aka...thc

The way it is now is a total embarrassment. FDA and DEA finalized their review and said no redeeming value. Schedule 1.

So, what we have:
Fed Reserve says no
Colo says yes
Dea/Fda says no
Justice says yes
VA. says no

What a joke

None of those folks MAKE the law. Only Congress can pass a law and the president has to sign it. Then it is a law. Federal agencies are SUPPOSED to follow the law, and enforce it. That is part of the oath they all take, to uphold and obey the constitution.

We all know in the real world many laws are simply ignored or not enforced. But those agencies can't make a new law. The can change their policy, but only if it is within the current law.

I ask why would someone be so farking dense to smoke MJ when they know how long it stays in their system while being aware of their work policy?

Choose a better vice.

Ain't saying that the Friday night joint is a bad thing. It is what it is. It lingers.

If they believe they are King and the Constitution is toilet paper. You Brits sure seem to believe in Monarchy.

I've read there are strains without much THC, and they are high in beneficial and non-psychoactive CBDs.

Seriously though from a scientific/medicinal perspective:
If you have the ability to prescribe a potentially inexpensive affordable drug which works better than anything else available, and does not have any extremely-toxic side effects, and provides real benefits to a patient...why would this ever become a question?

Big pharma

There is little evidence that works better than anything else...and it certainly does not include recreational use...which in reality is where most medical marijuana is used.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DiFgz9ndWKw?rel=0" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So Fint:
Older glaucoma patients. Never smoked cigarettes or drank in their lives.
They try MJ find it works and choose it for their medicine.
Their choice alone.

Are these people instant drug addicts from injecting the dangerous marijuannas?
Or are they reliable statistics and witnesses to be considered during drug efficacy testing trials?

My neighbor is fighting cancer. When he is getting chemo, he says that pot is the only thing that makes him feel good, and want to eat.

^that's a common sentiment.

also very effective and helpful for people with MS

Most Ophthalmologists would tell you that MJ is not an appropriate treatment.

https://www.aao.org/eye-health/tips-prevention/medical-marijuana-glaucoma-treament

https://www.glaucoma.org/treatment/should-you-be-smoking-marijuana-to-treat-your-glaucoma-1.php

I read it. Thank you. Actually that first study concluded that patients should smoke a lot of it if needed.

"The research found that when marijuana is smoked or when a form of its active ingredient is taken as a pill or by injection, it does lower IOP. However, it only lowers IOP for a short period of time—about three or four hours.

This short period of time is a major drawback for the use of marijuana as a glaucoma treatment. Because glaucoma needs to be treated 24 hours a day, you would need to smoke marijuana six to eight times a day around the clock to receive the benefit of a consistently lowered IOP."

Fint, why are you so against mj? Just curious.

Because most folks who use it are mislead about the effects from a vey young age...and now, massive amounts of money are being sent to blanket the media, internet, etc. with advocacy (essentially commercials for the drug) so they can profit on the young, poor, and stupid. Most folks have enough trouble navigating life sober. More recreational drugs are the last thing this country needs.

Got it. I have to agree with you to some extent.

Most people.

Does that mean everyone but you?

If you're talking about kids, you first tell them not to do something benine, popular, proven and without any obvious consequence.
Use hyperbole and hysteria. Amp it up. Yer gonna burn in hades kid!
Remind them all again and again.

Then the first time you are gone they will do it .

^yet alcohol is the biggest recreational drug of all, and also the most problematic, but somehow gets a pass? Are we not misleading people about just how ugly alcohol abuse can be? I recall getting an earful about illegal drugs growing up, but the only thing we heard about booze was don't drink and drive. There is zero common sense and consistency in the approach to alcohol vs. other psychoactive drugs. You're ok with that?

^so Anheuser -Busch paying $1.4Billion to the NFL to make Bud Light the official beer of NFL through 2022 must also really piss you off --->Bud Light: Beer of the NFL Through 2022, For $1.4 Billion | Fortune

I was mislead on the effects when young as well...but largely innocently because the effects were not really well known. I was long an advocate for legalization.

Better to tell them the truth and hope they listen..even though a massive industry and many, many users will try to tell them otherwise. It is little different than the cigarette industry in the 60's.

Great thread!

One aspect not discussed here is driving. While other states with legal MJ appear to have a blood limit level, CA does not and leaves it to law enforcement to determine if they think you are under the influence. Well? :)
https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Some-states-put-a-THC-limit-on-pot-smoking-12465013.php

A DUI will mess you up good, but worse, what if you drive sober but have some THC left in your blood from the day before and cause a bad accident, say with a fatality? Can of worms!

I find the whole thing way too risky if you have a job, assets and a family to raise. This is also why you don't see the number of users suddenly spike after the drug is "legalized". Everyone who didn't care still doesn't care and anyone that was turned off by the drug being illegal still is turned off by its iffy status.

G

Whoa Dudes. Everybody needs to come over my house and take a chill pill. Legal, illegal, who cares man.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1515120758.jpg

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1515120772.jpg

The dangers of alcohol have long been known. Drunks were prominent in early movies, plays, books, etc. Everyone knew who the town drunk was. Many, many families never allowed alcohol in their home. My entire county was "dry". If you really think alcohol is so bad, why advocate another recreational drug?

No one is trying to legalize alcohol.

I am pretty sure they are advertising legal product to an audience of legal age...but at least they are not touting it as medicinal and harmless.

Agreed. As long as most use are sold on the opinion that it does not affect their driving...we will have serious problems. Especially since we have great difficulty identifying those under the influence...until the autopsy.

I don't think alcohol is bad, in and of itself. I think alcohol abuse is bad and alcoholism is bad. I don't think MJ is bad in and of itself, but it can also be abused and that is bad.

Recreational (occasional) use of either isn't a big deal in my opinion. There is a difference between use and abuse. You don't see any hypocrisy in your view of MJ vs. alcohol (and the legal status of MJ vs. legal status of alcohol), I do.

No. I see no hypocrisy whatsoever. In a discussion about whether or not any new drug should be legalized...any other legal drug (and the problems with it) at best is irrelevant and at worst is an argument against legalizing another. There is no real argument MJ vs alcohol. It is a distraction/misdirection.

There is no way to to regulate occasional use vice abuse. Why make abuse more likely/easier? Do we really need more folks that are not sober in our society?

That pertains to current Schedule 1 classification, and whether the real life drug attributes fulfill all the categories required to remain mis-classified as such.
The government is supposed to treat all drugs equally and from a purely scientific perspective.

That pertains to whether it should be legalized/prescribed in some instances.
Only one legitimate scenario is required to prove its efficacy.

Nice Christmas decoration with the dusting of snow on the tree!

This has been a very entertaining thread.

I can understand why governments would like to legalize MJ. It appears to make many people happy with their station in life and removes motivation to make change. Personally or politically.

OTOH, I know many successful professional people that are regular pot smokers. I guess if you are only handling someones legal affairs, health care needs, banking and financial or in managerial position, it doesn't matter if you have a bit of weed in your system.

I bet if you tested our Prime Minister you would find he has been a regular user...

Roadside testing has always been a factor against legalization and I don't think that this has been resolved to an accurate enough test to justify making it legal. It is probable that currently the attitude to smoking and driving now is very similar to the view on drinking and driving in the 70s. That needs to change.

The most disturbing thing is the effect that MJ has on the developing brain of the young people who are the most likely to use it. Will legalizing it make it more available to youth? Maybe, maybe not.

Will legalizing it make the quality of the product more consistent and reduce the potential of getting crappy dirt weed that has been exposed to hazardous fertilizers or touched with other more potent drugs and/or synthetics? Legalization will make the product safer for the people that use it.

This is a very complicated topic and we will see the results of the decisions being made today in 20 years or so. By then I will probably be hitting the bong for pain relief and won't give a crap anyway...

Apparently not everyone shares your opinion that is misclassified.

Obviously not everyone does agree it is misclassified, but certainly more and more do everyday. And if you look into the history you’ll find it landed on schedule one for all the wrong reasons. Mostly due to the cotton industries fear of replacement by hemp.
At the end of the day it’s all about money, it has little to nothing to do with the benefits or detriments to society. When you look at the various scheduled drugs and what falls in what level it becomes very hard for any thinking person to defend the schedule one classification. Heroin is schedule 2! Think about how that might have come to be.
It never should have been illegal in the first place.

I am pretty sure we documented the classification history different in the other MJ thread and that is just some stoner propaganda.

Why would heroin not be schedule 2? Of course, it is also level 1.

While it is intuitive that all government action is somewhat political, I have seen no evidence that Schedule has anything to do with politics or competing industries. If you have such evidence, please present it.

The problem is largely because you have created your own definition for Schedule 1 and because you compare it with other drugs (which is not part of assigning a category). That said, we can address both.

Per the DEA:

The schedule is assigned depending upon the drug’s acceptable medical use and the drug’s abuse or dependency potential. "The abuse rate is a determinate factor in the scheduling of the drug; for example, Schedule I drugs are considered the most dangerous class of drugs with a high potential for abuse and potentially severe psychological and/or physical dependence."

There is little "acceptable medical use" as compared to Sched 2 drugs like methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin...much less Schedule 3-5. And, clearly the abuse or dependency potential of Marijuana is very high. IMHO, it is used/abused more than any other scheduled drug.

There is a lot of fact regarding the harmful effects of heavy marijuana usage. We have reviewed many of those in this and other threads in PARF. It seems to me that other drugs really do not have any bearing on recreational marijuana as far as I know. Let them be considered for their own merits/danger.

There seems to plenty of factual basis for it to be illegal (once again, throughout this thread and others). For example, most anything that reduces a person's IQ by 8 points would be considered pretty detrimental. Folks would be clamoring to put anyone in jail that sold a substance that did the same (if they had not already smoked it and lost the 8 points).

Patients of various ailments would disagree.
They choose that drug over others because it works. Occams Razor.

Would not a dying man's need for comfort outweigh all other technical considerations?

I personally have no problem with legitimate medical use...but I also understand why it is level one (and believe most "medical" use is a farcical means to legally use an illegal drug).

Deflection. Awesome. ;)