Pot should be nationally legaized (with one caveat)

It's pretty well established as a trigger, DF.

 

The 3 questions answer your question.

 

Read the thread. (RTT) TIA

 

SMOP/RTT

 

RTT, and more research is needed to improve understanding and safety, as noted. (SMOP)

Liability acts as an impediment and incentive respectively in regards to discouraging reckless distribution and improving research/safety. Win/win.

 

RTT

 

Any kind of impaired/distracted driving should be HIGHLY discouraged. Eating, fiddling with the radio, having a cold, being angry, on the phone - all extremely dangerous.

 

I completely understand; my anecdotal experience may differ from your own.

My wish is to encourage greater research and safer pot.

I think liability would act as both carrot and stick in achieving these ends.

 

I don't think we know enough about marijuana to say alcohol is worse overall, though alcohol is very bad indeed. But it doesn't trigger psychosis via casual use as pot can, for instance.

It concerns me that an entire generation will be used as lab rats in the name of convenient access to the drug, but we'll know a heck of a lot more in 20 years, so a silver lining there.

Swimming pools - Considerable liability DOES apply ("attractive nuisance" law), and I'm not calling for the banning of anything. RTT

Football - Much more research needed, and recent research indicates a very high level of brain trauma for players. Important area of inquiry, as the young are disproportionately affected, as with pot and psychosis. Also, RTT - I'm not calling for the banning of anything.

Beaches - I'm not calling for the outlawing of anything. RTT

Adults can choose, and liability will protect them further while more is learned, via ethical research and/or using an entire generation as lab rats.

 

RTT; no outlawing sought. TIA

 

The thread's about pot's dangers, not those of hamburgers or alcohol. (Please feel free to start threads about your other concerns if you feel the need.) That cars are dangerous does not mean that guns are not; this thread has a focus, and that focus is pot.

Colorado is an interesting petri dish, and what happens there over the next 20 years will tell us much.

 

More research needed as to pot's effects, and safer pot needed, as (among other dangers) casual use can trigger psychosis.

 

Not the only, but you make a good point.

 

Yes.

RTT; casual alcohol use doesn't trigger psychosis.

 

Some excellent points, FAW.

I've been careful to use the term trigger, as you'll note, and we may have a disagreement over whether mental illness would manifest in a given instance without a trigger such as pot.

My interest is encouraging more research and creating safer pot, and one tool is by enacting the liability I propose.

 

Interesting.

More research might tell us if this was a good idea, or something which either did not help, or worsened his life condition.

 

RTTT (Read the thread title)

It says I agree with lega(l)ization with one caveat pertaining to liability.

Also RTT

TIA

 

Pot is fine how it is. If you want to put an upper limit on THC levels then so be it. That doesn't require a great amount of research. It is like saying that legal alcohol cannot exceed 100 proof.

I can probably lend a little more clarification to this issue. Psychosis is generally attributed to an excess of Dopamine in the mesolimbic neuropathway. Dopamine increases with most pleasurable activities. Nicotine increases dopamine levels. Sex increases dopamine. Love increases dopamine. Adrenaline increases dopamine. Caffeine increases dopamine. Alcohol increases dopamine. Marijuana increases dopamine. Basically, an increase in dopamine is the body's response to pleasure.

These releases of dopamine are harmless in normal brains. For a person with a psychosis inducing mental illness, even when between psychotic episodes which can sometimes be years, they are typically always still on the brink in regards to excess dopamine pushing them into psychosis be it temporary or a full fledged relapse. This consistently applies to people with schizophrenia, and less consistently applies to those with Bi Polar with psychotic features. For these people, it doesn't take much for those dopamine levels to once again get too high. Drinking or smoking pot for these people tends to push them at minimum to a sort of temporary psychosis, and if their illness is already on a spiral towards a relapse, it can often be the final trigger into a full blown relapse. This doesn't mean that anything is wrong or needs to be studied about the specific alcohol or pot that triggered that persons psychosis, it simply means that this population of people puts themselves at risk for psychosis when using intoxicants of any sort. Some people with serious heart conditions should not ingest caffeine. We don't therefore conclude that all caffeine needs to be designed weak enough so that all heart patients can take it. We instead make the obvious conclusion that this population of people should not ingest caffeine.

The same principle applies to marijuana. If a particularly strong strain increases dopamine levels too high in a seriously mentally ill person, that doesn't mean that no one should be able to get a strong strain. You are acting as if marijuana is an unknown. It has been around for many centuries. Its effects are well known. You can argue that it has gotten stronger over the years, but that just means that you have to smoke less to get as high. Unlike alcohol, you can only get to a certain level of high. There comes a point where you cannot get higher and anyone that has ever smoked with regularity knows this full well. People have been hitting that point for many centuries, even if they did have to ingest more in the past to get to that same point. You are acting as if this is a new substance that requires all of this extensive testing, and it really doesn't. Just because THC levels have risen in recent years doesn't change anything. The effects of marijuana are well known.

 

A warning label's a great idea - thank you.

Adults can and should make informed (by research) decisions, yes; we're on the same page.

The thread topic pertains to the dangers of pot, yes. I hope that was made clear in the title/OP.

Interesting point about ignorance of potential danger affecting liability, but as I've said, I favor more research/safer pot, and seek liability as both carrot and stick to this end. If pot's safe - as so many here have claimed - a non-issue in matters such as triggering psychosis, and a legal non-starter. And if it isn't, perhaps the providers of dangerous marijuana can plead ignorance to escape consequence, and walk away from the wreckage they helped create unscathed.

We'll know more in 20 years or so, however, so if you're okay with a generation being used as lab rats, so be it.

 

Liability for care adheres to the provider, not the user. (To the extent they are distinct.)

"Any freakout is a panic attack" - I think not. RTT

The dangers of alcohol are well known, and liability does attach to providers in some instances.

 

Strains with minimal triggering impact re: psychosis for instance.

RTT; this has been asked and answered multiple times.

 

Trigger; cause a different effect. RTT

More research needed.

Thanks for your input!

 

This is great, and certainly there are those who can safely consume various products (alcohol, pot, tobacco, etc.) without ill effect.

I'd love to see more (ethical) research done toward both understanding pot's effects and making safer strains, and maybe the folks you mention could be part of that.

Thank you for your comments.

 

Depends on the drug. What drug/s? What's known about it/them? What bona fide research is available?

Alcohol and tobacco's effects are well known, and warnings attach, and liability may still pertain in some instances.

More pot research needed, as I've said.

Has she tried Excedrin Migraine?

Also, pot consumption causes susceptibility to migraines for some people. (Anecdotally, I know many.)

Again: more research needed.

 

People have been smoking pot for thousands of years. Why do you think the government should control what we are allowed to do or not do? What makes alcohol "okay" but not pot? ALL drugs come with some risks. There is no such thing as any drug that is 100% safe. None are. There are even risks with taking an aspirin.