http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2010/07/28/n_pot_weed_marijuana_critic.cnnmoney/?hpt=C2
"Pot Critic" makes living by smoking pot.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
This reminds me. Oakland just became the first city in the US to industrialize pot growing.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iEfyr1l3JEtTrX-S4fmAgRFTfxcwD9H7LR5G0
LOL
I need the Carl Sagan "Smoke Weed Every Day" pic. for this.
I wonder how much that job pays!
http://denverpotcritic.com/
Original Flo cannabis seeds are a Sativa/Indica cross (60% Sativa, 40% Indica) with very Sativa phenotypic characteristics that also matures very early. The large, tight, spear shaped buds are made up of small, densely packed purple calyxes. The plants are taller and like to branch out. Indoors the buds are fully mature by the end of their sixth week. Outdoors the plant is a super producer when multi-harvested over a period of time. The first buds are ripe around the third week of September. About every ten days after that, new buds form and can be harvested through the end of November, if the plant can be kept alive that long. Therefore, Flo is ideal for greenhouse production. The motivational high produced by Flo is quite unique, the flavor is like Nepalese Temple Hash. A most pleasant and enjoyable experience.
They have a WEBSITE! :lulz:
Quote from: Richter on July 28, 2010, 05:49:39 PM
I need the Carl Sagan "Smoke Weed Every Day" pic. for this.
(http://elfwax.com/wp-content/uploads/carl-sagan-smoke-weed-everyday.jpg)
But more seriously, I'm wondering what the world would be like if the drug of choice was hashish and not alcohol.
...possibly more paranoid, depending...
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 28, 2010, 06:00:17 PM
http://denverpotcritic.com/
Original Flo cannabis seeds are a Sativa/Indica cross (60% Sativa, 40% Indica) with very Sativa phenotypic characteristics that also matures very early. The large, tight, spear shaped buds are made up of small, densely packed purple calyxes. The plants are taller and like to branch out. Indoors the buds are fully mature by the end of their sixth week. Outdoors the plant is a super producer when multi-harvested over a period of time. The first buds are ripe around the third week of September. About every ten days after that, new buds form and can be harvested through the end of November, if the plant can be kept alive that long. Therefore, Flo is ideal for greenhouse production. The motivational high produced by Flo is quite unique, the flavor is like Nepalese Temple Hash. A most pleasant and enjoyable experience.
They have a WEBSITE! :lulz:
This is for
medical marijuana? I call bullshit on this entire premise.
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.
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...
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...
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.
TRUF.
I was musing about this with co workers. Sagan, Wilson, Bruce Lee, all prodigious THC consumers as well as high functioning individuals.
I can see a whole host of "People being silly people" effects that will show up regardless of the substance of choice. It would be intersting to see how Angry / Sad / Weird / Philosophical drunk archetypes would traslate into the different substance
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.
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?
Woops, here I was conflating the other fread (the Russian kids dying one)...lol.
MAH BAD
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:
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.
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?
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?
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 (http://lesswrong.com/lw/hu/the_third_alternative/), 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'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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 (http://lesswrong.com/lw/hu/the_third_alternative/), 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.
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 (http://lesswrong.com/lw/hu/the_third_alternative/), 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.
Whoops, sorry Kai, I was referring to the bit in the first sentence of that post that I bolded. Not the bit that you bolded.
Again, I agree with what you said. Was my fault for not understanding your reference.
And to clarify, I'm asking so I can be informed and support beneficial legislation rather than stuff which would be to our collective detriment.
Quote from: Kai on July 28, 2010, 07:43:51 PM
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.
I think there needs to be more of a shift away (but not completely mind you) from law enforcement and towards prevention. Prevention is getting the short straw and there are some programs out there, like the federal grant I'm working on, that do some great work. But it's drops in the bucket. You really can legislate behavior, but you can legislate policies that make it easier for parents and kids to get the support they need to either prevent their kids from getting hooked, or to help them once they are. If we had a better network of prevention and care in this country, we'd make better inroads. Until that happens, our successes are limited to the margins.
Quote from: RWHN on July 28, 2010, 08:02:23 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 28, 2010, 07:43:51 PM
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.
I think there needs to be more of a shift away (but not completely mind you) from law enforcement and towards prevention. Prevention is getting the short straw and there are some programs out there, like the federal grant I'm working on, that do some great work. But it's drops in the bucket. You really can legislate behavior, but you can legislate policies that make it easier for parents and kids to get the support they need to either prevent their kids from getting hooked, or to help them once they are. If we had a better network of prevention and care in this country, we'd make better inroads. Until that happens, our successes are limited to the margins.
Ah, so less, say, arresting people for smoking pot, and more advocating to adolescents the dangers of abuse and addiction. Sort of like teaching proper sexual safety rather than promoting ignorant abstinence.
Quote from: RWHN on July 28, 2010, 08:02:23 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 28, 2010, 07:43:51 PM
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.
I think there needs to be more of a shift away (but not completely mind you) from law enforcement and towards prevention. Prevention is getting the short straw and there are some programs out there, like the federal grant I'm working on, that do some great work. But it's drops in the bucket. You really can legislate behavior, but you can legislate policies that make it easier for parents and kids to get the support they need to either prevent their kids from getting hooked, or to help them once they are. If we had a better network of prevention and care in this country, we'd make better inroads. Until that happens, our successes are limited to the margins.
Please say it ain't DARE!
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 28, 2010, 08:09:33 PM
Quote from: RWHN on July 28, 2010, 08:02:23 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 28, 2010, 07:43:51 PM
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.
I think there needs to be more of a shift away (but not completely mind you) from law enforcement and towards prevention. Prevention is getting the short straw and there are some programs out there, like the federal grant I'm working on, that do some great work. But it's drops in the bucket. You really can legislate behavior, but you can legislate policies that make it easier for parents and kids to get the support they need to either prevent their kids from getting hooked, or to help them once they are. If we had a better network of prevention and care in this country, we'd make better inroads. Until that happens, our successes are limited to the margins.
Please say it ain't DARE!
I don't think the Reverend is talking about failed approaches.
Quote from: Kai on July 28, 2010, 08:08:43 PM
Quote from: RWHN on July 28, 2010, 08:02:23 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 28, 2010, 07:43:51 PM
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.
I think there needs to be more of a shift away (but not completely mind you) from law enforcement and towards prevention. Prevention is getting the short straw and there are some programs out there, like the federal grant I'm working on, that do some great work. But it's drops in the bucket. You really can legislate behavior, but you can legislate policies that make it easier for parents and kids to get the support they need to either prevent their kids from getting hooked, or to help them once they are. If we had a better network of prevention and care in this country, we'd make better inroads. Until that happens, our successes are limited to the margins.
Ah, so less, say, arresting people for smoking pot, and more advocating to adolescents the dangers of abuse and addiction. Sort of like teaching proper sexual safety rather than promoting ignorant abstinence.
That's the spirit of it. I'd focus more on corrections reform and find viable alternatives for non-violent, non-dealing offenders that keep them out of jail. So there should be much less incarceration for these types of offenders and more efforts to link them with services. And I know, not everyone caught with pot is necessarily addicted to it. I think in those cases you could find some innovative approaches be it some kind of educational program, community service, or, just limit the consequence to a fine and send them on their way.
And for education we really don't do zero tolerance anymore. Some religious-based programs probably still do it. But it really wouldn't be a parallel to safe sex either. I think the proper approach is to really address the underlying issues and contributing factors that get kids to start in the first place. Now, most kids become risk takers and rebellious when they become pre-teens and teens, so you can't do anything about that. But, you can address their decision making process and help them to understand how those energies can be misdirected, and how the results can have serious and significant impacts on their future, their friends, and even their loved ones.
Another important area of focus is parents. There need to be more programs to help parents understand how they influence their children and how they can send the wrong messages or how the extent to which they monitor (or don't monitor) their children has an impact.
Quote from: Doktor Charley Brown on July 28, 2010, 08:09:33 PM
Quote from: RWHN on July 28, 2010, 08:02:23 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 28, 2010, 07:43:51 PM
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.
I think there needs to be more of a shift away (but not completely mind you) from law enforcement and towards prevention. Prevention is getting the short straw and there are some programs out there, like the federal grant I'm working on, that do some great work. But it's drops in the bucket. You really can legislate behavior, but you can legislate policies that make it easier for parents and kids to get the support they need to either prevent their kids from getting hooked, or to help them once they are. If we had a better network of prevention and care in this country, we'd make better inroads. Until that happens, our successes are limited to the margins.
Please say it ain't DARE!
No, it isn't DARE!
RWHN, that's the problem I have with the current measure on the ballot for CA this fall. Not enough measures that ensure education is a component of this new law. So while the pro-lil-businessman people are anti-this law because it leaves it up to individual locales to follow it, so the big pot companies (wut?) can come in and swoop up all the profits away from the lil-man-pot-farmer, there's an anti-legalization front that has a valid point as well vis a vis how to clean up the "ok, folks, it's legal now!" mess that will ensue when people start using it and not being responsible about it.
Quote from: Jenne on July 28, 2010, 08:29:06 PM
RWHN, that's the problem I have with the current measure on the ballot for CA this fall. Not enough measures that ensure education is a component of this new law. So while the pro-lil-businessman people are anti-this law because it leaves it up to individual locales to follow it, so the big pot companies (wut?) can come in and swoop up all the profits away from the lil-man-pot-farmer, there's an anti-legalization front that has a valid point as well vis a vis how to clean up the "ok, folks, it's legal now!" mess that will ensue when people start using it and not being responsible about it.
Well, if it makes you feel any better about it, if it passes, you'll at least be a great case study for the rest of us. For better or worse.
Quote from: RWHN on July 28, 2010, 08:30:50 PM
Quote from: Jenne on July 28, 2010, 08:29:06 PM
RWHN, that's the problem I have with the current measure on the ballot for CA this fall. Not enough measures that ensure education is a component of this new law. So while the pro-lil-businessman people are anti-this law because it leaves it up to individual locales to follow it, so the big pot companies (wut?) can come in and swoop up all the profits away from the lil-man-pot-farmer, there's an anti-legalization front that has a valid point as well vis a vis how to clean up the "ok, folks, it's legal now!" mess that will ensue when people start using it and not being responsible about it.
Well, if it makes you feel any better about it, if it passes, you'll at least be a great case study for the rest of us. For better or worse.
You know what they say--we herald what's to come in most of the other states...so yeah, stay tuned.
Quote from: RWHN on July 28, 2010, 07:22:26 PM
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.
Oh man, that's the best news I've heard today! :lulz:
:wink:
Quote from: RWHN on July 28, 2010, 08:23:41 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 28, 2010, 08:08:43 PM
Quote from: RWHN on July 28, 2010, 08:02:23 PM
Quote from: Kai on July 28, 2010, 07:43:51 PM
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.
I think there needs to be more of a shift away (but not completely mind you) from law enforcement and towards prevention. Prevention is getting the short straw and there are some programs out there, like the federal grant I'm working on, that do some great work. But it's drops in the bucket. You really can legislate behavior, but you can legislate policies that make it easier for parents and kids to get the support they need to either prevent their kids from getting hooked, or to help them once they are. If we had a better network of prevention and care in this country, we'd make better inroads. Until that happens, our successes are limited to the margins.
Ah, so less, say, arresting people for smoking pot, and more advocating to adolescents the dangers of abuse and addiction. Sort of like teaching proper sexual safety rather than promoting ignorant abstinence.
That's the spirit of it. I'd focus more on corrections reform and find viable alternatives for non-violent, non-dealing offenders that keep them out of jail. So there should be much less incarceration for these types of offenders and more efforts to link them with services. And I know, not everyone caught with pot is necessarily addicted to it. I think in those cases you could find some innovative approaches be it some kind of educational program, community service, or, just limit the consequence to a fine and send them on their way.
And for education we really don't do zero tolerance anymore. Some religious-based programs probably still do it. But it really wouldn't be a parallel to safe sex either. I think the proper approach is to really address the underlying issues and contributing factors that get kids to start in the first place. Now, most kids become risk takers and rebellious when they become pre-teens and teens, so you can't do anything about that. But, you can address their decision making process and help them to understand how those energies can be misdirected, and how the results can have serious and significant impacts on their future, their friends, and even their loved ones.
Another important area of focus is parents. There need to be more programs to help parents understand how they influence their children and how they can send the wrong messages or how the extent to which they monitor (or don't monitor) their children has an impact.
As I understand, a large proportion of the population either regularly smokes marijuana or has smoked at one time, and this is despite the illegalization. I like your ideas on enforcement; it makes it clear the point is to find and eliminate addiction and abuse rather than demonize the addicts, or even non-addicts who are occasional users. It gets to the heart of the problem: there are people who are addicted to various substances or who may become addicted, and we want to find and help them, and the other mild consequences are one tool in prevention and finding people who need help.
I bring up sexual education because the way it was treated in the past is very similar to the DARE program: misinformation, demonization, scare tactics, and ignorance that lead to poor choices. Abstinence only education doesn't work, because A) people will go ahead and do things anyway and because they're ignorant about the reality they end up being incredibly unsafe and B) When they get to a point in their life when they can finally let loose and explore those boundaries they are incredibly naive and dangerous. Whereas if they receive proper information and not exaggerated scare tactics, as well as information on safety and help if they do get in a bad situation, they are much more likely to make informed and safe decisions. Maybe "safe use" is a less optimal way of going about preventing addiction and it should be abstinence education, but this should be associated with correct and not exaggerated information and definitely no demonization or scare tactics which would prevent people from going for help when they really need it. You may not see drug use go down to zero, but it is so much more likely to decrease drug abuse and addiction, just like teenagers will have sex regardless of what you tell them, but there are lower rates of teen pregnancy and std's from people who receive proper education without demonization. But you know all this. I'm just clarifying for myself.
20+ pages, easy
Quote from: Cain on July 28, 2010, 09:02:52 PM
20+ pages, easy
I actually posted this as a tongue in cheek because a guy is being paid to be a critic by legal growers and to write reports on it.
Of course,as is typical with this board it has been sidetracked into a thread with real content that has me interested as hell.
I HATE YOU ALL! :argh!:
Quote from: Cain on July 28, 2010, 09:02:52 PM
20+ pages, easy
But thankfully, not pot vs anti-pot.
At this point in the game, it really isn't a useful conversation anymore, for my part. I think maybe I've been denying to myself what is inevitable. Granted, I think pot becoming legal is going to be a state by state thing, and will take a lot longer before it goes national. But, I think just looking at certain generations aging out and new generations coming in, it seems almost a no-brainer that there is going to be more acceptance. So, I'm shifting my energies to thinking about how to deal with that new landscape.
Quote from: RWHN on July 28, 2010, 09:20:03 PM
At this point in the game, it really isn't a useful conversation anymore, for my part. I think maybe I've been denying to myself what is inevitable. Granted, I think pot becoming legal is going to be a state by state thing, and will take a lot longer before it goes national. But, I think just looking at certain generations aging out and new generations coming in, it seems almost a no-brainer that there is going to be more acceptance. So, I'm shifting my energies to thinking about how to deal with that new landscape.
But this is a very interesting conversation. To me at least.
Quote from: RWHN on July 28, 2010, 09:20:03 PM
At this point in the game, it really isn't a useful conversation anymore, for my part. I think maybe I've been denying to myself what is inevitable. Granted, I think pot becoming legal is going to be a state by state thing, and will take a lot longer before it goes national. But, I think just looking at certain generations aging out and new generations coming in, it seems almost a no-brainer that there is going to be more acceptance. So, I'm shifting my energies to thinking about how to deal with that new landscape.
It's an interesting conversation to some of us, because we don't have the expertise you have, and because this thread is a conversation and not the same old same old.
Agreed.
So, when legalization happens, how will your tactics change? Will you treat marijuana in the same bucket as alcohol and nicotine? Or will a whole new approach be necessary?
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.
I think one side effect to this will be less people moving from pot to hard drugs, but I may be hoplessly optimistic.
I think if you can't get hard drugs from the same people you get weed from any more then the likelihood of it being a gateway drug goes down.
Quote from: Kai on July 28, 2010, 10:40:08 PM
So, when legalization happens, how will your tactics change? Will you treat marijuana in the same bucket as alcohol and nicotine? Or will a whole new approach be necessary?
Are alcohol and nicotene in the same bucket? The effects of nicotene are pretty drastically different, most arguements about it boil down to health effects, not behavioral effects. Meanwhile although alcohol can certainly have a significant negative effect on health the main talking points are almost always behavioral.
I'd expect pot to fall somewhere in between, since the behaviors are not as severely detrimental as alcohol, but they are far more severe than cigarettes. Meanwhile the fact that it is being smoked means it has many of the same negative health efects as tobacco.
Quote from: Kai on July 28, 2010, 10:40:08 PM
So, when legalization happens, how will your tactics change? Will you treat marijuana in the same bucket as alcohol and nicotine? Or will a whole new approach be necessary?
It's really hard to say. It really will be new territory for all of us. None of us, not even the elders in the field were around when alcohol went from illegal to legal, so it will be very difficult. On the one hand, prevention efforts don't normally dwell too heavily on the legality of the substance. Certainly it is addressed when we talk about consequences, but we really focus more on the impacts on the brain during adolescence and the possible long term impacts of longterm and heavy use. I don't expect that would change, and indeed, we may have more powerful research by then to maybe blunt to some degree the substance becoming legal.
I think we will also have a lot of educating to do to parents. For some parents, it becoming legal will be a relief, because a lot of their focus is simply on Johnny getting in trouble with the law, and not necessarily the impact of the use on Johnny's school career. So I think that's where we will really need to hone our messages.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 29, 2010, 12:36:38 AM
I think one side effect to this will be less people moving from pot to hard drugs, but I may be hoplessly optimistic.
I think if you can't get hard drugs from the same people you get weed from any more then the likelihood of it being a gateway drug goes down.
I dunno. Maybe over the long term but I'm not convinced of that. I think there might be a short term bump of kids moving to hard drugs as I would expect at minimum, a short term bump of kids using if the drug becomes legal.
Quote from: RWHN on July 29, 2010, 12:45:37 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 29, 2010, 12:36:38 AM
I think one side effect to this will be less people moving from pot to hard drugs, but I may be hoplessly optimistic.
I think if you can't get hard drugs from the same people you get weed from any more then the likelihood of it being a gateway drug goes down.
I dunno. Maybe over the long term but I'm not convinced of that. I think there might be a short term bump of kids moving to hard drugs as I would expect at minimum, a short term bump of kids using if the drug becomes legal.
Short term bump in kids using when it becomes legal makes sense, I am not sure I understand the logic behind a short term movement of kids to harder drugs though. Is that the "teenage rebellion" factor?
Gateway effect.
Kids move from mariuana to harder drugs
More kids using drugs ergo would mean more kids moving to harder drugs.
It would be a corresponding bump, though probably more of an echo considering moving to harder drugs isn't an instantaneous event.
Quote from: RWHN on July 29, 2010, 12:50:33 AM
Gateway effect.
Kids move from mariuana to harder drugs
More kids using drugs ergo would mean more kids moving to harder drugs.
It would be a corresponding bump, though probably more of an echo considering moving to harder drugs isn't an instantaneous event.
Gotcha, that's where I disagree since I think the gateway effect is due to pot being illegal.
I do agree that the guy in the OP is stretching the definition of "medical" until it snaps.
Quote from: RWHN on July 29, 2010, 12:43:06 AM
Quote from: Kai on July 28, 2010, 10:40:08 PM
So, when legalization happens, how will your tactics change? Will you treat marijuana in the same bucket as alcohol and nicotine? Or will a whole new approach be necessary?
It's really hard to say. It really will be new territory for all of us. None of us, not even the elders in the field were around when alcohol went from illegal to legal, so it will be very difficult. On the one hand, prevention efforts don't normally dwell too heavily on the legality of the substance. Certainly it is addressed when we talk about consequences, but we really focus more on the impacts on the brain during adolescence and the possible long term impacts of longterm and heavy use. I don't expect that would change, and indeed, we may have more powerful research by then to maybe blunt to some degree the substance becoming legal.
I think we will also have a lot of educating to do to parents. For some parents, it becoming legal will be a relief, because a lot of their focus is simply on Johnny getting in trouble with the law, and not necessarily the impact of the use on Johnny's school career. So I think that's where we will really need to hone our messages.
I think your ideas are good. How about focusing as well on the poor decision making that may come from taking the substance, maybe some of the psychological effects to memory and concept coordination (most advocates seem to focus on only paranoia and hallucination). There is of course the issue of respiratory issues coming from tar and other inhaled particulates (aside: which isn't an issue when injested but since the majority of users are primarily smoking this really is an issue). I'm not sure about the psychological effects of long term heavy use (I've heard the term "pot head" used in reference), I've never been shown what the effects actually are. Very different from either nicotine or alcohol, I would guess.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 29, 2010, 12:42:15 AM
The fact that it is being smoked means it has many of the same negative health efects as tobacco.
:cn:
Also kids will use less pot when its legal (well for the rest of us that is)
Unless there's still a large black market left intact
and switch to other drugs since store clerks usually check ID
Quote from: Pēleus on July 29, 2010, 07:08:35 AM
Also kids will use less pot when its legal (well for the rest of us that is)
Unless there's still a large black market left intact
and switch to other drugs since store clerks usually check ID
Right, because ID checks are working so well at keeping high schoolers from obtaining alchohol.
Kids really don't need to go to the store themselves to try to buy their alcohol anymore. It is super easy to network and find a friend who is legal age or a friend who has an older brother, or a parent who has no problem buying alcohol for minors. Same thing happens for tobacco and I can't see any reason why marijuana wouldn't follow suit.
With medical marijuana, here in Maine it is possible for kids of a certain age to get medical marijuana. And unfortunately, the law was written with very weak language so that the kid doesn't have to get a note from their PCP, they can pretty much get it from ANY doctor. I fear this is going to lead to some doctor shopping, to find the ones who either don't ask a lot of questions, or simply, look the other way and hand out the prescription. And that's why a site like the one linked in the OP really pisses me off. If it was truly about medical marijuana, the critiques should center around the medical benefits of the marijuana. These critiques read more like a review of a fine wine or food. I think there are some noble people behind the medical marijuana movement. But I think there is also a group of shysters like this moron who really isn't in it for the "medical" bit, but to do an end-round to skirt the marijuana laws.
http://denverpotcritic.com/
That link wasn't in the OP but if you go to it you can see where he provides recipes for some bad stuff.
Quote from: Pēleus on July 29, 2010, 07:02:35 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 29, 2010, 12:42:15 AM
The fact that it is being smoked means it has many of the same negative health efects as tobacco.
:cn:
Inhaling smoke does bad things. Some of the bad things done by tobacco smoke are due to ingredients specific to tobacco, some are going to happen whether the smoke that is being inhaled is tobacco, marijuana, wood smoke, burning bibles, or anything else.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 29, 2010, 10:38:25 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on July 29, 2010, 07:02:35 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 29, 2010, 12:42:15 AM
The fact that it is being smoked means it has many of the same negative health efects as tobacco.
:cn:
Inhaling smoke does bad things. Some of the bad things done by tobacco smoke are due to ingredients specific to tobacco, some are going to happen whether the smoke that is being inhaled is tobacco, marijuana, wood smoke, burning bibles, or anything else.
Correct.... smoking anything isn't 'good' for you. Smoking pot is far less harmful than Tobacco, but its still not a super healthy hobby. Using vaporizers or canna butter or cooking with ground marijuana as a herb are far more healthy ways of enjoying it.
Of course, we humans tend to do lots and lots of things which aren't particularly good for us.
Smoke isn't oxygen so by nature its not good for you, but I'm having trouble thinking its bad.
That's like saying drinking causes liver damage without anything about the ammount consumed.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on July 29, 2010, 08:54:40 AM
Right, because ID checks are working so well at keeping high schoolers from obtaining alchohol.
Well guess it depends on enviroment really id say for some it might be the same or easier
But I can only use my own personal experience, wine was easy to "borrow"
Beer took a bit of effort. But say vodka was rare.
There also are parents who would rather have them under their roof doing these things then out in the streets.
Instead of trying to encourage them to lead a chemical free life.
But its really an arguement that can't really be proved as it depends on a lot of factors.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? 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.
Card-carrying member of the pro-pot legalization crowd AND tax them until they bleed conglomerate.
Just so you know. Tax's don't bother me none, if it's contributing back to society, then you can't say stoners contribute nothing to society.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on July 29, 2010, 11:28:40 AM
Kids really don't need to go to the store themselves to try to buy their alcohol anymore. It is super easy to network and find a friend who is legal age or a friend who has an older brother, or a parent who has no problem buying alcohol for minors. Same thing happens for tobacco and I can't see any reason why marijuana wouldn't follow suit.
It's also super easy to find a friend who has a gun, let's ban guns for everyone too.
And if you're caught selling guns to minors as a minor, let's permanently take away their ability to get financial aid, effectively ending lower class kids ability to go to college.
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 29, 2010, 10:38:25 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on July 29, 2010, 07:02:35 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 29, 2010, 12:42:15 AM
The fact that it is being smoked means it has many of the same negative health efects as tobacco.
:cn:
Inhaling smoke does bad things. Some of the bad things done by tobacco smoke are due to ingredients specific to tobacco, some are going to happen whether the smoke that is being inhaled is tobacco, marijuana, wood smoke, burning bibles, or anything else.
I don't suppose you're familiar with Donald Tashkin's study? (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=large-study-finds-no-link)
There also have been a surprising number of studies that corroborate an anti-cancer effect of cannabinoids:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17952648 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11269508 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12723496
Quote from: Ne+@uNGr0+ on July 31, 2010, 12:45:13 PM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 29, 2010, 10:38:25 PM
Quote from: Pēleus on July 29, 2010, 07:02:35 AM
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on July 29, 2010, 12:42:15 AM
The fact that it is being smoked means it has many of the same negative health efects as tobacco.
:cn:
Inhaling smoke does bad things. Some of the bad things done by tobacco smoke are due to ingredients specific to tobacco, some are going to happen whether the smoke that is being inhaled is tobacco, marijuana, wood smoke, burning bibles, or anything else.
I don't suppose you're familiar with Donald Tashkin's study? (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=large-study-finds-no-link)
There also have been a surprising number of studies that corroborate an anti-cancer effect of cannabinoids:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17952648 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11269508 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12723496
I'm aware of it yes. Smoke is not automatically a carcinogen. Carbon monoxide is still not good for you, and smoke in your lungs (along with tar, which pot has TONS of) is generally bad. I'm not saying nobody should smoke it, it's easier and tastier than vaporization or eating it and the effect is decidedly different than eating it. Just be aware that you are hurting your body by doing so.
"Of the investigators who have pierced even for a moment the magic veil of its glamour ecstatic many have been
appalled, many disappointed. Few have dared to crush in arms of steel this burning daughter of the Jinn; to ravish
from her poisonous scarlet lips the kisses of death, to force her serpent-smooth and serpent-stinging body down to
some infernal torture-couch, and strike her into spasm as the lightning splits the cloud-wrack, only to read in her
infinite sea-green eyes the awful price of her virginity -- black madness."
The Herb Dangerous - Aleister Crowley
Quote from: Telarus on August 01, 2010, 05:02:02 AM
"Of the investigators who have pierced even for a moment the magic veil of its glamour ecstatic many have been
appalled, many disappointed. Few have dared to crush in arms of steel this burning daughter of the Jinn; to ravish
from her poisonous scarlet lips the kisses of death, to force her serpent-smooth and serpent-stinging body down to
some infernal torture-couch, and strike her into spasm as the lightning splits the cloud-wrack, only to read in her
infinite sea-green eyes the awful price of her virginity -- black madness."
The Herb Dangerous - Aleister Crowley
Sounds more like a description of belladonna than weed
Quote from: BabylonHoruv on August 01, 2010, 06:49:08 AM
Quote from: Telarus on August 01, 2010, 05:02:02 AM
"Of the investigators who have pierced even for a moment the magic veil of its glamour ecstatic many have been
appalled, many disappointed. Few have dared to crush in arms of steel this burning daughter of the Jinn; to ravish
from her poisonous scarlet lips the kisses of death, to force her serpent-smooth and serpent-stinging body down to
some infernal torture-couch, and strike her into spasm as the lightning splits the cloud-wrack, only to read in her
infinite sea-green eyes the awful price of her virginity -- black madness."
The Herb Dangerous - Aleister Crowley
Sounds more like a description of belladonna than weed
Or datura.
Quote from: Cain on July 28, 2010, 09:02:52 PM
20+ pages, easy
It's almost like Free Will doesn't exist!
I bet Libertarians would not have this problem.
I am totally posting in this thread.