April 19, 2018

"Ultimately, it’s the right thing to do. Freedom. If smoking marijuana doesn’t hurt anybody else, why shouldn’t we allow people to do it and not make it criminal?”

Said Chuck Schumer, who is introducing a bill to decriminalize marijuana, as reported in Vice, which doesn't mention Trump's recent statements in support of getting the federal government out of the marijuana control business.

And here's a new article in The Atlantic by Reihan Salam, "Is It Too Late to Stop the Rise of Marijuana, Inc.?/America is on the path to legalization, but as pot becomes a big business, lawmakers aren't yet wrestling with how to regulate it effectively."

145 comments:

tcrosse said...

In states Where it's legal, the marijuana trade generates great amounts of cash which the banks won't touch. This presents an occasion of sin for the underground economy.

Oso Negro said...

Legalize that, plus Valium, and opioids for over the counter sales. At the age of 61, I am old enough to know when I need a Valium. Oh, I would like to have decent decongestants again, too, please.

Chuck said...

Prescription opioids has worked out so well, we should do the same with marijuana.

Or maybe "prescription" is the problem. Over-the-counter marijuana, and opioids, and heroin, and fentanyl.

traditionalguy said...

This SNAFU created by the same crafty pols will automatically require millions of dollars in campaign contributions to each pol to make it better. Schumer is creating a new Big Pharma to buy the laws it wants from him.

mockturtle said...

Less harmful than alcohol, for sure. Where it's legal it's less likely to be laced with something else, it would seem. I was a bit disappointed when we legalized pot in WA and then the state awarded many of the big out-of-state growers with permits. But, yes, it will certainly help stem at least some of the smuggling across the border and pot is something law enforcement should not be saddled with. Much more important to get drunk drivers off the road.

Here in AZ the measure to legalized failed. I was not yet a resident but would have voted for it. I suspect it would pass the next time.

For you campers/RVers: Which would you prefer to be camped next to? A group of drinkers or a bunch of pot smokers?

gilbar said...

yes Yes YES!
Let's make marijuana COMPLETELY LEGAL, in Every form and Every where; for Every body
But let's not forget:
to continue to restrict tobacco in Every form and Every where; for Every body!

smoking (marijuana) is completely harmless, and is TOTALLY a person's choice
smoking (tobacco) is DEADLY and MUST BE STAMPED OUT!!!!

I'm not Just saying this because the tobacco industry doesn't pay me as much money as the marijuana industry does; i'm also saying this, because the marijuana industry pays me more money that the tobacco industry does
<sarc

madAsHell said...

This presents an occasion of sin for the underground economy.

Coins are collected in a counting machine. Periodically, we go to the bank, and exchange the coins for paper bills. The amount is usually around $50.

The last time I went to exchange. They asked if I was a customer of the bank because they had to document the transaction. Apparently, this is an attempt to minimize money laundering.

mockturtle said...

Oso Negro laments: Oh, I would like to have decent decongestants again, too, please.

You can still buy pseudoephedrine but you have to get it at the pharmacy counter and show ID. They don't want people making meth with it.

Charlie Currie said...

CA so screwed the pooch on this one...legal growers and distributors can't compete with the black market and they are struggling. I know first hand that NorCal growers campaigned against the previous attempt to legalize it, and they won. Wouldn't be surprised if they were influential in writing the current regs just to cause it to fail. If you were trying to make it fail, what would you have done differently?

Paul said...

"Ultimately, it’s the right thing to do. Freedom. If smoking marijuana doesn’t hurt anybody else, why shouldn’t we allow people to do it and not make it criminal?”


Chuck, the catch is marijuana MESSES UP THE BRAIN. And since defiantly does that then once the user fries their brain then the rest of society has to take care of the semi-zombie.

And that 'rest of society' does that by paying more TAXES.

I don't want to pay for someone else that fries their brain, got that Chuck?

steve said...

I wonder if the marijuana producers will get hauled before Congress someday and get asked if they believe smoking marijuana causes cancer. If they say no and get criticized, they can always claim they were high on the stuff and didn't know what they were saying.

William said...

If some corporation finds a way to make big bucks off it, the left will discover all the harmful effects of marijuana use. Look what they did do to a hamburger with fries.

Michael K said...

Marijuana does seem to be a risk for teenagers and schizophrenia.

It seems to be a dopamine issue.

For adults otherwise, I think it makes you a little more stupid but that can be hard to tell with potheads.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

Legalize it AND criticize it.

Jupiter said...

It pains me deeply to agree with Chuck Schumer, but he is entirely correct;

"“Ultimately, it’s the right thing to do. Freedom. If smoking marijuana doesn’t hurt anybody else, why shouldn’t we allow people to do it and not make it criminal?” Schumer said."

Now, it seems to me that one can replace "smoking marijuana" in that sentence with an awful lot of other things, and the logic still holds. Snorting cocaine. Shooting heroin. Swallowing fentanyl.

wwww said...

"Marijuana does seem to be a risk for teenagers and schizophrenia."


It looks like there is a correlation. Was talking to a specalist who noted differences in countries with higher % of teens & marijuana use. One therory is that some people are genetically predisposed, and the marijuana turns on those genes.


Mark said...

Paul, if you are going to criticize potheads for being stupid, best to use grammar correctly and not defiantly.

Also, YELLING IN ALL CAPS =/= evidence or a persuasive argument.

gilbar said...

seriously, tell me again Why 20 year olds in california can't buy tobacco?
(http://abc7news.com/news/californias-smoking-age-goes-up-to-21-today/1378236/)

i mean, after all ...
"“Ultimately, it’s the right thing to do. Freedom. If smoking doesn’t hurt anybody else, why shouldn’t we allow people to do it and not make it criminal?”"

MadisonMan said...

"If walking down the street naked doesn’t hurt anybody else, why shouldn’t we allow people to do it and not make it criminal?"

Mark said...

If the "hurt anyone else" is the standard, then yes, it does hurt someone else. The person who sells it or otherwise distributes it hurts someone else. The grower hurts someone else. The seller of seeds for home-growing hurts someone else.

Fine, make personal use legal. Just criminalize its sale, distribution, and growing.

Or, since we have all these budget deficits, simply put a 20 or 30 dollar tax on each joint. And require a bunch of tax paperwork. And if they fail to file or pay, then prosecute for tax fraud.

gilbar said...

if not having health insurance doesn't hurt anybody else, why shouldn't we allow people to do it and not make it criminal?

Humperdink said...

Seeing commie-pinko Schumer and the word freedom in the same sentence causes me to upChuck.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

"Legalize it AND criticize it"

Yes.

""Ultimately, it’s the right thing to do. Freedom. If smoking marijuana doesn’t hurt anybody else, why shouldn’t we allow people to do it and not make it criminal?”"

Exactly like my AR. Right, Chuck?

Big Mike said...

I used to be worried about people driving while stoned and causing accidents. But there doesn’t seem to have been any such rise in driving while stoned incidents in Colorado or anywhere else. Have they been happening but not reported? Or not happening at all?

FullMoon said...

Paul said... [hush]​[hide comment]

"Ultimately, it’s the right thing to do. Freedom. If smoking marijuana doesn’t hurt anybody else, why shouldn’t we allow people to do it and not make it criminal?”


Chuck, the catch is marijuana MESSES UP THE BRAIN. And since defiantly does that then once the user fries their brain then the rest of society has to take care of the semi-zombie.


Yeah, no shit man, haven't these politicians seen Reefer Madness? Documentary which should be required viewing.

FullMoon said...

Chuck, the catch is marijuana MESSES UP THE BRAIN. And since defiantly does that then once the user fries their brain then the rest of society has to take care of the semi-zombie.
Barack Obama. Choom Gang. 'nuff said.

gspencer said...

In the coming years more and more reports, joining those already extant, on the ill effects that MJ has on health, and more broadly on society. This whole MJ movement is not imo not a good thing. I realize it's the proverbial runaway freight train at the moment, but time will catch up.

paminwi said...

Sooooo......make it legal but can your employer still say if you smoke it you can't do certain jobs? Do you want your surgeon, your anesthetist, your nurse, your EMT, your firefighter high?

mockturtle said...

In the coming years more and more reports, joining those already extant, on the ill effects that MJ has on health, and more broadly on society.

Gspencer, I don't doubt what you allege but we could certainly say the same for alcohol abuse which kills people and damages society in so many ways.

Browndog said...

Is it even possible anymore to be an advocate for de-criminalization without being a pot advocate?

One thing I know about pot-when you smoke it, you get stoned. Your brain does not function properly. Reality is altered. One thing about potheads; they want everyone to be a pothead. I think Dylan had a song.....

The Vault Dweller said...

I mean the problem with Chuck Schumer's statement is that you can replace Marijuana with Cocaine, Cystal-Meth, or Heroin, and it still holds true. Why stop at Marijuana? All that being said, I would like to see the Feds get out of the illegal drug trade.

FullMoon said...

Would be interesting to see statistics on crime committed high on weed vs. Alcohol.

Violent especially.

Unknown said...

Paminwi beat me to it. Every job I've ever had required pre-employment and random drug tests, and I'm just talking about manufacturing and logistics. Employers willing to pay good money to semi-skilled workers already can't hire enough qualified people. Two choices for those industries: allow drug users to work for you and assume the liability, or close shop.

FullMoon said...

I mean the problem with Chuck Schumer's statement is that you can replace Marijuana with Cocaine, Cystal-Meth, or Heroin, and it still holds true. Why stop at Marijuana?

Legal speed would be nice. Could paint the house in and out,shampoo all the carpet, refinish hardwood, organize the garage and landscape front and back yard on Saturday

FullMoon said...

One thing I know about pot-when you smoke it, you get stoned. Your brain does not function properly. Reality is altered. One thing about potheads; they want everyone to be a pothead.

Shumer a pot head? Figures

Browndog said...

Schumer is only interested in the taxation aspect. Half the reason we have such a worker shortage in this country is because nobody is willing to even attempt to pass a one time urine test.

Lewis Wetzel said...

My ownership of two handguns isn't hurting anyone at all, Chuck.

Gahrie said...

I used to be worried about people driving while stoned and causing accidents. But there doesn’t seem to have been any such rise in driving while stoned incidents in Colorado or anywhere else. Have they been happening but not reported? Or not happening at all?

I would bet that there are some, but that they get lost in the background noise of alcohol and texting.

Pot tends to make you paranoid and either completely attentive or completely distracted. Those cars going twenty miles an hour on the freeway are most likely stoners. (unless they're grandma)

Gospace said...

I am not a big fan of substance abuse, whether it's legal or illegal substances. However- there is a much better constitutional justification for marijuana legalization under the 9th and 10th amendments than the penumbras and emanations that found the right to same sex marriage in the Constitution, a right that isn't there.

Alcohol has been used but taxed and regulated before the Constitution was passed, requiring the 18th amendment to ban it. Subsequently repealed by the 21st. There is apparently a history of marijuana use and cultivation that pre-dates the revolution. Amendment 9- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people.
would most definitely apply to the ability of government to make illegal a substance that had been legal. Especially with documented use that predates the founding. Use should be a right retained by the people.

OTOH, SSM as a right didn't exist, was never legal, and the sexual conduct implied in SSM was unlawful in most of the states and under federal regulations governing the land and naval forces. It was not a preexisting right of the people protected under the Constitution but is solely a right established by judicial tyrants forcing their will upon the people.

I've never seen marijuana advocates make the clear connection between the necessity of the 18th amendment to ban alcohol and why such an amendment should also be necessary to ban another previously legal substance since it's previous legal status and legal use is well established history. Maybe because, as some have mentioned and I've seen, regular and heavy use of marijuana addles the brain...

It would be hard to argue with a one paragraph decision that said- "Marijuana use was legal when the Constitution was adopted, therefore use of marijuana today is a protected activity under the 9th amendment as a preexisting right of the people." Wouldn't require 100 pages of justification to explain how the right existed but we were just too ignorant to see it.

Jupiter said...

Big Mike said...
"I used to be worried about people driving while stoned and causing accidents. But there doesn’t seem to have been any such rise in driving while stoned incidents in Colorado or anywhere else. Have they been happening but not reported? Or not happening at all?"

An awful lot of people have been driving while stoned for the last hundred years or so. Might be a little more common now that it's legal.

Bilwick said...

Of course--The Atlantic's first reaction is: how do we regulate it? Statists gotta State.

Gahrie said...

In the coming years more and more reports, joining those already extant, on the ill effects that MJ has on health, and more broadly on society. This whole MJ movement is not imo not a good thing. I realize it's the proverbial runaway freight train at the moment, but time will catch up.

Only an idiot would try to argue that there will be no ill effects from the legalization/decriminalization of cannabis. However there are two mitigating factors. First, the ill effects of cannabis appear to be smaller than those of either smoking or alcohol, both of which are legal. The move away from smoking towards edibles will reduce the ill effects even more. so will the approaching automation of driving. Second the ill effects of the war on cannabis are much more damaging to society and individuals than actual use of the drug.


tcrosse said...

Federalism: Threat or Menace ?

Birkel said...

Nobody should take many types of drugs. I wouldn't take them even if legal.

The question is whether the cost of enforcement, incarceration, and support for criminal enterprises is worth it. What are the gains? How many fewer illicit drug users have we created?

We are, give or take, a crazy-ass amount of money into the War on Drugs. When will Trump stand in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner?

Michael K said...

"One therory is that some people are genetically predisposed, and the marijuana turns on those genes."

That certainly is a possibility. Schizophrenia almost certainly has a genetic component.

Too bad Psychiatry has been just about the last medical speciality to get interested in genetics.

The Chairman of the Yale Psych department in 1948 was very interested in the inherited aspect but was driven out of academia by the Freudians and their delusions about the Id.

john said...

Are Pizza Hut, Papa Johns and Dominos supporting legalization or not?

The Vault Dweller said...

"Too bad Psychiatry has been just about the last medical speciality to get interested in genetics.

The Chairman of the Yale Psych department in 1948 was very interested in the inherited aspect but was driven out of academia by the Freudians and their delusions about the Id."


Too many uncomfortable areas for many to delve into. If cognitive predisposition and abilities are proven genetically heritable it threatens the worldview of some who believe "All men are created equal" means a certain thing. That it almost assuredly does not.

Sebastian said...

Ah, yes, if only we "regulate effectively," everything will work out great.

I am shocked, shocked environmentalists aren't protesting legalization, since growing pot is so harmful to the environment.

I am open to a real cost-benefit analysis. I don't think we'll get one.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Big Mike,

I used to be worried about people driving while stoned and causing accidents. But there doesn’t seem to have been any such rise in driving while stoned incidents in Colorado or anywhere else.

Not "driving while stoned," but there were a couple of nasty accidents soon after legalization in CO. Stoned girl falls to her death off balcony, that sort of thing.

Browndog said...

Are Pizza Hut, Papa Johns and Dominos supporting legalization or not?

Glad you brought up the obesity/dietary health factor of a stoned population.

Birkel said...

Baptists and Bootleggers.
Moralists and Organized Crime.

Trade-offs are the key. Why are enforcement, incarceration and support for organized crime assumed away?

Birkel said...

http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/bootleggers-and-baptists/

StephenFearby said...

Big Mike said@6:48 PM...

"...But there doesn’t seem to have been any such rise in driving while stoned incidents in Colorado or anywhere else..."

There HAS been a big rise in Colorado. I previously posted on this (1/4/18, 6:45 PM), was challenged by Fernandistein @9:06 PM and rebutted his erroneous data @ 1/5/18, 1:09 AM.

The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact Vol. 5/October 2017 (176pp)


 Marijuana-related traffic deaths when a driver was positive for marijuana more
than doubled from 55 deaths in 2013 to 125 deaths in 2016.

 Marijuana-related traffic deaths increased 66 percent in the four-year average
(2013-2016) since Colorado legalized recreational marijuana compared to the
four-year average (2009-2012) prior to legalization.

o During the same time period, all traffic deaths increased 16 percent.

https://tinyurl.com/y7uzd4cr


This recent JAMA article explains why:

JAMA April 10, 2018
Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis An Increasing Public Health Concern

Johannes G. Ramaekers, PhD, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University

"Cannabis is the most frequently detected illicit drug among drivers involved in motor vehicle crashes, often in combination with alcohol.2 Evidence from experimental and epidemiological studies indicates that cannabis also impairs driving performance and increases crash risk.1,2 The prevalence of cannabis use is expected to increase following recent legalization of medical and recreational use in several countries worldwide and the introduction of a legal cannabis industry.3 As a result, driving under the influence of cannabis has become an increasing public health concern.

Experimental laboratory studies have repeatedly demonstrated that the primary component of cannabis (ie, of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol [THC]) impairs the motor performance (eg, reaction time, tracking) and cognitive function (eg, attention, decision making, impulse control, memory) needed for safe driving in a dose-related manner.1,2 Performance impairments are maximal during the first hour after smoking and decline over 2 to 4 hours after cannabis use.2

Standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP), a measure of “weaving” or road tracking control as measured in on-road driving tests in actual traffic, appeared to be one of the most sensitive measures to detect THC-induced driving impairment. A study in 18 participants showed that smoking low (100 μg/kg of THC) and medium (200 μg/kg of THC) doses of cannabis significantly increased SDLP in a dose-related manner. The SDLP further increased when cannabis was combined with a low alcohol dose that produced a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.04 g/dL.4

In addition, the time spent driving outside of the traffic lane increased exponentially with increasing SDLP (r = 0.94) and was maximal (1.1%, about 40 seconds during the 1-hour driving test) following combined use of cannabis and alcohol. Mean increments in SDLP associated with cannabis use were equivalent to changes in SDLP previously observed in drivers performing the on-road test with a BAC of 0.05 g/dL, the level of legal impairment in many European countries. Blood alcohol concentrations at or above this level have been associated with a substantial increase in crash risk.1 Cannabis in combination with alcohol produced a mean increase in SDLP that was equivalent to that associated with a BAC greater than 0.10 g/dL, which is greater than the level of legal impairment in the United States.

Findings from on-road studies indicating that cannabis alone and combined with alcohol impairs road tracking have been replicated in driving simulator studies,1,2 supporting their validity and reliability. On-road and driving simulator studies also have shown that cannabis produces dose-related impairments of distance keeping and reaction time that added to those of alcohol when given in combination1,2..."

Ambrose said...

When has Chuck Schumer ever before advocated letting people do what they want?

n.n said...

A libertarian argument. What's next, the end of the diversity racket, warlock hunts, public lynching, sacrificial rites in "churches", and polygamy, too?

Re: polygamy and other trans-social (and adult) relationships excluded under political congruence ("="). Equal, not "=", love wins, and the bigots are exposed in a parade.

Do liberal and progressive sects in the Pro-Choice Church still think that human evolution begins when life is deemed worthy? What about the wicked solution, the final solution, Chuck? Selective-child, even more than one-child, is an unprecedented denial of science and human rights, and evidence of social progress.

As for marijuana, let us observe and regulate the effects. The liberals of LA's yesteryear may have made the wrong judgment in the war on drugs.

Phil 314 said...

Legalize it if only to get away from the sham of Medical Marijuana.

Variably dosed substance via a smoke vehicle is not “Medicine”

mockturtle said...

Variably dosed substance via a smoke vehicle is not “Medicine”

Marijuana and its products are sold in alternative forms for medicinal purposes, as well. A friend of mine who is undergoing chemotherapy takes it in smokeless form.

Pugsley the Pug said...

Several comments about marijuana from my perspective...

- Many anti-smoking zealots who detest tobacco smoke in public due to the bad effects on their lungs along with the stench it leaves on them and their clothes seem perfectly good with weed smoking. The last time I checked, weed wreaks pretty well and inhaling it in a burning format allows small particulate matter to get into the lungs in a similar fashion as burned tobacco - that is not good for the lungs. I stayed in a Seattle hotel 2 years ago that banned smoking of all types and they had all guests sign a document upon checking in pointing out that weed smoking, although legal in the State of Washington, would be treated the same way as tobacco smoking, incurring charges on the guest’s credit card for cleaning/deordorizing the room.
- Today’s weed is way more potent than the product ingested by the Woodstock generation. It is not harmless as portrayed by liberal polticians looking to legalize it. I inhaled second hand weed smoke in the early 1980’s that I didn’t care for and it made me mildly paranoid. It is not a feeling that I cared for and I avoided those potheads after that. I can only imagine how that affects people today in more the potent form.
- Politicians expect to start pulling in the tax dough when legalized. A recent news story said that revenue from legalized weed sales in CA is falling far short of projections. The legislators there probably already spent that money based on projections and my guess is CA’s deficit is getting even larger since the Dems there can’t resist their spending habits. The black market remains due to out of country drug cartels smuggling it across the boarder and they avoid paying taxes as it does cut into profits.
- The drug cartels are not going away with legalization. My guess is they will be providing product both above board with sham companies legally growing and selling weed and on the black market tax-free to meet demand in those states with legalized weed. And the cartels don’t like competition and they have serious firepower to protect their turf - pity the legit grower who gets muscled out by these thugs.

Bilwick said...

Sebastian, I wondered the same thing after seeing something on tv about how much electricity indoor marihuana farms use up. I found it funny that tree-hugging Holistic Harry (remember him?) would be such a heavy-carbon-footprint energy hog.

gilbar said...

Full moon said "Would be interesting to see statistics on crime committed high on weed vs. Alcohol.
Violent especially. "

That Would be interesting. Of the thousands of shootings in Chicago, what percentage of shooters (and what percentage of victims) were stoned at the time of the shooting.
I'm assuming that it isn't in excess of 100%, but i'll bet it's pretty darn close to it.
Thoughts? Of urban shootings, are there any were the shooter was Not stoned?

heyboom said...

Yeah, marijuana doesn't "hurt anybody else", just like alcohol doesn't. Not to mention how disgusting it is to having to walk around smelling other people's weed habit.

PB said...

Um, smoking pot produces aerosolized carcinogens, much like smoking tobacco. I thought the anti-smoking mob claimed there is not safe level of exposure to second hand smoke? Of course they conveniently ignore the scientific concept of the dose making the poison. They also conveniently ignore the EPAs decades old acknowledgement of acceptable levels of carcinogens in our environment.

StephenFearby said...

One of the papers cited in Ramaekers (above):

Biological Psychiatry, 79 (1), 557-567.
Broyd, S. J., van Hell, H. H., Beale, C., Yucel, M. & Solowij, N. (2016).

Acute and chronic effects of cannabinoids on human cognition -- a systematic review.

CONCLUSIONS

"Further significant evidence has emerged supporting the finding that acute and chronic exposure to cannabinoids impairs cognition, especially in the domains of verbal learning,
memory, and attention (Table 2). Mixed evidence across the range of other cognitive domains is likely due to ongoing heterogeneity in the cognitive tests employed, prior cannabis
use histories, and the assessment of cannabis use metrics as well as the neurodevelopmental stage at both onset and cessation of cannabis use. Nevertheless, it is clear from the
literature reviewed that cognitive impairment on a range of domains can persist beyond the period of acute intoxication and potentially affect daily functioning in cannabis users and
hence the range of adverse educational and other psychosocial outcomes identified as associated with frequent use, in particular for adolescent users (17)."

"...In light of increasing trends toward legalization or medicalization of cannabis, it is imperative to research further the parameters of cannabis use that result in impairment and the potential for protection from cognitive harm by CBD (evidence is growing but is not definitive) such that harm minimization strategies may be implemented, and to understand the therapeutic parameters of any of the cannabinoids to enable the benefits of medications without concomitant brain and cognitive harm."

http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3163&context=sspapers

walter said...

Pugsley the Pug said...Many anti-smoking zealots who detest tobacco smoke in public due to the bad effects on their lungs along with the stench it leaves on them and their clothes seem perfectly good with weed smoking
--
Yeah..I worked in a casino yesterday where smoking is allowed. But all the smokers combined didn't compare to the pot cloud around a young guy (maybe an employee) who was arriving as I was leaving. I hope his gig didn't require reflexes.

Michael Fitzgerald said...

Here in Los Angeles, it's been available with an easy to get doctor's recommendation for years. Street sales were wiped out because you could get better stuff with wide variety for less money in a safe environment. Then the state, with greedy eyes on a new source of tax dollars, allowed it to be "legalized". On January 1st the price of pot increased by almost 50%. Since then the pot shops have lost half their business and illegal marijuana sales have been reanimated. Now who could possibly have guessed that would happen?

hombre said...

Or, “We are infested with drunks. Why not potheads too?”

Birkel said...

So nobody wants to talk about the hundreds of billions paid for the never ending War on Drugs?

Everything is cost on the legalization side. But we should take as a given the organized crime costs? The increased enforcement costs? The increased incarceration costs?

Do you want smaller government or not? Do you want the federal government into everything or not?

Henry said...

Trump should double-down. Let's see who goes grudging.

For the record, Schumer is right and it's long overdue.

In my town there's been a fascinating political fight over the opening of a recreational marijuana storefront. There are multiple factions and none of them fit the blue-red dichotomy. Pay attention to small town politics; it tells you want people really think.

walter said...

Birkel and Michael F need to figure this feedback loop out..

heyboom said...

California marijuana law states that you have to 21 or older and can only smoke in your private residence or a licensed establishment. Of course, nobody gives a damn about that requirement.

Comanche Voter said...

Where's the second hand smoke argument used against tobacco? Does that not also apply to marijuana. I sure as heck can smell it in a lot of places in California. I've got a friend who has a house just down the hill from a local bar. He and his wife like to sit out in the evening around the firepit in their back yard and have a beer or two. The patrons of the bar just up the hill from their back yard do their drinking in the bar, then go out to the parking lot and smoke weed. The smell drifts down to my friend's backyard.

Henry said...

#heyboom -- currently in Massachusetts you can grow your own, but not sell it. That changes later this year. Hence the recreational-use storefront controversy.

LilyBart said...

Sure, do what you want. Just don't ask me to support you or pay for the consequences of your choices. mmkay? (this goes for all your other bad habits too)

Luke Lea said...

I read roughly 100,000 people have been killed by the drug gangs in Mexico over the last decade or so. A high price to pay for the criminalization of drugs. A least decriminalization protects the innocent for the most part. Like it was in America in the 19th century. Make drugs passe!

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

my body, my choice.

Right I.N.G.A.? 14th Amendment as well as 3rd, 4th 5th 29th etc.

John Henry

Narayanan said...

Do senators experience epiphanies that do not also materialize $$$

Narayanan said...

Comanche, are you saying the patrons have to leave the bar to toke up, really?!?!

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Narayanan said...

Don't they have pot vape yet?!

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Stephen Fearby,

I have read 2 studies done by the US Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I have heard of but have not seen, something similar done in Australia by either the Australian national or a state govt. This would have been in the early 90s or so.

All three found no impairment even with a considerable amount of MJ smoked.

I can probably find the studies online somewhere but it has been a while. I'll need to refresh my Archie and Gopher skills.


John Henry

Mark said...

It is a strange argument that you have a right to be mentally impaired.

Gretchen said...

I am on the fence on this one, mainly because the media has been failing to cover the drug honestly, and there hasn't been much research, especially for long-term and daily usage.

In Colorado it has become much more prevalent at lower ages, ask any middle school principal or cop. The strength that is available as well as the media claiming it is "harmless" has fostered some medical consequences. I know of one young 20-something woman currently in a psychiatric hospital with Cannabis-induced psychosis, another person who developed schizophrenia as a result of occasional use, and Colorado emergency rooms report commonly seeing cases of Cannabinoid hyperemesis.

Once it is fully legal in all 50 states it will become a public health crisis.

Anonymous said...

It's probably best to head to a legal regime at this point. Unless the argument is that marijuana is worse than cigarettes, it's probably better to regulate it and deprive drug dealers and gangs of some of their cash flow.

The main check should be regulation of the quality of the product, some sort of licensing regime for retailers, and a sales limitation per person for a given period of time (if they still feel the need to do it for Sudafed...). Oh - and not taxing the hell out of it and keeping the black market around as a cheaper option.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Rt1 Rebel said...

Paminwi beat me to it. Every job I've ever had required pre-employment and random drug tests, and I'm just talking about manufacturing and logistics. Employers willing to pay good money to semi-skilled workers already can't hire enough qualified people. Two choices for those industries: allow drug users to work for you and assume the liability, or close shop.


A large manufacturer of machine tools in Fond du Lac already rejects close to 80% of all applicants for failure to pass a drug test.

What's a few more?

Perhaps what is needed is an incentive. What happens to the pot smokers who can't get jobs because of drug tests? A lot of them just lay about and collect various kinds of govt benefits.

Perhaps we should make unemployment of able bodied people more unattractive.

John Henry

MD Greene said...

As a practical matter, we should eliminate laws we are unwilling to enforce. Period.

As another practical matter, California is so eager to regulate and tax the marijuana that it is very likely the illegal drug sellers will continue to work off the books. Fifty+ years of non-enforcement does tend to make people casual about observing laws.

As a third practical matter, now-legal Oregon marijuana farmers are dumping their weed at prices lower than ever observed previously, a benefit or drawback depending on your personal pot preferences. https://bit.ly/2qHJKXM

I know two people who run small- to mid-sized industrial facilities on the West Coast. They are always in hiring mode, but they need sober people to be able to afford OTJ insurance and to avoid lawsuits. The pay and benefits are good, but qualified candidates -- i.e., people who show up regularly and can pass drug tests -- are hard to find.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Blogger Mark said...

It is a strange argument that you have a right to be mentally impaired.

It's a strange argument that a perfectly healthy, physically, man has the right to cut his dick off.

Would you forbid this?

I wouldn't though I would forbid the govt or private insurance companies from subsidizing it.

John Henry

walter said...

So..CJ,
Something like "We'd love to hire you, but your test came back positive. Have you been consuming our product?"

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Blogger Comanche Voter said...

Where's the second hand smoke argument used against tobacco? Does that not also apply to marijuana.

The second hand smoke argument against tobacco is bullshit. The anti-secondhand smole laws are based on a "meta-study" that combined the results of 27 other studies. None of the 27 studies found any harm. But when combined together and tortured by government statisticians they somehow found some slight harm.

I imagine that 2nd hand MJ smoke would be similar except 1) There will always be less of it because a pot smoker will smoke fewer joints than a cigarette smoker 2) One of the, arguably, harmful ingredients of tobacco smoke is nicotine, absent in MJ.


John Henry

MD Greene said...

heyboom said:

"California marijuana law states that you have to 21 or older and can only smoke in your private residence or a licensed establishment."

Hahaha with that. I passed a guy smoking meth (or crack -- how could I tell?) on a busy commercial sidewalk one bright afternoon last month. My joke was that he was afraid to break to break the law by smoking anything in his apartment.

California largely has given up on law enforcement. This reduces the prison population -- a good idea sorta -- but it exposes the broader population to a lot more crime.

We have another home in a different state and spend less time in CA now. Hope the pendulum swings back in the next 20 years or so.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

cyrus83 said...

It's probably best to head to a legal regime at this point. Unless the argument is that marijuana is worse than cigarettes, it's probably better to regulate it and deprive drug dealers and gangs of some of their cash flow.

What happens when we deprive the gangs of their cash flow? In the 70's and 80's Colombia's most popular export was MJ. When the DEA came along and started cracking down, they switched to cocaine. Cocaine was relatively uncommon in the US at that time. (Key word relatively)

Why? Because a single baggie of pure cocaine was worth an entire boatload of MJ. Much easier to smuggle that baggie worth a couple hundred grand than a large bale of MJ worth only a few grand.

Then, as enforcement tightened, crack came along as being even more compact.

If the drug cartels are forced out of business because drugs become legal, what do you think they will do? Say, "Oh, well, it was nice while it lasted" and go open a small grocery store? Nope, they will find other, probably more harmful ways to raise money.

I am not using this as an argument against legalization. I am fully for it. Especially of MJ. Just saying we need to be thinking what happens after with the drug gangs.

John Henry

Jeff said...

There was a brief window of opportunity for Trump and the Republican Congress to show the voters that they actually believe some of the limited government rhetoric we always hear before but rarely after elections. If Republicans led the move to unschedule marijuana, they would get a lot of credit from Independent voters. And there would be no political downside at all. There are very few voters who would switch from Republican to Democrat if Republicans legalized pot. Many more would move the other way.

I think Schumer realized this and made his move to insure that Democrats get the lion's share of the credit when legalization happens. And it will happen, before Trump's first term is finished.

I disagree with almost everything Chuck Schumer stands for, but he is a smart politician. The Republicans just proved that they are not. They blew the best chance they had to really dominate this November.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

Maybe marijuana helps ALLEVIATE schizophrenia. How would we know?

I doubt being hounded by the police and thrown in jail for smoking weed is good therapy for schizophrenia.

Gahrie said...

Don't they have pot vape yet?!

Yes they do.

Guildofcannonballs said...

No, again, you bigoted, racist, homophobic, sexist fucks.

Like with Laura and the Shut Up And Sing, you only get so far with the high-selling stupidity.

Then.

Well.

Fuck.

I didn't want to to this. To be so mean. So unagreeable.

But it's the only way you cuntsuckin' cocks learn.

Through the method I have never, and I've asked Billions for it, ascribed, other than to my and God's eternal memory, the theory of four,.

Not Brrett Varve, per the Super Tropper movie out, and outs, decade nearlu.

But, it involves the first level.

Chjild.

Defined as something Hardin couldn't ever reference, ever.

Secind.

News media, what Hardin is always, like a dummy talkihn'[ bout.

Thirsd.

Power behind thrones.

THe guys fuckin' what's his BUYQWA QQ Q

Yeah the smartest, most accomplished, bwst of the bst here and there, UnAmerican thought too and though letsnotforget.

God.

the 4chan Guy who reads Althouse said...

I know a lot of people that get stoned, it's not hard to say that in Seattle. Some of these people are cool, some are retarded and shit, but the people I know that don't get stoned are like that too, so I don't really think about it much.

And I once got to fuck a chick because she was pissed off at her deadbeat boyfriend for being stoned so much and not, like, cleaning his dishes and shit, so that kinda worked out for me. And really, I wish I met more chicks who had sex with dudes because they were pissed off at their boyfriends, that would make my life easier I think.

My problem is that, when the government decides that you're doing something bad, they can get all epic on your ass. Like, twenty-five years ago on this day the government decided that some religious nuts were doing something bad, so they ran their house over with tanks and set them on fire and shit.

And, like, I'm still not sure exactly what was so bad that they were doing. Or at least so bad that you think it's a good idea to run over their house with tanks and set them on fire and shit.

But that's the kind of shit government does when it decides it doesn't like what you're doing. Because it used to be that breaking the law is what made the government jump your shit, but now it seems like the law is kinda besides the point -- you can break some laws and be seen as, like, a protester or victim or hero or shit, and other times you're not breaking a law but they still are out for your ass, because they can always find some law that you're breaking, they just need a reason to find it.

So I'm not very confident when the government decides something is bad, because all the good things are considered bad by somebody, the government just hasn't, like, got around to all of it yet. And maybe they're not going to roll a tank over your house and set your shit on fire, but it seems like they kinda want you to know that they can, if they feel like it.

And that's probably why they won't let you have a tank, because if you had a tank maybe you wouldn't put up with that shit.

I post my shit here.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

Oh, and equating the dangers of marijuana with those of tobacco is silly. Even those who smoke large amounts of marijuana don't usually smoke as much as typical pack-a-day tobacco smokers, there are ways of ingesting marijuana that don't involve smoking, and from what I've read, marijuana use, in it's typical forms, doesn't carry quite as high a risk of cancer and emphysema as tobacco.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

"Once it is fully legal in all 50 states it will become a public health crisis."

Let's test that prophecy, Nostradumbass.

Guildofcannonballs said...

It is way, way more absurd to consider God's ways "okay" if God agrees, with you and all your buddies, that kneeling to Him five times a day absolves you of child rape.

We all know this, in fact how could us all and indeed anyone not?

How?

Catholic Church was infiltrated, so we can't reference them no more.

Of course.

the 4chan Guy who reads Althouse said...

I've been thinking about this a little more, because even when I click over to 4chan I'm still thinking sometimes, and I figure it's hard to watch people make bad choices, because watching people fuck up sucks, unless it's, like, funny and shit and someone filmed it and put it on the internet. Because then, even if you made a bad choice, you still might get famous.

I mean, it worked for Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, right? I think a lot of people would say that them making a sex tape was a bad choice, but it did kinda make them stars and shit, and that seems to be how America works now, you fuck up in the right way and everything's cool if you're, like, hot and look good naked.

If you're not hot though, then the bad choices can really fuck you up, because not very many ugly people get famous from a sex tape, people don't want to watch that shit.

But if the government decides it's not going to let you make bad choices then you really don't get to make a choice at all, mom and dad have decided you don't get to eat the entire tub of Cool Whip in the refrigerator, and so now you didn't learn that eating a whole tub of Cool Whip gives you the shits real bad.

And maybe eating a whole tub of Cool Whip and getting the shits real bad keeps you from ever eating Cool Whip again, and isn't that a good thing? I mean, I'm not a Cool Whip hater, it's just an example. Because I don't want the government to decide that I can't eat Cool Whip just because some people can't handle their Cool Whip.

Like, bad choices suck, but no choices sucks even worse. Because if people were prevented from making bad choices then there probably wouldn't be any pictures of chicks spreading their ass cheeks and showing their assholes on 4chan, and then I don't think that that would be America anymore.

I post my shit here.

wildswan said...

Why pay for drug rehab with public money when everyone is proving that no problem exists? Abolish publicly funded-rehab along with decriminalizing gateway drugs. Lose lots of people but save lots of money. It's the perfect utilitarian solution.

Mary Beth said...

Chuck, the catch is marijuana MESSES UP THE BRAIN.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Churchy LaFemme: said...

And that's probably why they won't let you have a tank, because if you had a tank maybe you wouldn't put up with that shit.

I just finished A. E. Van Vogt's original "The Weapon Shops of Isher" novella (Available for free here). Van Vogt stacks the deck a bit since he posits a type of strong-AI gun which will only fire in self defense, but still it's striking how applicable the text is to our times, especially a speech to the Empress by a cashiered officer and the general explanation given here by the "weapon shops girl" to our hero:

Cayle frowned at her, simultaneously dissatisfied and fascinated. He had not intended to be distracted but for years there had been questions in his mind about the weapon shops.

AND here was somebody who knew.

"But what do they do?" he said insistently. "If they've got such wonderful guns why don't they just take over the government?"

Lucy Rall smiled and shook her head. "You don't understand," she said. "The weapon shops were founded more than two thousand years ago by a man who decided that the incessant struggle for power of different groups was insane and that civil and other wars must stop forever.

"It was a time when the world had just emerged from a war in which more than a billion people had died and he found thousands of people who agreed to follow him."

"His idea was nothing less than that whatever government was in power should not be overthrown. But that an organization should be set up which would have one principal purpose -- to ensure that no government ever again obtained complete power over its people.

"A man who felt himself wronged should be able to go somewhere to buy a defensive gun. You cannot imagine what a great forward step that was. Under the old tyrannical governments it was frequently a capital offense to be found in possession of a blaster or a gun."

Her voice was taking on emotional intensity now. It was clear that she believed what she was saying. She went on earnestly.

...

"For defensive purposes a weapon shop gun is absolutely superior to an ordinary or government weapon. It works on mind control and leaps to the hand when wanted. It provides a defensive screen against other blasters, though not against bullets -- though, being so much faster, that isn't important."

She looked at Cayle and the emotion began to fade from her face. "Is that what you wanted to know?"

"Suppose you're shot from ambush?" Cayle asked.

She shrugged. "No defense." She shook her head, smiling faintly. "You really don't understand. We don't worry about individuals. What counts is that many millions of people have the knowledge that they can go to a weapon shop if they want to protect themselves and their families. And, even more important, the forces that would normally try to enslave them are restrained by the conviction that it is dangerous to press people too far.

"And so a great balance has been struck between those who govern and those who are governed."

Cayle stared at her in bitter disappointment. "You mean that a person has to save himself? Even when you get a gun you have to nerve yourself to resist? Nobody is there to help you?"

It struck him with a pang that she must have told him this in order to show him why she couldn't help him.

Lucy spoke again.

"I can see what I've told you is a great disappointment to you. But that's the way it is. When a people lose the courage to resist encroachment on their rights, then they can't be saved by an outside force. Our belief is that people always have the kind of government they want and that the individual must bear the risks of freedom, even to the extent of giving his life."

Howard said...

Former Speaker Boehner is pushing big stoner pot. Mitch McConnell introduced a bill to legalize hemp. These two branches of cannabis are not symbiotic biologically because hemp fucks the female buds into seed pods. Hemp industry produces fiber, medicine (CBD) and animal feed. Apparently Kentucky farmers are chomping at the bit to start planting.

Our dystopian future looks more Huxley than Orwell.

Yancey Ward said...

Inga, don't put your head in an oven- you have a lot a live for!

Tyrone Slothrop said...

Pot enthusiasts made a big mistake inviting the government to regulate their particular vice. The black market is freer, cheaper and fairer.

Paul said...

Mary Beth said...

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

"The biggest risk related to the use of marijuana is the increased risk of psychosis," said Dr. Scott Krakower, assistant unit chief of psychiatry at Zucker Hillside Hospital in Glen Oaks, New York. Another significant risk, for those who use marijuana during their teenage years, is an increased likelihood of an IQ drop.

"It is safe enough to say that people who smoke marijuana," especially when they are young, are more likely have a reduction in their IQ later in life, Krakower told Live Science."

https://www.livescience.com/55258-how-marijuana-affects-the-brain.html

Bob Loblaw said...

Pot enthusiasts made a big mistake inviting the government to regulate their particular vice. The black market is freer, cheaper and fairer.

Here in CA the state is taxing legal pot so heavily most people are still buying from black market sources. So we still have the organized crime and people smoking God only knows what. But if you have money you can get just the strain you want in a legal dispensary.

You'd think the state government would get something right on accident every so often, but that doesn't seem to be the way it works.

gadfly said...

All is well or at least Weld. Former Massachusetts governor and Libertarian VP candidate Bill Weld is joining former Speaker of the House John Boehner as America's new pot champions. They have been invited to serve on marijuana grower Acreage Holdings' Board of Advisors - promoting legalization of the damn stuff.

Legalization is driven by the desire to sell pot at prices even higher than the illegal black market offerings. Any way to raise taxes is good, I suppose.

Kevin said...

Do you want smaller government or not? Do you want the federal government into everything or not?

Oh come one Birkel, let's not fall for that.

Listen to what people like Schumer are asking for. They want MJ legalized and regulated.

They want it to be broadly legal, and then they want to make specific parts of it illegal.

They want a cut of the money flowing into the government and they want to write a bunch of regulation and then create a government-run enforcement mechanism.

If you think Schumer would argue for anything which shrinks the size or power of government, I have a bridge to sell you.

Curious George said...

"john said...
Are Pizza Hut, Papa Johns and Dominos supporting legalization or not?"

Dude, you were so close. Taco Bell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5rlbOqQq7w

rehajm said...

They want it to be broadly legal, and then they want to make specific parts of it illegal.

This is it. The Napa Valley artisan weed model designed by tax hungry states is a bunch of BS designed to maximize the tax base by people who never studied the substitution effect.

It's legal when I can grow it next to my tomatoes.

J. Farmer said...

Mark Kleiman used to have a kind of new left take on the marijuana legalization issue. He basically supported allowing very small growers but still favored making large scale production and distribution. He never convinced me, but it was an interesting approach to addressing the issues with prohibition and the effects of marijuana being taken over by big business.

Birkel said...

Kevin,
The next time you read that I believe anything Chuck Schumer says without independent verification of the allegations, will be the first. So spare me.

I want less government.

Home brewing of beer is legal. Home growing of weed should be legal.

I don't care about all the arguments that we must protect people from themselves. Those arguments are no less valid against weed as they are against guns. We are either free people or we are not. I choose more freedom any time I can get it.

And I wouldn't use currently illicit drugs even if they were decriminalized.

Tommy Duncan said...

"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free"

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

The Comey memos -

Tragedy that a special counsel investigation was launched by leaking of the memos (which Comey has admitted). No basis in the memos to trigger a criminal investigation & it is to the discredit of Rosenstein that he caved to the pressure of the media/Democrats & appointed Mueller.
— Ron DeSantis (@RepDeSantis) April 20, 2018


The whole special counsel thing is a complete fraud.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Also turns out the Robbie Mook was pushing for Trump as the nominee.

Can Of Cheese for Hunter said...

“An agenda for an upcoming campaign meeting sent by [Campaign Manager] Robby Mook’s office asked, ‘How do we maximize Trump?’” Chozick writes, describing a time when the GOP primary was still crowded.


MeatPopscicle1234 said...

The War on Drugs is a total failure. We have spent TRILLIONS over the last several decades on police, jails, courts and enforcement, and by criminalizing drugs, we have enriched gangsters everywhere, which has spawned wave after wave of violence as they battle for "turf"...

Imagine what would happen if, overnight, we de-criminalized all drugs (pot, cocaine, fentanyl, meth, LSD, etc..) and made them available inexpensively at a pharmacy via a standard prescription that you could get from your Dr.

Mandate that all profit from the sale of these drugs goes to support treatment for those wanting to quit.

All the money currently being poured into the Drug War can instead be directed to other things like paying down the National Debt, or Education or Social Security...

And, the best part, with one stroke, you cripple the entire underground drug producing infrastructure and bankrupt the Narco's... Underprice them and guarantee a clean product, and you will put them out of business overnight...

MeatPopscicle1234 said...

And to clarify, although I did drugs in my youth, and aside from taking a toke once or twice over the last few decades, I haven't touched anything stronger than alcohol and coffee since then...

walter said...

Under what dx would a doctor prescribe all those?
Walk me through that..

stlcdr said...

As there appears to be certain issues with smoking/taking cannabis on par (but not necessarily equal to or at the same level) with alcohol or tobacco, another question arises.

As has been brought up, the detection of THC is used to determine an employees role in an incident in a working environment. While an employee may not be ‘stoned’ the test for such will show that they have drugs in their body. In almost all industrial environments, even a minor incident elicits an immediate drug test.

How does someone qualify for a job if they are a weekend pot smoker? Ignoring long term effects, it appears that cannabis has a similar short term influence as alcohol, but detection remains long after.

J. Farmer said...

@Birkel:

I don't care about all the arguments that we must protect people from themselves. Those arguments are no less valid against weed as they are against guns. We are either free people or we are not. I choose more freedom any time I can get it.

I agree completely.

walter said...

stlcdr said...
--
Good point. Liability/insurance issues have a way of being a non-governmental regulator.

Maybe related, maybe not..Prince is now thought to have taken a legit appearing vicodin that was laced with Fentanyl...whether that was intentional is not known.

MeatPopscicle1234 said...

walter said...

Under what dx would a doctor prescribe all those?
Walk me through that..

4/20/18, 7:42 AM

----

Not sure if you're responding to my post... but to answer your question, my point is that to be able to purchase one of these drugs, you would just need to register with some sort of government official (preferably someone in health-care so that your drug-use can be included in your medical chart for health reasons)...

Then you get a pass / prescription (or whatever) that allows you to buy the drug you want, and the pharmacy or legal-dispensary ensures that you get a clean, safe amount... The transaction is recorded and taxed, and the PROFIT is mandated to go to drug-rehab programs...

This ensures that drug-cartels and organized crime will not be involved, because there is no profit...

Jeff said...

Listen to what people like Schumer are asking for. They want MJ legalized and regulated.


The story I read says Schumer's bill takes MJ off the list of controlled substances, funds some minority-owned business bullshit, maintains federal authority over MJ advertising (like alcohol and tobacco), and funds some research. Not a whole lot of regulation there.

Kevin said...

You cannot make all the beer you want at your house.

And the government taxing and regulating you isn’t “freedom”.

I doubt you’d think of the first 1,000 government-approved words you speak each day as “personal use” and every government-approved word after that being taxed 5 cents per word as “free speech”.

Kevin said...

“Not a whole lot of regulation there.”

Pig walking through the forest, “look, free corn!”

walter said...

Joshua Barker,
I guess I'm not clear on whether there are "safe" amounts of meth..or certainly Fentanyl. Why not Heroin?
But it seems like a shell game in terms of real world cost examples apparently still enabling black market.

Fernandinande said...

Paul said...
And since defiantly does that then once the user fries their brain then the rest of society has to take care of the semi-zombie.


Thanks for providing such a vivid example.

You wouldn't happen to be the city manger who taped his head to the district attorney?
(HT D.Barry)

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that federal pot legalization has a decent chance this year. You have Trump doing a political favor for CO Senator Cory Gardner to rein in the DEA, and now you have Chuckie Schumer pushing it. My bet is that he is pushing it as a wedge issue aimed at separating Trump Democrats fro the GOP. Normally, it can be kept off the floor by the Senate leadership, but with Schumer pushing, that may not work. It may not poll well done n the deep Bible Belt, but getting the GOP to oppose this could be the salvation for embattled Dems like Jon Tester here (who is already running ads that try to make him look like Trump, ignoring that he voted against Trump on every major issue). And with some libertarian Republcans, plus Gardner, they are likely to have the votes in the Senate. Plus hemp states like Kansas (real hemp grows along the side of the roads there from when it as grown there during WW II for rope). The wedge here, excluding the Bible Belt again, is the middle class versus the working class. Middle class morality being forced on everyone else. A wedge that the Republicans cannot afford to fight too hard if they want to pick up Senate seats this year. I don't think that Trump really cares otherwise. So, I think that this is the year that pot legalization has a decent chance in the Senate, and there are enough libertarians in the House, that added to Pelosi's caucus, it might have a decent chance in the House too, if the leadership there lets it get to the floor for a vote. We shall see.

mockturtle said...

The workplace drug testing issue does need to be addressed. Perhaps one based upon levels that would reveal the recency of use.

Caligula said...


Re: decongestants:

"You can still buy pseudoephedrine but you have to get it at the pharmacy counter and show ID."

Yes, but, amphetamine itself works even better than pseudoephedrine as a decongestant, especially when used in a nasal inhaler.

Why use pseudoephedrin instead of the real deal?

Birkel said...

Kevin,
You take your Perfect and tell me about how it is the Enemy of the Good.

But I'm not buying what you're selling.

Bruce Hayden said...

We have seen personally some of the medical/health issues that Dr K brings up. Most of the kids I knew who smoked pot in college very easily gave it up when they got into graduate school, or entered the work force. Daily usage just isn't compatible with a white collar or professional career. But there was a sub population that didn't quit then, and kept taking through the decades. And daily usage for them seemed to make the psychologically unfit for living in the real world, and for holding down a serious job, by the time they had used pit for 20 years. Now they are at >= 40 years, and can't hold down any real job, and can't really function in society. Not only are they antisocial, but they also seem to become extremely sensitive to environmental smells and sounds. My theory is that the pot dulls their senses, which causes their mental filters to become less sensitive, which causes them problems when they aren't high, such as at work.

That all said, I voted to legalize pot in CO, and stand by my vote to this day. Despite never having availed myself of its benefits, and never intending to do so. I am basically libertarian, but vote Republican because they are the less statist party. So won't vote for Jon Tester even if he votes to legalize pot, because he voted against tax reform, and is helping Schumer slow down Trump's nomination needs to a crawl.

Fernandinande said...

Bruce Hayden said...
We have seen personally some of the medical/health issues that Dr K brings up.


He's wrong, as usual, it's self - medicating, not cause and effect. Schizos also smoke a lot a tobacco.

But thanks for the informative, er, I meant interesting, anecdotes! There are plenty of other anecdotes which say exactly ">the opposite.

Fernandinande said...

the opposite

"Not only are they antisocial, but they also seem to become extremely sensitive to environmental smells and sounds."

Like these two guys, who obviously never go out in public and avoid loud noises:

In talking about Willie Nelson, Keith [Richards] is more garrulous. “Willie’s fantastic. He has a guy with a turned-over Frisbee, rolling, rolling, rolling. A beautiful weedhead is Willie. I mean straight out of bed. At least I wait ten minutes in the morning. What a songwriter."

My Lpog's sister has been a "wake and bake" fan for > 40 years and she makes over $1 million/year in a "deal with the public" business.

That's the beauty of anecdotes: you can "prove" whatever you want to believe.

J. Farmer said...

@Jeff:

Not a whole lot of regulation there.

From the Federal government side. The individual states would still be allowed to regulate marijuana, up to and including prohibition.

Howard said...

FDA Panel Recommends CBD Approval for use in reducing effects of childhood seizures.

GRW3 said...

When San Antonio was considering a "No Smoking" ordinance, I contacted my city councilman to make sure it was banning all forms of smoking in public spaces, not just tobacco. I was assured it was banning smoking of any kind. If your location has a no smoking ordinance, you might want to be sure it covers everything.

Fernandinande said...

walter said...
I hope his gig didn't require reflexes.


Oh gosh, I sure hope not!

Matt Barnes, another former NBA player who retired after the 2016-17 season, said he smoked pot before games throughout his 14-year career.
...
Former NFL defensive lineman Shaun Smith said he used to smoke "two blunts before every game" over the span of his 10 seasons in the league.

"Shoot, coaches do it. Personnel does it, people upstairs do it," Smith said. "Quarterbacks, guys that are your captains, leaders of the team smoke.

"Everybody has their reason. They do it for their pain."

Fernandinande said...

It's surprising that nobody seemed to notice the "impaired motor coordination" and "slowed reaction times" of those NBA players.

The only explanation must be that those NBA guys only played at night on some inner-city courts, where nobody would see them stumbling around and saying "oh wow man" as the ball rolled past them, and they definitely didn't play in stadiums right in front of thousands of people, and millions more on live TV, who were analyzing their every move.

mikee said...

The taxes will be just high enough that legal pot sales for profit will be possible, while illegal, untaxed, and thus more profitable, pot sales can continue unabated.

mockturtle said...

The only explanation must be that those NBA guys only played at night on some inner-city courts, where nobody would see them stumbling around and saying "oh wow man" as the ball rolled past them

LOL! Thanks, CT IV.

mockturtle said...

FDA Panel Recommends CBD Approval for use in reducing effects of childhood seizures.

Howard, I just happened to see a program about that today. This is apparently not being researched extensively in the US and dosages are currently hard to quantify and prescribe. But the UK is doing a lot of breakthrough work on MJ as a source of pharmaceuticals for various issues, including epilepsy. I have mixed feelings about this. Certainly potency and half-life need to be known and regulated for applications such as childhood epilepsy but once Big Pharma takes it over it will be just another high-cost drug that many cannot afford.

mockturtle said...

PS: The Brits are using it for MS pain, as well.