Trigger warning: Drugs

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Because, people can correct me if I'm off here, but it feels like people are saying the illicit nature of marijuana is successful in making it more difficult for some people to get.  Am I reading this correctly?

Did you miss what I wrote above? Prohibition fails to make it more difficult to get, generally, but it does occasionally leave you dry for a week or two. During that time, people who like to smoke would likely try a legal alternative.

Look, we're wasting our time.  RWHN is doing some kind of weird victory dance over something that nobody was arguing about.

He will not participate in the conversation that is actually going on.  He's still nursing too much fucking butthurt to use the front half of his brain.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I disagree.  The first study cited that 99% of the college students who were using were using both natural weed and synthetic, so clearly there wasn't an issue with availability and clearly one wasn't being used as an alternative to the other. 


Someone who is just out seeking the biggest, quickest, cheapest high will still seek out Spice whether or not marijuana is legal. 


I remember in past drug threads it was always argued that weed was "already very easy to get" and I recall some suggesting it was easier to get than alcohol.  Do folks still believe that or have those beliefs shifted?


Additionally, spice is a banned substance, just like marijuana.  It is far less likely to be available at just any head shop compared to before it was banned.  I know in my area the police regularly check up on head shops to make sure they are not dealing that or "bath salts". 


So it seems pretty likely that someone who is going to be successful in tracking down spice is also going to be successful in tracking down weed.


So in the end, legalization really won't have an impact on that.  Maybe a few dopes who can't figure out where to buy weed will switch, but it will be negligible at best, in my opinion.

The first study cited says nothing of the sort. First of all, I don't know where you're getting the part about college students. Second, both are given as lifetime use, and it says nothing whatsoever about whether they were ever used concurrently.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23291209

The abstract, for anyone not inclined to click on the link or look up the full study:

Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013 Jul 1;131(1-2):106-11. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.12.011. Epub 2013 Jan 3.
Synthetic cannabis: a comparison of patterns of use and effect profile with natural cannabis in a large global sample.
Winstock AR, Barratt MJ.
Source
South London and Maudsley NHS Trust/Kings College London, United Kingdom; Global Drug Survey, London, United Kingdom. adam.winstock@kcl.ac.uk
Abstract

BACKGROUND:
The last decade has seen the appearance of myriad novel psychoactive substances with diverse effect profiles. Synthetic cannabinoids are among the most recently identified but least researched of these substances.

METHODS:
An anonymous online survey was conducted in 2011 using a quantitative structured research tool. Missing data (median 2%) were treated by available-case analysis.

RESULTS:
Of 14,966 participants, 2513 (17%) reported use of synthetic cannabis. Of these, 980 (41% of 2417) reported its use in the last 12 months. Almost all recent synthetic cannabis users (99% of 975) reported ever use of natural cannabis. Synthetic cannabis reportedly had both a shorter duration of action (z=17.82, p<.001) and quicker time to peak onset of effect (z=-9.44, p<.001) than natural cannabis. Natural cannabis was preferred to synthetic cannabis by 93% of users, with natural cannabis rated as having greater pleasurable effects when high (t(930)=-37.1, p<.001, d=-1.22) and being more able to function after use (t(884)=-13.3, p<.001, d=-0.45). Synthetic cannabis was associated with more negative effects (t(859)=18.7, p<.001, d=0.64), hangover effects (t(854)=6.45, p<.001, d=0.22) and greater paranoia (t(889)=7.91, p<.001, d=0.27).

CONCLUSIONS:
Users report a strong preference for natural over synthetic cannabis. The latter has a less desirable effect profile. Further research is required to determine longer term consequences of use and comparative dependence potential.

Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

Yes, most preferred natural cannabis and virtually all of them USED natural cannabis.  If it was being used as an alternative your 99% would be much lower.

WHAT 

OK, I give up.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Here, maybe you should go hang out with this guy, he doesn't know how to read research papers either: http://www.thescienceforum.com/health-medicine/38057-scientific-evidence-implicates-vaccines-cause-autism.html

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And we were doing so well. 

[AFK]

Because, people can correct me if I'm off here, but it feels like people are saying the illicit nature of marijuana is successful in making it more difficult for some people to get.  Am I reading this correctly?

Obviously.  Again, nobody was really arguing that it made obtaining weed more difficult.

Okay, that's all I wanted to know.  Thank you.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Because, people can correct me if I'm off here, but it feels like people are saying the illicit nature of marijuana is successful in making it more difficult for some people to get.  Am I reading this correctly?

Obviously.  Again, nobody was really arguing that it made obtaining weed more difficult.

Okay, that's all I wanted to know.  Thank you.

Have fun with your victory dance, over all of NOBODY who said prohibition didn't make buying weed more difficult.

Jesus.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Conversation is now basically over unless someone else joins in, because RWHN has never actually been a part of the conversation.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Because, people can correct me if I'm off here, but it feels like people are saying the illicit nature of marijuana is successful in making it more difficult for some people to get.  Am I reading this correctly?

Of course it makes it more difficult for adults to get. In fact, it is currently in many states just as hard for adults to obtain weed anytime, at will, as it is for minors to obtain weed at will.

For a determined person, that can generally be overcome with some perserverence. There is a thriving black market that will sell to anyone, regardless of age. But for some people, the simple fact that it is illegal is a deterrent.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Because, people can correct me if I'm off here, but it feels like people are saying the illicit nature of marijuana is successful in making it more difficult for some people to get.  Am I reading this correctly?

Obviously.  Again, nobody was really arguing that it made obtaining weed more difficult.

Okay, that's all I wanted to know.  Thank you.

Have fun with your victory dance, over all of NOBODY who said prohibition didn't make buying weed more difficult.

Jesus.

Well, he totally made an ass of himself misreading that study multiple times, so he had to jump track and change the goalposts to something completely irrelevant. In fact, he now seems to be supporting the OP.

[AFK]

I disagree.  The first study cited that 99% of the college students who were using were using both natural weed and synthetic, so clearly there wasn't an issue with availability and clearly one wasn't being used as an alternative to the other. 


Someone who is just out seeking the biggest, quickest, cheapest high will still seek out Spice whether or not marijuana is legal. 


I remember in past drug threads it was always argued that weed was "already very easy to get" and I recall some suggesting it was easier to get than alcohol.  Do folks still believe that or have those beliefs shifted?


Additionally, spice is a banned substance, just like marijuana.  It is far less likely to be available at just any head shop compared to before it was banned.  I know in my area the police regularly check up on head shops to make sure they are not dealing that or "bath salts". 


So it seems pretty likely that someone who is going to be successful in tracking down spice is also going to be successful in tracking down weed.


So in the end, legalization really won't have an impact on that.  Maybe a few dopes who can't figure out where to buy weed will switch, but it will be negligible at best, in my opinion.

The first study cited says nothing of the sort. First of all, I don't know where you're getting the part about college students. Second, both are given as lifetime use, and it says nothing whatsoever about whether they were ever used concurrently.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23291209

The abstract, for anyone not inclined to click on the link or look up the full study:

Drug Alcohol Depend. 2013 Jul 1;131(1-2):106-11. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.12.011. Epub 2013 Jan 3.
Synthetic cannabis: a comparison of patterns of use and effect profile with natural cannabis in a large global sample.
Winstock AR, Barratt MJ.
Source
South London and Maudsley NHS Trust/Kings College London, United Kingdom; Global Drug Survey, London, United Kingdom. adam.winstock@kcl.ac.uk
Abstract

BACKGROUND:
The last decade has seen the appearance of myriad novel psychoactive substances with diverse effect profiles. Synthetic cannabinoids are among the most recently identified but least researched of these substances.

METHODS:
An anonymous online survey was conducted in 2011 using a quantitative structured research tool. Missing data (median 2%) were treated by available-case analysis.

RESULTS:
Of 14,966 participants, 2513 (17%) reported use of synthetic cannabis. Of these, 980 (41% of 2417) reported its use in the last 12 months. Almost all recent synthetic cannabis users (99% of 975) reported ever use of natural cannabis. Synthetic cannabis reportedly had both a shorter duration of action (z=17.82, p<.001) and quicker time to peak onset of effect (z=-9.44, p<.001) than natural cannabis. Natural cannabis was preferred to synthetic cannabis by 93% of users, with natural cannabis rated as having greater pleasurable effects when high (t(930)=-37.1, p<.001, d=-1.22) and being more able to function after use (t(884)=-13.3, p<.001, d=-0.45). Synthetic cannabis was associated with more negative effects (t(859)=18.7, p<.001, d=0.64), hangover effects (t(854)=6.45, p<.001, d=0.22) and greater paranoia (t(889)=7.91, p<.001, d=0.27).

CONCLUSIONS:
Users report a strong preference for natural over synthetic cannabis. The latter has a less desirable effect profile. Further research is required to determine longer term consequences of use and comparative dependence potential.

Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

Yes, most preferred natural cannabis and virtually all of them USED natural cannabis.  If it was being used as an alternative your 99% would be much lower.

WHAT 

OK, I give up.

The study said that virtually all of those who reported synthetic use (99%) said they had also used natural cannabis.  So that 99% knows how to access natural cannabis.  It is less likely that it was used as an alternative and more likely used as experimentation, seeking out a different kind of high.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Because, people can correct me if I'm off here, but it feels like people are saying the illicit nature of marijuana is successful in making it more difficult for some people to get.  Am I reading this correctly?

Of course it makes it more difficult for adults to get. In fact, it is currently in many states just as hard for adults to obtain weed anytime, at will, as it is for minors to obtain weed at will.

For a determined person, that can generally be overcome with some perserverence. There is a thriving black market that will sell to anyone, regardless of age. But for some people, the simple fact that it is illegal is a deterrent.

I would say that the part he's missing is that black markets are by definition unstable on the supply end, but that's not what he's missing.

He's not even here to communicate.  He's here to engage in baboonery and show his enflamed red ass to everyone who said that prohibition had no effect on the market.

Which is NOBODY.  But that won't stop him, mostly because he really isn't capable of communication anymore.  Just "lecturing", which consists of the facts as he'd LIKE them to be, with a complete inability to reexamine them.  Nor does he have any incentive to do so, given the nature of his career.

In short, he's kind of become Richard Dawkins.  Or Pat Robertson.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Because, people can correct me if I'm off here, but it feels like people are saying the illicit nature of marijuana is successful in making it more difficult for some people to get.  Am I reading this correctly?

Obviously.  Again, nobody was really arguing that it made obtaining weed more difficult.

Okay, that's all I wanted to know.  Thank you.

Have fun with your victory dance, over all of NOBODY who said prohibition didn't make buying weed more difficult.

Jesus.

Well, he totally made an ass of himself misreading that study multiple times, so he had to jump track and change the goalposts to something completely irrelevant. In fact, he now seems to be supporting the OP.

He's still doing it. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The study said that virtually all of those who reported synthetic use (99%) said they had also used natural cannabis.  So that 99% knows how to access natural cannabis.  It is less likely that it was used as an alternative and more likely used as experimentation, seeking out a different kind of high.

SINCE THERE'S NEVER ANY VARIABILITY IN SUPPLY.

HELLO?  *thump, thump*  IS THIS THING WORKING?  ARE YOU A HUMAN BEING?  DO YOU HAVE THUMBS?

[AFK]

Synthetic cannabinoids are also illicit products with variability in supply.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Synthetic cannabinoids are also illicit products with variability in supply.

How many states were they legal in at the time of the survey?

SHOW ME YOUR THUMBS.