, 2010, 06:58:24 PM
Woops, here I was conflating the other fread (the Russian kids dying one)...lol.

MAH BAD

:lulz:

AFK

Quote from: Jenne on July 28, 2010, 06:55:38 PM
Now, the anti-pot-legalization crowd will tell you the stats say that pot users aren't all that responsible, either.  As in a drain on society since they eat but don't produce, and the hallicunations can make them do stuff they wouldn't normally do, like letting kids drown (the original premise of the OP) and running them over while driving.  

Substance abuse is substance abuse, imo, as I'm coming to find out.  The relative safety of the actual substance tends to be in the hand of the user, though certainly some are definitely more fatal than others.

You rang?  Actually, I would've pointed out that more and more people are becoming poly-drug users.  While there are certainly people who smoke pot but don't drink and people who drink but don't smoke pot, I think if you could Venn-diagram if, you'd find the overlap to be huge.  

Also, it's interesting this came up.  This morning I was hanging out with a couple of colleagues in the field and we pretty much have resigned ourselves to the fact that pot will be legal sometime in the not to distant future.  Maybe the next 5 to 10 years.  The ball game is going to change completely.  The messaging to kids will have to be drastically different.  And we all agreed, at least here in Maine, that this should be taxed from here until tomorrow.

RWHN,
-card carrying member of anti-pot legalization crowd AND tax them until they bleed conglomerate.  
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

Adios

Quote from: RWHN on July 28, 2010, 07:02:33 PM
Quote from: Jenne on July 28, 2010, 06:55:38 PM
Now, the anti-pot-legalization crowd will tell you the stats say that pot users aren't all that responsible, either.  As in a drain on society since they eat but don't produce, and the hallicunations can make them do stuff they wouldn't normally do, like letting kids drown (the original premise of the OP) and running them over while driving.  

Substance abuse is substance abuse, imo, as I'm coming to find out.  The relative safety of the actual substance tends to be in the hand of the user, though certainly some are definitely more fatal than others.

You rang?  Actually, I would've pointed out that more and more people are becoming poly-drug users.  While there are certainly people who smoke pot but don't drink and people who drink but don't smoke pot, I think if you could Venn-diagram if, you'd find the overlap to be huge.  

Also, it's interesting this came up.  This morning I was hanging out with a couple of colleagues in the field and we pretty much have resigned ourselves to the fact that pot will be legal sometime in the not to distant future.  Maybe the next 5 to 10 years.  The ball game is going to change completely.  The messaging to kids will have to be drastically different.  And we all agreed, at least here in Maine, that this should be taxed from here until tomorrow.

RWHN,
-card carrying member of anti-pot legalization crowd AND tax them until they bleed conglomerate.  

Are you guys already working on changing the message to the kids?

AFK

Not officially.  I think there is brainstorming going on here and there.  But I can tell you this is the thing that will be giving us heartburn for the next few years.  On a certain level, I think it might almost be better to legalize it with the obvious age-limit ala alcohol.  Medical marijuana puts it in this grey area where it's not quite legal, but yet, it is called "medical" marijuana.  Which means it involves a doctor who wears a white coat and has a degree so it must be okay, right? 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

Kai

So, we give them alcohol, because people are going to become addicted to some substance regardless of what we do, and we choose alcohol because it's already the standard, and it's better than making everything illegal because then they'd just choose worse alternatives.

If the options are,

1) illegalize everything and fail to solve addiction and drug violence

2) legalize alcohol only, because
  a) It's already standard fare, and
  b) it's better than some other alternatives
  c) some people have addictive tendency regardless of the outcome

it sounds like a false dilemma, with a less than optimal conclusion.

Not that I want to turn this thread into another pot vs anti-pot thread because frankly we've hashed (ha) and re-hashed (haha) this so many times and are completely incapable of having a rational discussion about it around here. Even (maybe especially) with having an expert on adolescent addiction on board.

Was I clear enough about that? Do I need to bold the type stronger?
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish

Cramulus

I'll be very interested to see how it develops. Would any of the work you guys [RWHN and co] have done with pharmaceutical abuse be able to carry over to pot? While it is being used medicinally, people don't think of it in the same class as ritalin, adderall, etc...

Jenne

Quote from: RWHN on July 28, 2010, 07:08:11 PM
Not officially.  I think there is brainstorming going on here and there.  But I can tell you this is the thing that will be giving us heartburn for the next few years.  On a certain level, I think it might almost be better to legalize it with the obvious age-limit ala alcohol.  Medical marijuana puts it in this grey area where it's not quite legal, but yet, it is called "medical" marijuana.  Which means it involves a doctor who wears a white coat and has a degree so it must be okay, right? 

The sticking point with the mj legalization (and I think it has a long way to go to get completely legal in a lot of ways, mostly because it's more of a "state" vs. "federal" issue, and the states like CA that are legalizing it are fighting on their own home turf to administer their own laws with the DEA) will be what you described above.

The interesting fight to me, right now, is the small farmer vs. industrialization of pot growing debate.  It's a hotter topic than "legalize vs. decriminalize" issue that the media seem stuck on.

Adios

Quote from: RWHN on July 28, 2010, 07:08:11 PM
Not officially.  I think there is brainstorming going on here and there.  But I can tell you this is the thing that will be giving us heartburn for the next few years.  On a certain level, I think it might almost be better to legalize it with the obvious age-limit ala alcohol.  Medical marijuana puts it in this grey area where it's not quite legal, but yet, it is called "medical" marijuana.  Which means it involves a doctor who wears a white coat and has a degree so it must be okay, right? 

I am a drunk and I drink to sleep. I am strongly considering asking my doctor for a prescription for pot so I can replace alcohol with it. So I guess I kind of have a foot in both camps.

AFK

Quote from: Cramulus on July 28, 2010, 07:11:49 PM
I'll be very interested to see how it develops. Would any of the work you guys [RWHN and co] have done with pharmaceutical abuse be able to carry over to pot? While it is being used medicinally, people don't think of it in the same class as ritalin, adderall, etc...

I dunno.  Maybe with younger kids, but I don't know if it would be as successful with high school and older.  Just because of the cultural history of pot in this country.  Pot has decades of history and mythos behind it that the Rx drugs really don't have.  Rx drugs have never really had that level of mainstream acceptance that pot has had.  Hopefully the people who hold the purse-strings get really proactive and start throwing out some funding so we can research this, pilot some programs in the states with medical marijuana laws, so we can get it "right" from the beginning.  
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

AFK

Here's an interesting piece from the RAND Corporation about the potential impact of legalization on the price of pot in California:

http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2010/legalization-would-cut.html

They think it could fall as much as 80 percent if the measure goes through which would put the price at roughly $1.50 per joint. 

Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

Jenne

Apparently, pot has already fallen, though, to pre-medical mj prices due to the shitty economy.  Spending time up north changed my view on this whole thing somewhat.  Because apparently, a large part of mom-n-pop business IS the growing of now-legitimate pot.  Mixed in with the illegal, of course.

AFK

Quote from: Kai on July 28, 2010, 07:10:03 PM
So, we give them alcohol, because people are going to become addicted to some substance regardless of what we do, and we choose alcohol because it's already the standard, and it's better than making everything illegal because then they'd just choose worse alternatives.

If the options are,

1) illegalize everything and fail to solve addiction and drug violence

2) legalize alcohol only, because
  a) It's already standard fare, and
  b) it's better than some other alternatives
  c) some people have addictive tendency regardless of the outcome

it sounds like a false dilemma, with a less than optimal conclusion.

Not that I want to turn this thread into another pot vs anti-pot thread because frankly we've hashed (ha) and re-hashed (haha) this so many times and are completely incapable of having a rational discussion about it around here. Even (maybe especially) with having an expert on adolescent addiction on board.

Was I clear enough about that? Do I need to bold the type stronger?

I don't think the bolded is true.  That is, it doesn't have to be true.  Individuals pre-disposed to addiction (nature OR nurture) don't have to be predestined to a future that involves dependency on a substance.  That is where we need to advocate for adequate levels of treatment services in our communities so that these people can have help to either head that off, or to combat it.  There are evidence-based treatment modalities that can help these people live a substance-free life. 
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

Kai

Quote from: RWHN on July 28, 2010, 07:29:24 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 28, 2010, 07:10:03 PM
So, we give them alcohol, because people are going to become addicted to some substance regardless of what we do, and we choose alcohol because it's already the standard, and it's better than making everything illegal because then they'd just choose worse alternatives.

If the options are,

1) illegalize everything and fail to solve addiction and drug violence

2) legalize alcohol only, because
  a) It's already standard fare, and
  b) it's better than some other alternatives
  c) some people have addictive tendency regardless of the outcome

it sounds like a false dilemma, with a less than optimal conclusion.

Not that I want to turn this thread into another pot vs anti-pot thread because frankly we've hashed (ha) and re-hashed (haha) this so many times and are completely incapable of having a rational discussion about it around here. Even (maybe especially) with having an expert on adolescent addiction on board.

Was I clear enough about that? Do I need to bold the type stronger?

I don't think the bolded is true.  That is, it doesn't have to be true.  Individuals pre-disposed to addiction (nature OR nurture) don't have to be predestined to a future that involves dependency on a substance.  That is where we need to advocate for adequate levels of treatment services in our communities so that these people can have help to either head that off, or to combat it.  There are evidence-based treatment modalities that can help these people live a substance-free life. 

I just meant in the sense that I don't want the usual parties to jump in and do a disservice to this thread by making it into the pot vs anti-pot argument.

I agree with your statement. Isn't there more we could do, legislatively, to combat abuse and addiction at the base level? Because I have a feeling that the current caffeine+/alcohol+21/everything_else--  isn't optimal.
If there is magic on this planet, it is contained in water. --Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey

Her Royal Majesty's Chief of Insect Genitalia Dissection
Grand Visser of the Six Legged Class
Chanticleer of the Holometabola Clade Church, Diptera Parish