House will vote on cannabis legalization bill in December

How is marijuana detrimental to life?
More-so than alcohol, sugar or anything else?

You know what is detrimental to life, incarceration for simple possession or minimum sentencing, being unable to find a job due to a record created due to one of the prior, uncontrolled seizures or lack of appetite from cancer without pumping your body full of man man made chemicals; your idea of freedom is a faux one.

 

Yes marijuana smokers are more aware of how much they have smoked and can compensate for the effects. If it were a choice of marijuana smoking drivers or alcohol drinking drivers, the smokers any day.

Did you ever see the movie Rush? The scenes of James Hunt smoking before he drove races were true.

 

Are you telling me that after all these posts you still don't understand this entire time I've been addressing offenses committing while under the influence, most specifically driving? Bro, did you even read what you quoted?

But aside from the boo-hoo problems of criminals, people with legitimate need can take advantage of sensible medicinal use laws, extracted cannabidiol products, and expert crafted strains such as avidekel which breed out the THC component leaving everything else in tact.

 

If we're turning this thread into a Weed Critique, I for one feel that indoor, artificially lit atmospheres, while maxing out a plant's THC potential, produces weed of less interesting character than good outdoor-grown pot (e.g., real Hawaiian, or Skunkweed). Even before the rage in legalization, there'd been a move to indoor growing (presumably to escape detection), and I noticed a change in the personality. While I realize I'm painting w/ a broad brush & that, perhaps shown sufficient love by its tenders, indoor pot can do more than make one powerfully-stupid, I'm currently disposed to expecting, on these bud to brain, blind-date experiences, to be matched with
a cubicle-dweller who's off the deep end, somewhere on the spectrum from desperately horny to psychotic break.

But I'm not a big user, & have to go to the (not very close) next state for the legal stuff, so am judging with a fairly narrow sampling range to draw on (so to speak).

P S.-- I can't believe your state really has legal hash. I know it's just very compressed pot, but it still shocks me. Are you sure that's what it is, & not just some kind of marketing gimmick?

 

I agree that, from the first, drug Scheduling was nothing more than an end run by Nixon around the Constitution. Your math, though, honestly had me scratching my head-- but now I'm calibrating for the possibility that there'd been a Blunt in your recent past. I’m actually a bit doubtful this will even make it out of the House with all the bells & whistles of full legalization. I could be wrong, but it won't make a difference if it doesn't pass the Senate, or even get a vote there. Though Kentucky has long had been a producer of pot, & national legal status would allow them to sell (on the books) to other states, I can't imagine Mitch McConnell being on-board w/ this, unless he feels it would help tarnish Democrats. And, even hypothetically, if it passed both chambers, how likely do you think it is that Trump would sign it (I'm really asking-- it would be hard for me to quantify the liklihood, though I'd guess less than 50-50 odds)?

You see, anything that passes this House of Reps, if it doesn't pass this Senate, I'm pretty sure becomes nullified when the new Congress is seated, in January. So I'm guessing that this is more about theatrics-- I mean politics--than anything else. Apparently, a lot of Dems in the House want to be on the record supporting some kind of change in federal policy, and/or want to force House Repubs to take a vote & be on the record against it. Based on the timing, that's my guess.

But the part of your post that most caught my attention, frankly, was, "House Majority leader Steny Hoyer." At first I thought it was a typo. I've never heard of him before, probably because reports of House voting plans almost always come from Speaker Pelosi. I didn't even realize there was a separate, Majority, "leader." That makes me think even she doesn't want to be any more associated w/ this than she has to be-- and she's the rep for San Francisco!
Sorry to be a buzz-kill.

 

Oh no it’s hash, and oils, topicals, edibles of all kinds, something called shatter...
Here’s just the concentrate menu from a shop nearby in oakland. I just like a nice vape pen. No smell, very convenient when the kids are in bed.
https://weedmaps.com/dispensaries/blum?filter[anyCategories][]=concentrates

 

Repeating a false claim over and over - does not make that claim any less false.

The link you provided did not support your claim that Pot is on par with Alcohol w/r to driving impairment /risk of accident -

Studies posted in this thread say something different

"However, a large case-control study conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found no significant increased crash risk attributable to cannabis after controlling for drivers’ age, gender, race, and presence of alcohol.1"

Now where was this evidence that proves alcohol is on par with Pot w/r to driving impairment.

 

no buzz-kill at all - as I think this is a big move in the right direction - general decriminalization Federally being the first step perhaps - rather than full out legalization.

Not sure what math had you scratching - Both Classical LIberalism and Republicanism view 50+1 and/or simple majority mandate (where some politician claims a mandate on the basis of being elected) were referred to as "Tyranny of the Majority" - as related to Gov't messing with essential liberty.

So where then is the bar ? has to be greater than 50 +1 .. what is the next rung on the ladder. 2/3rds majority -.. after that 75% -

 

Sure, anywhere from 3/5 (as in 60 Senators) to 2/3 (# of States needed to Amend the Constitution, 67%) is a decisive majority. 3/4 is a bit overly-high of a bar; there's nowhere in our governmental system where that sort of dominant majority is required.

Were those two 33 percents typos? That's where my head-scratching came from. Did you mean 63% (since 62.5% is five-eighths)?

Giftedone said:
"no buzz-kill at all - as I think this is a big move in the right direction - general decriminalization Federally being the first step perhaps - rather than full out legalization."

Yes, but that won't happen, even if it passes the House in Dec., UNLESS it passes the Senate

 

We in Colorado were the first in the nation to have legalized weed-for-fun -- not just "medical". And, even though I'm a rock-solid Conservative, I voted FOR this total legalization.

Now that several years have gone by, I can say that sales of weed do bring in a lot of badly-needed tax dollars (we tax the hell out of it in Colorado), and it really hasn't caused too many problems like car wrecks that are directly-attributable to smoking grass.

That said, I'm VERY unhappy at where a lot of the tax money raised from weed sales actually goes -- including state spending on social "programs" whose only purpose is to KEEP PEOPLE FROM SMOKING WEED! How fugging stupid is that?!

We should either be spending money on getting people to consume MORE weed, or, maybe better, just shut the hell up about it and let people do what they WANT to do, without being badgered one way or the other by "Nanny-state government".

Disclaimer: I don't smoke weed or anything else... but I do pay taxes -- a LOT of taxes in Colorado. And I'd like for the weed tax money to be spent on things that I'm already heavily taxed for already -- not "prevention" programs. What ass dreamed that up...?

 

I think it is 75% of states required for a change to the constitution .. but I agree that this bar is a little too high for public agreement - which is why I go with 2/3rds majority. .

33% = 67% - depending on how you ask the question ... "How much needed to Gov't authority to be legitimate" = 67% How much required to claim that some law is illegitimate .. 33.6% - definitely see how this could be confusing and should probably stick to one or the other.

 

I used pot back in the day. Then I stopped for over 30 years. When I got cancer, my only choice was to grow my own. I still grow medicinal pot, one plant at a time, for pain and ptsd.

I've been to dispensaries, tried the high THC strains, etc. I grow 2 or 3 plants a year. One will be medicinal with little to no THC and the other will be medicinal with low levels of THC. I blend the two to get it where I want.

At the beginning of the thread, someone talked about driving, that's a bad idea. My pot is quite mild, and I don't drive after I take it. I do play video games, my judgement and hand eye coordination is only lightly impaired. Doesn't matter, I have a responsibility which I do not take lightly.

I'm not going to go over the thread, but if someone wants to ask a question, I can take a stab at answering it.

One thing I will say is that I can't stand the new strains. The strains I have always preferred have had CBD. Afghani, Lebanese, that sort of thing. The super strains that make the news do not have any, at least not the ones I am aware of. There are so many strains now, I don't even try to keep up. When I had cancer, you couldn't get true medicinal pot for love or money, not even seeds. But now you can get anything strains from Africa, blended strains that Mother Nature never dreamed of. Btw, one of the guys I knew had a friend who was a biology major at one of the big Ivy League schools. He had developed a strain in the early 70s that was amazingly strong. While the new strains are stronger, they aren't as new as some think.

Covid has put a lot of stress on everyone. Medicinal pot with low to moderate levels of THC (5 to 10%) can be very good for helping to live with that sort of stress. It doesn't give you much of a pot hangover, and it doesn't make you a little spacey the way smoking strong pot does.

Speaking of which, I make extract, and put it in pills. My lungs are not great. But if you want to smoke, try vaping. Burning can destroy as much as half of the THC, so it even saves money. And it's a lot easier on your lungs.

I was a gardener long before I ever grew pot. So I enjoy the growing. I keep it simple, which also means easy. It's also much, much cheaper than buying. And you know there's no pesticide or other crap in it.

 

Try again when you get to a "dry" state.

Never said it. I said when you are in your car, at work, or doing anything potentially dangerous to treat pot like alcohol. Both personally and legally. Repeating the lie only proves that the person knowlingly repeating a lie is lying.

And I'm sure this will make sense EVEN TO YOU once you get to that "dry" state mentioned earlier.

Now here's the facts' You haven't the slightest clue about this topic. Each and every post you've made on this topic seems like someone paying homage to a "Best of Cheech and Chong" reel. Get high. Get in a car in any of the 50 states. Get stopped and charged with DWI. Seems the 50 votes that matter are with me.

How do you keep an idiot in suspense?

 

in your home or away from people do as you want

 

your right about that

will Senate Republicans vote it down or block it? or will they let Trump be the one to sign it into law, this could be the one favorable thing in the history books for Trump

 

I support wearing masks; I just prefer consistency.

 

OK. But, as Columbo would say...Just one more question.

What is the THC level above which a person is DUI and, if you'll permit a follow on...
Precisely how much pot, smoked, vaped, or ingested, must one take to be above that limit.

Don't bother. There is no answer because there are too many variables and the fact that there is no answer means we should err on the side of caution.

Really?
200 lb man has consumed 6 ounces of 3.5 beer over the last 30 minutes.
115 lb woman has, over the last 30 minutes consumed 6 ounces of edible gummies amounting to about 200mg of pure THC.
One of these is your UBYFT driver.
GO! and no, you don't get to share!

 

Yours is an interesting situation that does evoke considerable sympathy from me, even though I doubt you want that as a reaction.

My only useful response (maybe) is to repeat what you indicated that the new 'strains' are extraordinarily powerful -- and that when I tried a blend called "Space Dawg" (70% Indica) it hit me so hard after just three pretty good, held-down huffs in a bowl that I literally could not even STAND up for twenty minutes afterwards!

They say that Indica is the best strain for counteracting physical pain. Me? Back in 'the good old days' a million years ago -- we smoked Acapulco Gold and similar Sativa stuff and just loved the hell out of it! I wish you well!

Oh, the best fun? A bowlful of real HASH -- soaked in Paregoric, dried, and smoked slowly! As we used to say in the old days, "Godzilla mutha-fuggahs!"

 

Well you have to define the limit. You have probably talked to more people who were stoned than you could imagine. You would be amazed at the people up and down the education spectrum, the income spectrum, the social spectrum. You know don't believe all those surveys because lots of people would never admit to anyone. Then we have to have some kind of test to test that level as a simple test for presence can go back months. As you said too many variables at this point. But as noted people smoking marijuana self regulate and compensate which people drinking alcohol are out there screams "WATCH THIS".

I imagine one would be passed out and the other refusing to drive at all. But your having to go to such extremes says a lot. Someone who has just a few drinks or a couple of tokes or had a little too much, the pot smoker anyday.

Who would you want to drive you to the hospital in an emergency?

 

You are the one living in a state of refer madness - projecting your issues on to others. This and nothing but name calling and unsupported accusations.

Then you try to backtrack from your claim - and who knows what that even is at this point. So tell us - what are you claiming - and what did I get wrong - and where is support for claim.

 

Yes - and come to think if it - the list will be short indeed.

 

true that

I doubt it will get to Trump desk though, to many Republicans in power are still against it I think, but if Trump pushed it, most of them fear him enough that they would probably pass it anyways - time will tell

I am conflicted, I want this passed, but this would be historic and Trump would forever go down in history as the one that did it, future generations may forget all the bad he did and only remember this

 

This legislation had nothing to do with Trump - that he signs it as a lame duck is of no moment. Trump will be remembered for his antics - for being a clown on a stage - a symbol and a symptom of the stage of decline we are in.

 

the politically savvy would know it was democrats in the house, the average person may think this was all Trump though as he signed it into law

 

Sure but where was Blue on this issue during the Obama era ?