Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2020 20:09:50 GMT
I think, though, that at this point there needs to be some sort of Federal guidelines. So many states have already legalized it or are loosening restrictions on it that the horse is out of the barn as far as keeping it illegal. I'm not a fan of it, think it's generally harmful (at least as much as alcohol or cigarettes), but the people are speaking on the issue.
So, at this point, it should probably be like alcohol where there are some FDA and business standards and such to follow but the individual states and municipalities are still free to put their own rules in place. As it stands, we're wandering toward a confusing mishmash of laws that make the issue and the business much more complex than it needs to be.
Nothing is as dangerous as alcohol!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 17, 2020 20:25:18 GMT
I think, though, that at this point there needs to be some sort of Federal guidelines. So many states have already legalized it or are loosening restrictions on it that the horse is out of the barn as far as keeping it illegal. I'm not a fan of it, think it's generally harmful (at least as much as alcohol or cigarettes), but the people are speaking on the issue.
So, at this point, it should probably be like alcohol where there are some FDA and business standards and such to follow but the individual states and municipalities are still free to put their own rules in place. As it stands, we're wandering toward a confusing mishmash of laws that make the issue and the business much more complex than it needs to be.
I can see that. A set of federal guidelines would be preferable to maintaining it as illegal at the federal level. My preference would be that the federal government get completely out of it, and then each state determines legality and regulations on its own. Cannabis use can have negative outcomes, but that in of itself does not necessitate federal involvement. Hang gliding, skateboarding, free solo rock climbing - there are lots of activities that people may choose to undertake that include risk. They do not require federal involvement. Each state should determine whether an activity is legal and whether, if it is legal, it requires regulation. In the case of California and cannabis, the state law provides each county and municipality authority to determine whether to allow cannabis businesses to operate within its boundaries. But as of now, the continued federal status is what causes the problems at the state level with liability insurance and banking. Overall, I'm not complaining. This particular issue is headed on the right track in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Dec 20, 2020 3:50:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sharky, Hunter’s text buddy on Dec 20, 2020 7:11:36 GMT
I'm not a fan of it, think it's generally harmful (at least as much as alcohol or cigarettes)
Wait, really?
|
|
|
Post by sharky, Hunter’s text buddy on Dec 20, 2020 7:12:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by batman on Dec 20, 2020 15:52:36 GMT
I'm not a fan of it, think it's generally harmful (at least as much as alcohol or cigarettes)
Wait, really?
Yes. Its immediate effects are at least analogous to alcohol, in terms of how it impairs your judgment and motor functions, and I believe marijuana's addictive qualities -- particularly those of more modern strains -- are often wildly underestimated.
Also, it doesn't make sense to say that if you ingest cigarette smoke into your lungs then it's a death sentence, but if you ingest marijuana smoke into your lungs it's perfectly fine and there will be no bad effects whatsoever. You've got to be doing some kind of damage to yourself any time you inhale any kind of smoke into your lungs.
|
|
|
Post by JC on Dec 20, 2020 16:34:31 GMT
Yes. Its immediate effects are at least analogous to alcohol, in terms of how it impairs your judgment and motor functions, and I believe marijuana's addictive qualities -- particularly those of more modern strains -- are often wildly underestimated.
Also, it doesn't make sense to say that if you ingest cigarette smoke into your lungs then it's a death sentence, but if you ingest marijuana smoke into your lungs it's perfectly fine and there will be no bad effects whatsoever. You've got to be doing some kind of damage to yourself any time you inhale any kind of smoke into your lungs.
Who says it’s perfectly fine? Less harmful is a long ways from perfectly fine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2020 16:48:06 GMT
I don’t know this from experience, but from what I’ve read/heard about today’s weed, the smoke you would inhale is greatly limited by its potency. This apparently isn’t the old days were you could smoke joints like cigarettes if you had the time and money.
|
|
|
Post by shotglass on Dec 20, 2020 18:00:03 GMT
I don’t know this from experience, but from what I’ve read/heard about today’s weed, the smoke you would inhale is greatly limited by its potency. This apparently isn’t the old days were you could smoke joints like cigarettes if you had the time and money. Exactly. And equating the affects of THC with alcohol is a fallacy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2020 19:45:24 GMT
I'm dumb enough already. I don't need to risk any of my very-limited brain cells on those substances.
|
|
|
Post by Rejected by the Rejects on Dec 20, 2020 20:10:41 GMT
I'm dumb enough already. I don't need to risk any of my very-limited brain cells on those substances. Same here
|
|
|
Post by batman on Dec 21, 2020 3:15:06 GMT
I don’t know this from experience, but from what I’ve read/heard about today’s weed, the smoke you would inhale is greatly limited by its potency. This apparently isn’t the old days were you could smoke joints like cigarettes if you had the time and money. Exactly. And equating the affects of THC with alcohol is a fallacy. On a fundamental level, how are they different? Both impair your short-term judgment and alter your motor skills. You should not operate a vehicle or machinery, or make important decisions, for a while after using either one. I get that the long-term effects differ. One is probably more addictive than the other. But the immediate effects seem comparable.
|
|
|
Post by batman on Dec 21, 2020 3:18:46 GMT
Yes. Its immediate effects are at least analogous to alcohol, in terms of how it impairs your judgment and motor functions, and I believe marijuana's addictive qualities -- particularly those of more modern strains -- are often wildly underestimated.
Also, it doesn't make sense to say that if you ingest cigarette smoke into your lungs then it's a death sentence, but if you ingest marijuana smoke into your lungs it's perfectly fine and there will be no bad effects whatsoever. You've got to be doing some kind of damage to yourself any time you inhale any kind of smoke into your lungs.
Who says it’s perfectly fine? Less harmful is a long ways from perfectly fine. There seems to be a heavy push to legalize marijuana, which is often started by touting its medicinal benefits. If it's not outright stating that marijuana use is perfectly fine, there seems to be a large implication that it is. Which is ironic to me, because the same people who favor legalizing pot are often in favor of banning cigarettes. Which also implies that inhaling one type of smoke into your lungs is OK, but the other is downright evil.
|
|
|
Post by asthecrowflies on Dec 21, 2020 5:46:00 GMT
Well, for one thing, you don't necessarily have to smoke THC. You should see all the stuff pot shops have: Suckers, gummy bears, candy, lip balm, etc.
Uh ... or so I've been told.
|
|
|
Post by sharky, Hunter’s text buddy on Dec 21, 2020 6:36:02 GMT
Yes. Its immediate effects are at least analogous to alcohol, in terms of how it impairs your judgment and motor functions, and I believe marijuana's addictive qualities -- particularly those of more modern strains -- are often wildly underestimated.
Also, it doesn't make sense to say that if you ingest cigarette smoke into your lungs then it's a death sentence, but if you ingest marijuana smoke into your lungs it's perfectly fine and there will be no bad effects whatsoever. You've got to be doing some kind of damage to yourself any time you inhale any kind of smoke into your lungs.
This is anecdotal, but I’ve never encountered a person high on weed who get violent when intoxicated. I know *tons* of people who are angry drunks, who get into trouble when they drink, including a few friends. The idea that those two substances could be considered equal as far as overall damage being done seems impossible to me. I get kinda silly drinking heavily or smoking, but it takes a lot of alcohol to get me drunk, and it only takes like half a joint to get me high. It’s much more cost effective, although I haven’t had the pleasure since the wife got pregnant and then COVID happened.
|
|