[jimmydean]

This one I could see going either way. I think it would be comprable to alcohol content when it comes to liquor/beer.

Or would they go the other way with it and simply charge more per content. Top Shelf vs. brick packed Mexican?

 

[jonKranked]

Or would they go the other way with it and simply charge more per content. Top Shelf vs. brick packed Mexican?

I think that its something the industry itself would regulate when it comes to content % vs cost. That's more or less how it is now.

 

[ohio]

so here's another question that will need to be answered. say a local government employee in another state where MJ is still illegal goes to CA and smokes up on vacation. If said employee returns to work the following monday and fails a random drug test will the employee have grounds to fight the termination because the MJ smoked was legal at the time/place smoked (as if the employee could prove that)

If your job requires that you not smoke MJ, then you don't smoke MJ whether it's legal in your state or not.

I think the interstate commerce/taxation part is stickier, but JD is right... just buy local.

And yes, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for them to monitor the THC levels. California MJ is already so ****ing strong, I think it would be a good thing to tone it down a touch. Not that I would know.

 

[jimmydean]

And yes, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for them to monitor the THC levels. California MJ is already so ****ing strong, I think it would be a good thing to tone it down a touch. Not that I would know.

Oregon has the same problem. There is a number of "organizations" that grow for medicinal use by patients and from what I understand they have created some seriously awesome smoke.

The issue is when you let people get creative without regulation, sometimes it can get out of hand. Sort of like Moonshine vs. 80 proof store bought.

 

[manimal]

Just curios....where do you stand on legalization?

i'm kind of on the fence:

for one, it doesn't seem fair that alcohol is legal and causes more damage (personal/societal) than pot. while i know firsthand that pot is dangerous and will shorten the lifespan of the user (same health issues as tobacco) i don't feel it is the governments job to regulate every vice that comes along. in other words, i don't see much difference in smoking pot or eating too many cheeseburgers at mcd's. both will eventually kill you and cost taxpayers money to keep you alive but they are both vices that do not necessarily involve a danger to the public..and people need their vice.

pot vs. alcohol: i have yet to meet someone stoned who is violent (at that moment) but i have met plenty of violent drunks. MJ use DOES impaire driving ability, not as much as alocohol but enough that DUI/DWI laws should apply to MJ use.

pot vs. crack/heroine/lsd....etc: the slippery slope. i am afraid that if pot is legalized that it will open the door to harder drugs heading toward the legal cruiseline. Legal pot doesn't worry me on a "protecting society" level like harder drugs do...you know, the drugs that make people violent and incoherent.

so my overall stance is pretty much ambiguous. i really don't care either way. if it's legalized the tax revenue will help out the bottom line while allowing me to focus on slowing the flow of dangerous drugs. (pot on the street is dangerous because of how it gets to the street. drug dealers have the propensity for violence that basic potheads do not. if it's legal, the dealers have to stick with the hard stuff)
if it remains illegal i'll carry on with business as usual. the main societal problem i have observed with pot is the laziness and apathy that comes with being stoned all the time. there is an entire segment of the population that is completely squandering their potential simply because they stay too high to do anything productive. while this may be a personality/character issue, one cannot argue that pot is not the facilitator of this behavior.


MikeD: i understand that the employment conditions may be separate from the law but how long until someone claims an equal opportunity-esque violation for discrimination. if an employer cannot deny employment to a person because they are a smoker (even if they can't smoke inside) then how could they deny employment to someone for engaging in any other legal activity as long as it's not being done at work. most employers don't allow an employee to be drunk at work but they can't say that the employee can't drink on their own time right. so how would that be different for pot?

 

[jonKranked]

MikeD: i understand that the employment conditions may be separate from the law but how long until someone claims an equal opportunity-esque violation for discrimination. if an employer cannot deny employment to a person because they are a smoker (even if they can't smoke inside) then how could they deny employment to someone for engaging in any other legal activity as long as it's not being done at work. most employers don't allow an employee to be drunk at work but they can't say that the employee can't drink on their own time right. so how would that be different for pot?

I think one of the things that has caused issues with it is because it is still an illegal substance, and as such is treated that way. I'm sure that some companies would re-evaluate their policies if the law changed, but there would also be some that wouldn't. There's still a lot of social stigmas/tabboos when it comes to pot, and that might be harder to overcome.

 

[sanjuro]

Pot's not legal? Could have fooled me.

 

[$tinkle]

And yes, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for them to monitor the THC levels. California MJ is already so ****ing strong, I think it would be a good thing to tone it down a touch. Not that I would know.

how do you define 'strong'? 1 & out?

 

[jimmydean]

how do you define 'strong'? 1 & out?

If simply smelling it gives you the munchies, it might be too strong.

What was being smoked at the Avenged Sevenfold concert gave me a contact high. I would consider that stuff possibly too strong. The advantage is I didn't pitch in for it.

 

[TN]

If simply smelling it gives you the munchies, it might be too strong.

What was being smoked at the Avenged Sevenfold concert gave me a contact high. I would consider that stuff possibly too strong. The advantage is I didn't pitch in for it.

I must seek out this band you mentioned. I am going on a dry spell of epic proportions. I should move to a medical state or write my congressman.

 

[jimmydean]

I must seek out this band you mentioned. I am going on a dry spell of epic proportions. I should move to a medical state or write my congressman.

The music was OK at best (the wife wanted to see Saving Able hudder: ) but the people next to us was having quite a good time. My wife wanted to move to new seats, I convinced her it was fine

 

[manimal]

The music was OK at best (the wife wanted to see Saving Able hudder: ) but the people next to us was having quite a good time. My wife wanted to move to new seats, I convinced her it was fine

noah and i were in [gasp] wal mart recently and a stereotypical dreaded thug brushes by us in the gaming aisle. i nearly got a contact high from the dude as he passed and noah piped up, as kids tend to do, with "dad..what's that smell!?" I replied, "that's ditchweed son, you don't want any of that." the dude turned and gave me a good staredown then walked off shaking his head and flexing his shoulders.
i thought it was hilarious and when i later explained the implications of the near altercation to noah he thought it was funny too. ...and he learned a lesson about filtering his thoughts before they reach his mouth.

 

[Defenestrated]

And yes, I think it would be perfectly reasonable for them to monitor the THC levels. California MJ is already so ****ing strong, I think it would be a good thing to tone it down a touch. Not that I would know.

So I can buy 151 proof bacardi and drink myself silly, but smoking strong weed is suddenly criminal?

If you want people disenfranchised by our irrational drug policies to show the law any respect, you need to humor them.

Or would they go the other way with it and simply charge more per content. Top Shelf vs. brick packed Mexican?

Probably not because while THC is the main chemical, it isn't the only psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, only the most understood.

 

[sanjuro]

The music was OK at best (the wife wanted to see Saving Able hudder: ) but the people next to us was having quite a good time. My wife wanted to move to new seats, I convinced her it was fine

There is a psychological aversion to the smell of pot.

Is it any more pleasant sitting next to a guy stinking of beer? Or cigar smoke?

Of course, the smell of pot we associate with criminal behavior.

 

[Defenestrated]

Of course, the smell of pot we associate with criminal behavior.

I guess I can see that being the case in most areas. Where I live you can smell it all around the neighborhood and the culture here is pretty relaxed.

But that's Hawaii for you.

 

[sanjuro]

Frankly, I don't want to smell pot, cigarettes, or booze.

 

[jimmydean]

Of course, the smell of pot we associate with criminal behavior.

I can't stand the smell of cigarette smoke, but some cigars smell ok. I love the smell of good pot (and only GOOD pot), but my wife has the negative association of criminal activity you speak of.

 

[Defenestrated]

Yeah at least it has an aroma to it, whereas cigarette smoke smells like, well, straight smoke. I hate it when someone gets on the bus smelling like an ashtray.

 

[ohio]

So I can buy 151 proof bacardi and drink myself silly, but smoking strong weed is suddenly criminal?

I believe 151 is the maximum ethynol content that can be sold for consumption. So, yes.

My point is that I think it's fine for the government to monitor THC levels, and even require posting them on the packages, AND if they become dangerous, limit them. If it's legalized and the THC limits are set too low, people will grow their own, as already pointed out. But I also worry that a truly industrialized operation could pump out some seriously strong weed. Look at what a bunch of dedicated hippies have done in their basements. I know several stories of people that completely underestimated the strength of cali kind, and got themselves pretty sick.

 

[Defenestrated]

I believe 151 is the maximum ethynol content that can be sold for consumption. So, yes.

Remember what I said about rational drug policy?

Well let's be rational, could you drink a whole bottle of 151 in a short period of time without killing yourself? You would need to ingest several pounds of cannabis rather quickly to achieve the same result.

It just doesn't make any sense.

while i know firsthand that pot is dangerous and will shorten the lifespan of the user (same health issues as tobacco)

Well not exactly.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=large-study-finds-no-link

and

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html

 

[manimal]

Well not exactly.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=large-study-finds-no-link

and

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html

maybe i'm reading this wrong but it seems that the study found no increase in lung cancer, despite the higher levels of carcinogens, when compared to tobacco smokers...not when compared to non-smokers.

The smoke from burning marijuana leaves contains several known carcinogens and the tar it creates contains 50 percent more of some of the chemicals linked to lung cancer than tobacco smoke. A marijuana cigarette also deposits four times as much of that tar as an equivalent tobacco one. Scientists were therefore surprised to learn that a study of more than 2,000 people found no increase in the risk of developing lung cancer for marijuana smokers.

 

[Defenestrated]

Scientists were therefore surprised to learn that a study of more than 2,000 people found no increase in the risk of developing lung cancer for marijuana smokers.

As in, marijuana smokers did not exhibit an increased risk for lung cancer, whereas tobacco smokers did.

While no association between marijuana smoking and cancer was found, the study findings, presented to the American Thoracic Society International Conference this week, did find a 20-fold increase in lung cancer among people who smoked two or more packs of cigarettes a day.

Curiously enough, they think that the fact that THC kills lungs cells helps regulate the growth of cancer.

 

[sanjuro]

Friend of mine is studying if THC reduces the risk of cancer. Unfortunately, the pure THC just knocks you out...

 

[Defenestrated]

Like pure THC taken intravenously?

 

[.:Jeenyus:.]

I believe 151 is the maximum ethynol content that can be sold for consumption. So, yes.

My point is that I think it's fine for the government to monitor THC levels, and even require posting them on the packages, AND if they become dangerous, limit them. If it's legalized and the THC limits are set too low, people will grow their own, as already pointed out. But I also worry that a truly industrialized operation could pump out some seriously strong weed. Look at what a bunch of dedicated hippies have done in their basements. I know several stories of people that completely underestimated the strength of cali kind, and got themselves pretty sick.

umm...no? everclear is 190 proof and sold in liquor stores.

and if you underestimate it that would be your problem. i think everyone i know has thrown up at some point from too much drinking alcohol.

 

[jimmydean]

I thought throwing up was when I was supposed to stop? Or my body just making room for more.

 

[sanjuro]

Like pure THC taken intravenously?

I am not sure how he performs his tests.

I like to make lots of jokes about Half Baked and a brick of pure sticky, but I believe at this point it is all test tube stuff.

Here is his own words from his website:

Our research team is studying the potential of the endocannabinoid system to control cell fate with the goal of developing therapeutic interventions for aggressive cancers. This newly discovered biological system can be regulated by many different classes of cannabinoid compounds that work through specific cellular receptors. The cloned cannabinoid receptors have been termed cannabinoid 1 (CB1) and (CB2).

∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a mixed CB1 and CB2 receptor agonist, is the primary active constituent of Cannabis sativa and is currently being used in a clinical trial for the treatment of aggressive recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). Cannabinoids are also being used in clinical trials for purposes unrelated to their direct anticancer activity. The compounds have been reported to be well tolerated during chronic oral and systemic administration. In addition to Δ9-THC, cannabidiol (CBD), cannabinol (CBN) and cannabigerol (CBG) are also present in reasonable quantities in Cannabis. CBN has low affinity for CB1 and CB2 receptors, whereas the non-psychotropic cannabinoids, CBD and CBG, have negligible affinity for the cloned receptors. We have determined that these additional cannabinoids are also effective and inhibiting aggressive cancers. Importantly, we have discovered in vitro that a synergistic increase in the antiproliferative and apoptotic activity of cannabinoids can be produced by combining specific ratios of CB1 and CB2 receptors agonists with non-psychotropic cannabinoids.

We are currently determining the molecular mechanism that may explain the synergistic increase in anticancer activity that is observed with the combination treatments. We are also studying whether this combination strategy will lead to greater antitumor activity in vivo.

In addition to the combination therapy project, we are working in collaboration with Dr. P D to develop novel inhibitors of Id-1 using cannabinoid compounds. Id-1 is a helix-loop-helix protein that acts as an inhibitor of basic helix-loop-helix transcription factors that control cell differentiation, development and carcinogenesis. Past research of Id-1 expression in normal and cancerous breast cells, as well as in mouse mammary glands and in human breast cancer biopsies, demonstrated that increased Id-1 expression was associated with a proliferative and invasive phenotype. Specifically, it was found that Id-1 was constitutively expressed at a high level in aggressive breast cancer cells and human biopsies, and that aggressiveness was reverted in vitro and in vivo when Id-1 expression was targeted using antisense technology. Importantly, we have recently discovered that CBD, a nontoxic cannabinoid that lacks psychoactivity, can inhibit Id-1 gene expression in metastatic breast cancer cells and consequently their aggressive phenotype. The down-regulation of expression was the result of the inhibition of the endogenous Id-1 promoter and corresponding mRNA and protein levels. CBD and compounds based off of its structure can therefore potentially be used as therapeutic agents. CBD also inhibits breast cancer metastasis in vivo.

Based off of our recent findings, we are currently involved in 1) developing novel CBD analogs for the treat of aggressive breast cancers 2) discovering the detailed mechanisms through which cannabinoid compounds regulate Id-1 expression.

 

[.:Jeenyus:.]

I thought throwing up was when I was supposed to stop? Or my body just making room for more.

the point is that alcohol isn't regulated to keep it at a 'safe' level, so why should pot be?

 

[jonKranked]

I believe 151 is the maximum ethynol content that can be sold for consumption. So, yes.

Only in California, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. Everywhere else its 191 proof (which is grain alcohol, and sold as everclear). 191 is the magic number because that's the highest alcohol content you can get with simple distillation.

 

[TN]

Friend of mine is studying if THC reduces the risk of cancer. Unfortunately, the pure THC just knocks you out...

There are also studies saying that cannabinols (thc, cbd, others ican't remmeber) heal the lining of the gut in patients with IBD (crohn's, colitis, etc..).

My story...
I had 18 cm of my terminal ileum removed in 1998 due to severe crohn's. In 10 years there is a reoccurrence (sp?) rate of 99% at the site of surgery. Last September I had a colonoscopy & a small bowel follow through that showed no crohn's at the site (knock on wood). My doc was baffled & I wanted to tell him I have been an everyday smoker of the ganj (up until recently since I still don't know many people in our sorta new city) but knew better because of numerous reasons, like mainly being dropped from by my insurance company. I know there are lots of factors like being waaaaay more health conscience in the last 10 years but I have to think the hippy lettuce helped somewhat & if it didn't, it at least helped with severe pain (gut & joint), my nausea & lack of appetite among other things.

So yeah. I know this thread aint about MMJ but there is medical benefits to the devils cabbage.

 

[JohnE]

Did you ask him about smoking? Check out his responses? Many MDs smoke...

 

[TN]

Did you ask him about smoking? Check out his responses? Many MDs smoke...

Thought about it. But I would be F'd big time with no insurance.
So, I played it safe.

But even if I did ask him there is little he could do. Except maybe it would reinforce his thoughts that MMJ helps IBD if he indeed believed that. I am not on a crusade. I just know it helps me.

 

[ohio]

the point is that alcohol isn't regulated to keep it at a 'safe' level, so why should pot be?

Not that grain alcohol is "safe," but even pure ethynol can be injested and it won't kill you. It is somewhat self-limiting as there's a natural ceiling at 200 proof and it is really really hard to drink in that form. When you're talking about a psychoactive chemical like THC, there's essentially no ceiling (it doesn't stop at "200 proof"), and if pot got significantly stronger than what is currently available medically, bad **** could happen, like thinking you're smoking shake and taking a massive vaporizer hit with enough THC to stop an elephant's heart.

I didn't say pot needs to be limited. I said I'm fine with it being regulated and labelled, and if it gets too strong then limiting it. Don't worry, Cheech, I'm not trying to steal your stash.

 

[jonKranked]

Not that grain alcohol is "safe," but even pure ethynol can be injested and it won't kill you. It is somewhat self-limiting as there's a natural ceiling at 200 proof and it is really really hard to drink in that form. When you're talking about a psychoactive chemical like THC, there's essentially no ceiling (it doesn't stop at "200 proof"), and if pot got significantly stronger than what is currently available medically, bad **** could happen, like thinking you're smoking shake and taking a massive vaporizer hit with enough THC to stop an elephant's heart.

I didn't say pot needs to be limited. I said I'm fine with it being regulated and labelled, and if it gets too strong then limiting it. Don't worry, Cheech, I'm not trying to steal your stash.

Is it even possible to concentrate it to that level? And where's the scientific evidence that shows that a certain amount will cause a person's heart to stop? I know it will slow it down, but how much does one have to ingest/imbibe in order to get to this level? Is it even physically possible?

 

[jimmydean]

Is it even physically possible?

I would say it is not based on personal experience (Obliterated Tour New Years Day 1987). I actually smoked myself near retarded for about a 10 hour period. I can honestly say it was not physically possible for me to have smoked any more that day. I was also not able to make it to Winchell's, either, but I did make it home on foot.

I was fine the next morning.

 

[Defenestrated]

It is physically impossible to overdose on THC while smoking.

One estimate of Cannabis's LD50 for humans indicates that about 1500 pounds of marijuana would have to be smoked within 15 minutes.

(LD50 = the point at which 50% of the test group dies)

I think you need to ingest several pounds of cannabis over a short period to overdose (also probably impossible without rupturing your stomach?).

The only reliable way to overdose on THC is if you inject it straight into your bloodstream, and seeing as the effective dose of THC is minuscule compared to the lethal dose, why the **** would you do that?

Edit: For reference. The ratio between effective and lethal dosage for cannabis is ~ 1:40000, compare that to alcohol which is between 1:4 and 1:10. It's one of the safest drugs you can do.

 

[jimmydean]

Half the fun of MJ is the process. Injecting is for "druggies".

 

[ohio]

Jesus ****ing christ, how much clearer do I have to be for you numbnuts?

IF POT GETS STRONGER IN THE FUTURE. IN THE FUTURE. IN THE FUTURE.

I am fully acknowledging that you cannot smoke yourself to death with today's pot, and certainly not with the pot of even 5 years ago. But it keeps getting stronger, and it doesn't get any harder to smoke. I have a lot of faith in industrial bio-chemists to engineer some **** that is exponentially stronger than what we have today if they desire.

I repeat (repeat repeat):
1) Pot should be labeled for THC content - no different than alcohol content is labeled.
2) If it gets too strong (in the FUTURE, mother****ers), it should be capped.

Christ.

edit - that ratio of effective:lethal is really useful. Thanks, Def.

 

[jimmydean]

2) If it gets too strong (in the FUTURE, mother****ers), it should be capped.

Christ.

edit - that ratio of effective:lethal is really useful. Thanks, Def.

Is there such a thing as pot that's TOO strong, though?

That's like Beer that's TOO tasty, or bacon that is too yummy. I can't wrap my head around this concept. I could see it getting so strong you are 1 and out, but isn't that just convenient?

As a natural substance, I don't see it ever reaching that level unless, like cigarettes, you add chemicals or other crap to it.

<edit>"An escalator can't break, it can only become stairs. 'Sorry for the convenience'." -Mitch

 

[Defenestrated]

I'll humor you. Today's most potent strains have ~ 20% THC content and you would have to smoke 1500 pounds in under 15 minutes to overdose.

.20 x 1500 = 300

So even if by some miracle of science you were able to craft a cannabis bud with 100% THC potency you would still need to smoke 300 pounds of it within 15 minutes to overdose.

Seeing as THC is destroyed by intense heat, and you would need to have a pretty intense flame/fire to combust 300 pounds in under 15 minutes...