Legalize marijuana

[MoValley John]

The problem is that the human brain isn’t fully developed until the age of 25. 18 year olds think they know what is best, but just because of their brain development, they are going to often make BAD decisions on their own behalf. I’m not sure 18 years old should be the time for them to make this decision. For some kids at age 18, they are ready to make this decision. But for others, usually at risk kids, their BAD decisons have long reaching affects on their lives and they just don’t realize it. When females of that age group, are having a baby, that doubles up their BAD decision to affect other lives.

Yeah, but 18 gets you in the military, but 21 wouldn't be a bad idea, either. At some point, we have to let people make decisions on their own, even bad decision.

[wufan]

The problem is that the human brain isn’t fully developed until the age of 25. 18 year olds think they know what is best, but just because of their brain development, they are going to often make BAD decisions on their own behalf. I’m not sure 18 years old should be the time for them to make this decision. For some kids at age 18, they are ready to make this decision. But for others, usually at risk kids, their BAD decisons have long reaching affects on their lives and they just don’t realize it. When females of that age group, are having a baby, that doubles up their BAD decision to affect other lives.

This is true, but not just for marijuana. It’s true for alcohol, cigarettes, voting, military, career choices, posting on social media, committing acts of violence, etc.

Advocate your point consistently, not just when it fits your narrative.

[Shockm]

Yeah, but 18 gets you in the military, but 21 wouldn't be a bad idea, either. At some point, we have to let people make decisions on their own, even bad decision.

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/what-are-marijuanas-long-term-effects-brain

I agree that there are No easy answers.

18 year olds tend to be physically strong enough that survival instinct takes over and they are effective warriors.

It is pretty well agreed upon by experts that the human brain isn’t fully developed until 25.

It’s also widely agreed that the sooner one begins heavy smoking is worse, and believed that IQ is lost for sure for heavy smokers and there is speculation that adolescents may lose IQ even if not a heavy user. Early users are also (15-20 percent) are also more likely to become addicted.

There is a lot they don’t know about those adults who are regular users but not heavy users up until 25.

Many adults smoke the drug in front of their young kids. Kids who are around parents who have smoked their entire lives are a concern of mine.

Corporate and small business marijuana companies actually have engineered their products to be addictive so they can sell more.

OTOH, their are legitimate medical uses for the drug. Medical marijuana isn’t my concern, but states tend to be more interested in the tax money it brings in than the medical benefits to the people. Thus the rush to legalize it in liberal states.

[wufan]

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/what-are-marijuanas-long-term-effects-brain

I agree that there are No easy answers.

18 year olds tend to be physically strong enough that survival instinct takes over and they are effective warriors.

It is pretty well agreed upon by experts that the human brain isn’t fully developed until 25.

It’s also widely agreed that the sooner one begins heavy smoking is worse, and believed that IQ is lost for sure for heavy smokers and there is speculation that adolescents may lose IQ even if not a heavy user. Early users are also (15-20 percent) are also more likely to become addicted.

There is a lot they don’t know about those adults who are regular users but not heavy users up until 25.

Many adults smoke the drug in front of their young kids. Kids who are around parents who have smoked their entire lives are a concern of mine.

Corporate and small business marijuana companies actually have engineered their products to be addictive so they can sell more.

OTOH, their are legitimate medical uses for the drug. Medical marijuana isn’t my concern, but states tend to be more interested in the tax money it brings in than the medical benefits to the people. Thus the rush to legalize it in liberal states.

The thing is, when do you grant agency to an individual? The age is pretty arbitrary right now, but when advocating for an age, it should be consistent with agency across life, not just on certain subjects.

The science backs up 25. Society says it’s 21, or 18, or 16, or in some states 14 if he’s under 17, etc....

[WuDrWu]

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/what-are-marijuanas-long-term-effects-brain

Corporate and small business marijuana companies actually have engineered their products to be addictive so they can sell more.

OTOH, their are legitimate medical uses for the drug. Medical marijuana isn’t my concern, but states tend to be more interested in the tax money it brings in than the medical benefits to the people. Thus the rush to legalize it in liberal states.

The percentage of people that smoke (anything) and started smoking at 25 or older is almost 0.

How are they making it addictive? Link?

What are these legitimate medical uses?

[Shockm]

The percentage of people that smoke (anything) and started smoking at 25 or older is almost 0.

How are they making it addictive? Link?

What are these legitimate medical uses?

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2015/11/marijuana-brain

Unfortunately, marijuana producers have a strong incentive to hook young users. While about 9 percent of adults who use cannabis become addicted, the rate is 17 percent for people who start smoking in their teens, according to NIDA figures. And as the tobacco and alcohol industries have demonstrated, she says, such companies make the majority of their profits on a relatively small proportion of chronic users. "The minute there's a profit motive, companies tend to make a product more addictive," says Lisdahl. "I think legalization is moving ahead prematurely without considering the lessons we've learned from nicotine and alcohol prevention policy research."

Gruber, too, has concerns that marijuana policy is outpacing science. "As we're on the precipice of all this legislation," she says, "the take-home message is, there's a lot that we know, but a lot more we don't."

Much of the research on the long-term cognitive effects of cannabis has focused on heavy users. It's not clear whether there's a safe level of use. Nor is it known whether the brain changes associated with marijuana use are permanent, or if the brain can recover with time.

[WuDrWu]

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2015/11/marijuana-brain

Unfortunately, marijuana producers have a strong incentive to hook young users. While about 9 percent of adults who use cannabis become addicted, the rate is 17 percent for people who start smoking in their teens, according to NIDA figures. And as the tobacco and alcohol industries have demonstrated, she says, such companies make the majority of their profits on a relatively small proportion of chronic users. "The minute there's a profit motive, companies tend to make a product more addictive," says Lisdahl. "I think legalization is moving ahead prematurely without considering the lessons we've learned from nicotine and alcohol prevention policy research."

Gruber, too, has concerns that marijuana policy is outpacing science. "As we're on the precipice of all this legislation," she says, "the take-home message is, there's a lot that we know, but a lot more we don't."

Much of the research on the long-term cognitive effects of cannabis has focused on heavy users. It's not clear whether there's a safe level of use. Nor is it known whether the brain changes associated with marijuana use are permanent, or if the brain can recover with time.

Interesting article that answers some questions, but asks more.

But doesn't answer my questions.

You said small companies are engineering their product to be more addictive....I didn't see any evidence of that. Is there? I agree completely they benefit from more users BEING addicted, that goes for Pepsi and Coke too, but what are they doing to make it more addictive?

I'm also curious what the legitimate medical uses are.

[BOBB]

Interesting article that answers some questions, but asks more.

But doesn't answer my questions.

You said small companies are engineering their product to be more addictive....I didn't see any evidence of that. Is there? I agree completely they benefit from more users BEING addicted, that goes for Pepsi and Coke too, but what are they doing to make it more addictive?

I'm also curious what the legitimate medical uses are.

Appetite stimulant and anti-nausea for cancer patients would be one, but its federal schedule means it can't be studied by any research entities taking gov't money (all).

[MoValley John]

Appetite stimulant and anti-nausea for cancer patients would be one, but its federal schedule means it can't be studied by any research entities taking gov't money (all).

The FDA does allow pharmaceuticals to study marijuana. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/publ...proval-process

[MikeKennedyRulZ]

[WuDrWu]

Appetite stimulant and anti-nausea for cancer patients would be one, but its federal schedule means it can't be studied by any research entities taking gov't money (all).

There are medications for appetite, one of which I believe is a cannabinoid, Dronabinol.

I'm really not trying to trick anyone into answering a particular way, but I guess my point is that weed is not medicine. It's a complete farce to claim that it is. People want to get high. I get that. I think it's stupid and a waste among other things, but to each his own. But it's NOT medicine. We have FDA approved medications that work. The only reason people want to be prescribed weed is because they want to get high.

I don't care what people do in their homes. You're stupid enough to smoke it, toke up dude. However, it's revolting (to me at least) and shouldn't be allowed in public areas (just my opinion). It's just annoying that it's being presented in the manner it's being presented. You cannot smoke weed and drive. You can't smoke weed and work (at least most jobs) and we have D&D laws that will apply just as much to weed intoxication as alcohol. And it's not medicine. It doesn't cure glaucoma, it really doesn't even treat glaucoma anymore as putting a belt around a knife wound fixes the wound. You may slow the bleeding for a bit, but the minute you take off the belt the problem is still there. It cures nothing. Stop trying to legitimize the drug by saying it's medicine.

And if you're going to legalize it, fine. Pass a drug test for state aid, no free highs, and no help for those addicted. By the way, I know every one of those things will come to fruition. We'll legalize everywhere. Kids will be smoking at an even greater rate than they do now. Problems will grow borderline out of control and government will subsidize it to the tune of tens of billions of dollars every year and for absolutely ZERO benefit to anyone but these dealers. It's sad. But damn it present it that way, stop making it look like the next coming of Christ.

[wufan]

I wouldn’t say weed isn’t medicinal, it’s just that we have other more effective medications.

Side note...cigarettes are anti-asthmatic and were prescribed medicinally for decades and were sold by pharmacists into at least the 1940s. Do they work? Yeah. Are they as safe and effective as albuteral? Nope.

All said, WuDrWu is correct. It probably should not be medicinal in 99.9% of cases where it is used as such.

[OregonShocker]

After reading through this thread, and being a medical doctor in Oregon, I wanted to mention a few things that aren't necessarily facts but observations.
1. Although true scientific testing is woefully missing, anectodally my patients (in a WIDE age group) report benefits from pain and nausea after use. While I cannot recommend it due to this lack of scientific evidence, I believe that it poses no more and probably less risk of complication, than some of the legally prescribed drugs at my disposal.
2. We in Oregon haven't seen any long term health effects caused by recreational use; the problems we see were there before legalization. Overuse isn't part of the legal use crowd's makeup, anymore than alcohol. Both probably have long term heavy use consequences.
3. It's an old article, and probably needs updating, but here's an unbiased reflection on legal use in Oregon.

https://www.oregonlive.com/news/erry-2018/06/932fe5664b5193/what_we_know_and_dont_know_aft.html

I think there is a difference between something harmful and something illegal. MANY harmful, and a LOT of potentially harmful, things are legal, as I feel they should be. It may help to separate whether you think is should be legal from whether you think it is harmful. Arguing it is harmful and should therefore be illegal is inconsistent with most of US society beliefs today on a number of things (including bungee jumping, for instance). What I'd like to point out is that arresting the HS kid for pot possession damages him/her FAR MORE than use likely does. Felony convictions are a part of many different kinds of applications and bars one from numerous future endeavors. Perhaps some think this is good; I personally don't. I likely wouldn't be where I am today had I been arrested in the 70's for what I did in HS.

[WuDrWu]

I think there is a difference between something harmful and something illegal. MANY harmful, and a LOT of potentially harmful, things are legal, as I feel they should be. It may help to separate whether you think is should be legal from whether you think it is harmful. Arguing it is harmful and should therefore be illegal is inconsistent with most of US society beliefs today on a number of things (including bungee jumping, for instance). What I'd like to point out is that arresting the HS kid for pot possession damages him/her FAR MORE than use likely does. Felony convictions are a part of many different kinds of applications and bars one from numerous future endeavors. Perhaps some think this is good; I personally don't. I likely wouldn't be where I am today had I been arrested in the 70's for what I did in HS.

Very much agree with almost everything you said, right up to the point about arresting the kid. My guess is we're still pretty much in line. Kids NEED to be yanked back when they get out of line and the damage (whatever that is ) arresting them is nothing compared to the damage not learning there are consequences for poor decisions and what using drugs is likely to do. That being said, I have no desire to throw these kids (or anyone) in jail for using (in private and legally purchased) and I'm guessing most of us are line with those types of changes. However, I want life without parole for those that prey upon our children so I ask your observance and opinion on whether or not illegal selling and use has taken a hit in your area. I don't know the population makeup of your area, but I personally would support legalized sale and use here in the 316 if I knew we would be driving 1000s of drug pushers out of business. What has been the affect there in this area?

[OregonShocker]

Very much agree with almost everything you said, right up to the point about arresting the kid. My guess is we're still pretty much in line. Kids NEED to be yanked back when they get out of line and the damage (whatever that is ) arresting them is nothing compared to the damage not learning there are consequences for poor decisions and what using drugs is likely to do. That being said, I have no desire to throw these kids (or anyone) people in jail) for using (in private and legally purchased) and I'm guessing most of us are line with those types of changes. However, I want life without parole for those that prey upon our children so I ask your observance and opinion on whether or not illegal selling and use has taken a hit in your area. I don't know the population makeup of your area, but I personally would support legalized sale and use here in the 316 if I knew we would be driving 1000s of drug pushers out of business. What has been the affect there in this area?

Perhaps I overstated my views; I agree there should be punishment for underage use, but no one is denied housing because of a MIP conviction; no one is denied college grants due to teenage alcohol use at a frat party. We need to find a punishment that doesn't jeopardize these kids because of some "youthful indiscretions" but instead refocuses their attention so to speak.

I had to LOL at your question because I honestly have no idea about the illegal market here, now or before. BUT, we recently had an excess of legal pot (believe it or not) resulting in a halt in growing facility licensing. Discussion has swirled around whether such regulation may actually drive up pricing resulting in increased illegal sales being cheaper, but it's hard to say that Grandma using gummi bears for arthritis is suddenly on the street corner looking for a cheaper hook up. To take my analogy further, legalizing alcohol didn't end alcohol abuse and didn't stop folks that shouldn't be drinking from buying it; it only allowed stable users a legal avenue for purchase. I suspect (without proof) that the same is true for marijuana. Some market for the drug pushers is gone, but I suspect they found another drug to push (sadly).