As of today, Cannabis is legal in Canada

[3db]

No, I doubt it's that prevalent, sounds more like propaganda/scare stories....I take it you have no first hand information about this? It probably happens but to the same dumb consumer that buys drugs from strangers on the street....like someone who might buy a white van speaker? (a little audiophile humor) No one I know (and we're talking a large number of people I know personally) who consumes cannabis products has encountered anything like that but we tend to cultivate relationships with people we trust and often grow as far as that goes. It's only recently become legal here recreationally, medical has been around a while both here and in California where I used to live. Keep in mind pot wasn't made illegal for health concerns....here's an article discussing origins including the Hearst/Anslinger conspiracy https://www.alternet.org/story/77339/debunking_the_hemp_conspiracy_theory/

I've not known anyone who has purchased laced pot but that doesn't mean it does NOT exist. There are people who dont care about the supply and those are the ones at risk. You can dispute this all you want but the bottom line is that legalization of pot makes it a safer product to consume much like when the prohibition laws ended and there was a decrease in fatalities due to teh consumption of moonshine.

I would be more worried about the hormone fed beef one consumes (unless one really wanted a 3rd nut ) then the pesticides found on pot. One might as well stop drinking beer, wine, and spirits as the crops used in producing them also have been exposed to pesticides.

 

[lovinthehd]

I've not known anyone who has purchased laced pot but that doesn't mean it does NOT exist. There are people who dont care about the supply and those are the ones at risk. You can dispute this all you want but the bottom line is that legalization of pot makes it a safer product to consume much like when the prohibition laws ended and there was a decrease in fatalities due to teh consumption of moonshine.

I would be more worried about the hormone fed beef one consumes (unless one really wanted a 3rd nut ) then the pesticides found on pot. One might as well stop drinking beer, wine, and spirits as the crops used in producing them also have been exposed to pesticides.

I never said it didn't exist. I said it's not a big deal. I have 46 years of consumption to go by and many friends' experiences as well; I still haven't even been inside a dispensary. If it would make you feel better about giving it a try, go for it. It may be a better way to source edibles, too. Sometimes darwinism is a good thing otoh. Prohibition was the problem, not the moonshine. Just like the later war on drugs, caused far more issues than it ever resolved.

 

[KEW]

I think it was during the Reagan era that they said the pot was laced with paraquat and you'd die smoking it.

They said it because they (the Reagan Administration) were doing it!

Poisoning Pot - and People
AUG. 19, 1983

It would be astonishing to deter illegal parking by planting land mines in ''no parking'' zones. Yet what the Reagan Administration is doing to deter marijuana smoking is nearly as extreme. When Federal enforcers found pot in Georgia, they sprayed it with paraquat, an herbicide that can be lethal when inhaled.

If all paraquat did was to eradicate the crop, that might be defensible. Commercial trafficking is, after all, a crime, and a much more serious one than illegal parking. But common sense and common decency dictate that pot smokers not be put at great health risk in the process.

Paraquat became a household word in 1978 when a Congressional committee discovered that the State Department was providing the herbicide to Mexico as part of America's international drug control program. Paraquat kills marijuana within a few days. But if quickly harvested, contaminated plants pass for normal.

Animal studies show that inhaling as little as half a milligram of paraquat in a year can cause serious, perhaps irreversible, lung damage. Investigators found that enough poisoned pot was crossing the border annually to expose scores of pot smokers to a highly toxic dose. The United States stopped its paraquat subsidy to Mexico. Now paraquat is back. The Reagan Administration authorized using it in Georgia's Chattahoochie National Forest this month, only to be blocked temporarily in court. But the Drug Enforcement Administration says spraying will continue in states where pot is grown. The White House minimizes the health risks, noting that Federal agents are careful to prevent harvesting of the crop after spraying. But no one can guarantee that contaminated pot won't reach the marketplace. Why, then, is the Government so willing to risk poisoning people? Since there is no practical way to halt more than a small fraction of commerce in pot directly, the only logic of curtailing the flow with paraquat is to scare buyers out of the market. If illegal traffic in marijuana posed overwhelming risks to society, playing with pot smokers' lives might be justified. But there's hardly a national consensus on the dangers of marijuana. According to Government surveys, about two-thirds of all young adults have tried pot; millions consume it regularly as a recreational drug, like alcohol. Drug enforcement administrators have an obligation to disrupt the traffic where possible. But the fact that marijuana is a statutory vice cannot turn poisoning pot smokers into a virtue.

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/08/19/opinion/poisoning-pot-and-people.html

 

[lovinthehd]

They said it because they (the Reagan Administration) were doing it!



https://www.nytimes.com/1983/08/19/opinion/poisoning-pot-and-people.html

Just say no plus plus.

 

[3db]

I never said it didn't exist. I said it's not a big deal. I have 46 years of consumption to go by and many friends' experiences as well; I still haven't even been inside a dispensary. If it would make you feel better about giving it a try, go for it. It may be a better way to source edibles, too. Sometimes darwinism is a good thing otoh. Prohibition was the problem, not the moonshine. Just like the later war on drugs, caused far more issues than it ever resolved.

I dont care to visit a dispencery as I rather have a good Scotch or Bourbon. I brought up two points as to why its legalization was a good thing and you argued about that. Not sure why.

 

[lovinthehd]

I dont care to visit a dispencery as I rather have a good Scotch or Bourbon. I brought up two points as to why its legalization was a good thing and you argued about that. Not sure why.

LOL well legalization is good for much better reasons than laced pot. Like not having millions of people subject to arrest and incarceration over enjoying something less harmful than alcohol and many prescription drugs let alone the savings to taxpayers in terms of police, courts and jails. Enjoy. I might have a bit of Lagavulin myself tonight....

 

[Alex2507]

I brought up two points as to why its legalization was a good thing and you argued about that. Not sure why.

It's that Reefer Madness.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I never said it didn't exist. I said it's not a big deal. I have 46 years of consumption to go by and many friends' experiences as well; I still haven't even been inside a dispensary. If it would make you feel better about giving it a try, go for it. It may be a better way to source edibles, too. Sometimes darwinism is a good thing otoh. Prohibition was the problem, not the moonshine. Just like the later war on drugs, caused far more issues than it ever resolved.

Hahaha! The war on drugs..... it’s just like cancer. There’s more money to be made by treating it thank curing it.
I can’t wait for the U.S. to legalize MJ for a lot of reasons, not the least of which are the medical benefits. We do have medical MJ for some conditions, but the list is pretty short imo.
I have seen far more destruction caused by alcohol and alcoholism, so I think it’s unfortunate that there are so many people still under the influence of propaganda that’s soooooooo old and misguided. I think a lot of people think users are like spicoli, and have spent countless hours smoking ditch weed and just getting dumb. There seems to be strains for just about any kind of buzz you want. Focus even.

 

[Alex2507]

Does this mean the Canadian government will pay for medical weed? Like here, the doc's will prescribe but the insurance companies won't pay.

There seems to be strains for just about any kind of buzz you want. Focus even.

ALL the strains make you stoned. There's a new pro weed propaganda out there now that's every bit as full of sh!t as the anti-weed stuff from days gone by. ANYBODY with any sense knows not to listen to pot heads to begin with but now weed is like a supplement that can claim a wide variety of benefits without the obligation of proof.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Does this mean the Canadian government will pay for medical weed? Like here, the doc's will prescribe but the insurance companies won't pay.



ALL the strains make you stoned. There's a new pro weed propaganda out there now that's every bit as full of sh!t as the anti-weed stuff from days gone by. ANYBODY with any sense knows not to listen to pot heads to begin with but now weed is like a supplement that can claim a wide variety of benefits without the obligation of proof.

Lol! Of course they get you stoned! Whether or not the claims of this that and the other thing are even close to what they say is fairly debatable, but I can say without a doubt, they are NOT the same. Recreationally speaking, I think some of the claims are pretty doobie-ous, but medically, there’s a great deal of good associated with cannabis.

 

[lovinthehd]

Does this mean the Canadian government will pay for medical weed? Like here, the doc's will prescribe but the insurance companies won't pay.



ALL the strains make you stoned. There's a new pro weed propaganda out there now that's every bit as full of sh!t as the anti-weed stuff from days gone by. ANYBODY with any sense knows not to listen to pot heads to begin with but now weed is like a supplement that can claim a wide variety of benefits without the obligation of proof.

Actually there are strains grown for CBDs that won't get you very high as they're low THC and there are medicinal products produced therefrom that won't get you high...here's an overview https://www.marijuanabreak.com/best-high-cbd-strains.

Good question about the paid for weed if prescribed....

 

[Alex2507]

Actually there are strains grown for CBDs that won't get you very high as they're low THC and there are medicinal products produced therefrom that won't get you high...here's an overview https://www.marijuanabreak.com/best-high-cbd-strains.

Good question about the paid for weed if prescribed....

Straight CBD oil supposedly devoid of Delta 9 THC still makes me tired and ... dim. I'm sorry to say that I trust the claims of modern day drug pushers as much as I trusted the folks saying pot was evil. However this study linked in your link did seem promising for my condition. Can't imagine how much CDB oil you'd need to get my serum levels up to that of a 8 ounce rat. Like maybe a vat.

 

[lovinthehd]

Straight CBD oil supposedly devoid of Delta 9 THC still makes me tired and ... dim. I'm sorry to say that I trust the claims of modern day drug pushers as much as I trusted the folks saying pot was evil. However this study linked in your link did seem promising for my condition. Can't imagine how much CDB oil you'd need to get my serum levels up to that of a 8 ounce rat. Like maybe a vat.

Yeah I suppose some of the claims are like audio claims for the efficacy of certain gear , talking about strains with some of the intense growers/users as to specific effects has mostly been beyond me. Good luck on finding something that helps you out. Personally I haven't had any particular ills to try and mediate using the medicinal side of cannabis. Get into some insomnia stretches now and then, maybe something CBD rich is something I should look into.

 

[Sheep]

“At present it is estimated that marijuana’s LD-50 is around1:20,000 or 1:40,000. In layman terms this means that in order to induce death a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times as much marijuana as is contained in one marijuana cigarette. NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes weigh approximately .9 grams. A smoker would theoretically have to consume nearly 1,500 pounds of marijuana within about fifteen minutes to induce a lethal response.

I want you all to read those numbers. A bottle of vodka could kill you if you put it down like water. You think anyone is getting anywhere CLOSE to that number? NOT EVEN SETH ROGEN!

SheepStar

 

[KEW]

I have seen far more destruction caused by alcohol and alcoholism, so I think it’s unfortunate that there are so many people still under the influence of propaganda that’s soooooooo old and misguided. I think a lot of people think users are like spicoli, and have spent countless hours smoking ditch weed and just getting dumb. There seems to be strains for just about any kind of buzz you want. Focus even.

I had a good discussion (prompted by this thread) about pot with my 20 Y.O. daughter. She thinks pot will be legal throughout the USA in the near future. She has some concerns because she believes it reduces motivation/ambition. I can't argue with that too much. However, after further discussion, I became clear that the people she knew of (from HS) who were pot smokers were true "pot heads" - the guys who like to stay stoned 24/7 (or at least waking hours).
So, it is not necessarily old propaganda that provides this image, it is also the heavy duty pot heads!
I live in a hard-core right wing conservative area, so the casual pot users are discreet. I wonder what the image of pot is in less conservative areas where the weekend and occasional weekday smokers are also known as pot smokers.

However, I see three draw-backs to using pot:
1) It can be a motivation killer, if abused (by abused, I mean partaking in excessive amounts)
2) Pretty sure it is a carcinogenic when smoked, but I always preferred the buzz I got from eating it, so edibles is an easy out on this.
3) My understanding is smoking at a younger age has physiological effects. The chemicals introduced into your body from pot act as a calming agent (probably why so many vets with PTSD use pot). The consequence is, if it is being provided artificially, your body does not fully develop the ability to generate the natural calming agent that is part of our natural chemical balance. 26 is the age at which this ability is fully developed. What I don't know is how much pot it takes to make a significant impact on this. Also, it makes intuitive sense to me that you would be less susceptible to this at 24 than you were at 16, but I don't know that to be factual.

Nonetheless, as has been discussed, abusing pot has much less consequence than abusing alcohol.

Also, we have mostly only been considering the effect on the person using the drug. But if you consider how the behavior of the person high on pot affects others, vs drunk, pot is golden! I'm pretty sure nobody gets stoned and then beats his kids and/or wife the way some alcoholics do! My police Lt. girlfriend so prefers responding to a call about people getting stoned to people getting drunk. The pot smokers are so mellow, apologetic, and friendly, she always hated to bust them (as was her duty). The drunks are, more often than not, belligerent and confrontational (they would not have been reported if they were not annoying someone).
Fortunately, the current (last 2 years) rules the police force is using on campuses in GA leaves it up to the officer to decide whether to arrest or write a misdemeanor in the case of possession of pot (below the threshold amount to be considered a dealer). Not a great call because there is inconsistency - some of the older guys on the force are inclined to arrest anyone with pot while others would not arrest unless there was some hazard to their actions.

 

[3db]

I had a good discussion (prompted by this thread) about pot with my 20 Y.O. daughter. She thinks pot will be legal throughout the USA in the near future. She has some concerns because she believes it reduces motivation/ambition. I can't argue with that too much. However, after further discussion, I became clear that the people she knew of (from HS) who were pot smokers were true "pot heads" - the guys who like to stay stoned 24/7 (or at least waking hours).
So, it is not necessarily old propaganda that provides this image, it is also the heavy duty pot heads!
I live in a hard-core right wing conservative area, so the casual pot users are discreet. I wonder what the image of pot is in less conservative areas where the weekend and occasional weekday smokers are also known as pot smokers.

However, I see three draw-backs to using pot:
1) It can be a motivation killer, if abused (by abused, I mean partaking in excessive amounts)
2) Pretty sure it is a carcinogenic when smoked, but I always preferred the buzz I got from eating it, so edibles is an easy out on this.
3) My understanding is smoking at a younger age has physiological effects. The chemicals introduced into your body from pot act as a calming agent (probably why so many vets with PTSD use pot). The consequence is, if it is being provided artificially, your body does not fully develop the ability to generate the natural calming agent that is part of our natural chemical balance. 26 is the age at which this ability is fully developed. What I don't know is how much pot it takes to make a significant impact on this. Also, it makes intuitive sense to me that you would be less susceptible to this at 24 than you were at 16, but I don't know that to be factual.

Nonetheless, as has been discussed, abusing pot has much less consequence than abusing alcohol.

Also, we have mostly only been considering the effect on the person using the drug. But if you consider how the behavior of the person high on pot affects others, vs drunk, pot is golden! I'm pretty sure nobody gets stoned and then beats his kids and/or wife the way alcoholics do! My police Lt. girlfriend so prefers responding to a call about people getting stoned to people getting drunk. The pot smokers are so mellow, apologetic, and friendly, she always hated to bust them (as was her duty). The drunks are, more often than not, belligerent and confrontational (they would not have been reported if they were not annoying someone).
Fortunately, the current (last 2 years) rules the police force is using on campuses in GA leaves it up to the officer to decide whether to arrest or write a misdemeanor in the case of possession of pot (below the threshold amount to be considered a dealer). Not a great call because there is inconsistency - some of the older guys on the force are inclined to arrest anyone with pot while others would not arrest unless there was some hazard to their actions.

Moderation is key. Excess of any drug including Alcohol leads to behavioural problems. I'm sure pot abuse will rear its ugly head.

 

[Dan]

I'm late to this party and have little to add. I just want to point out that the legal weed is often MUCH more potent than the old stuff. This has led to some interesting effects. One I've seen is a paradoxical effect where high amounts of THC causes nausea and vomiting which is the opposite of one of its clear medical benefits. It is known as Cannabis hyperemesis syndrome.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576702/.

Findings on CAT scan include bowel wall edema and mesenteric edema. Of course practically every drug you can find in the Physician's Desk Reference will list nausea and vomiting as a side effect.

 

[psbfan9]

I'm late to this party and have little to add. I just want to point out that the legal weed is often MUCH more potent than the old stuff. This has led to some interesting effects. One I've seen is a paradoxical effect where high amounts of THC causes nausea and vomiting which is the opposite of one of its clear medical benefits. It is known as Cannabis hyperemesis syndrome.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3576702/.

Findings on CAT scan include bowel wall edema and mesenteric edema. Of course practically every drug you can find in the Physician's Desk Reference will list nausea and vomiting as a side effect.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3841499/

CHS was found in cannabis users in Australia around 2004. So it's not new. The causes are still being investigated. One culprit may be Neem oil specifically, Azadirachtin;

I'm a 30+ year user of cannabis and have never had symptoms resembling CHS. I think this is further proof that the govt. needs to allow more independent lab studies on cannabis.

Yes, neem has been used for centuries and is considered mostly safe when consumed. The difference here is what happens when neem is heated and inhaled. No one seems to have an answer.
I'm not pointing only at neem; there are unscrupulous growers who contaminate our land and water for the sake of money with no thought about the end users health.
What kinds of toxins/poisons are they using on the plants? What are the effects of the chemicals when heated and inhaled?
Far too many questions remain unanswered.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3841499/

 

[Alex2507]

I'm sure pot abuse will rear its ugly head.

I don't know. Do you think availability was ever a problem or do you think the law stopped a significant population from using pot?

Regarding young people: eventually they turn into their parents. A little experimentation with the giggle bush and then onto Canadian Club and beers, eh?

Moderation for me is pure torture. That's for people who don't appreciate the splendor offered by external influence. Barring over indulgence, abstinence is the way forward but that is a distant second.

BTW, I have a mass spectrometer over here and in a selfless effort to help my community, I will test your weed for you and provide a certificate of purity for the chosen few. Ummm ... if you wanna make a donation for my scientific analysis ... no problem. Just send cash with the bud. The more bud you send the more scientific significance the spectro analysis will yield.

 

[Drunkpenguin]

I don't know. Do you think availability was ever a problem or do you think the law stopped a significant population from using pot?

The laws never stopped anyone as far as I can tell. Back in HS weed was MUCH easier to get than alcohol. Everybody had some.

We went to CO last year or the year before on vacation and asked a ton of locals how the new laws affected things, and we kept hearing the same thing... It changed nothing. They said most people still got weed from their old dealers because it was cheaper. The only people buying from the stores were travelers like myself that wanted a taste of legal pot.

IMO just legalize it all. It would stop the gang wars and the southern boarder problems with drugs coming in. I mean, I hate to legalize hard stuff like heroin but people that want it find it anyways. Tax it and build me some better highways.