# Confessions of a Pothead Mom



## Guest (Mar 20, 2014)

Huffington Post*

I'm a stay-at-home mom and I'm a pothead.*
_
There has to be a happy medium. Just as we can't protest the presence of kitchen knives
because they could cut off a finger, we can't fight the weed tide that is rolling into our lives. 
We have to accept that marijuana is making its way out of the back alleys and into our homes, 
right next to the whiskey and the painkillers, and we have to prepare our kids accordingly._


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Apparently our current government has a difference of opinion 

http://www.thestar.com/news/2007/04/15/health_canada_charging_huge_markup_on_pot.html

on the Health Canada site ..right smack in the middle of the page ...

*Dried marijuana is not an approved drug or medicine in Canada. The Government of Canada does not endorse the use of marijuana, but the courts have required reasonable access to a legal source of marijuana when authorized by a physician.*


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

I don't know what to tell my kid.

I tend to tell youngsters to stay away from the chemicals, and I'll probably do the same with my boy.

A very good friend of mine claims he absolutely must smoke in the mornings to keep from being grouchy all day. He is educated, eloquent, sociable, goal-oriented and he always pleasant.

But, he was also my employee, and on occasion would drop the ball due to absent-mindedness. Nothing major, but a mild pain in the ass nevertheless. I was never certain if it was the dope. Anyway, I don't want my son to be in a position where he feels he _needs_ pot like my friend.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Well, our wonderful government is cocking over the medical users already,
but they have a fight on their hands with that one.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

> I don't know what to tell my kid.


..moderation.. of all intakes.. including food and sugar....


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

Happy medium my a**. That is condoning something and teaching your children it is acceptable in moderation. She is teaching her children that it is acceptable to break the law. Alcohol is legal but it's not something we push onto our kids. Perhaps some do, but we sure as hell shouldn't. If she needs alcohol, painkillers and dope to get through day, she has problems and should get herself into rehab before her kids think that that's a normal way of life.

I'm one of those who sees marijuana as a gateway drug. Been there, done that and moved on. A lot of others that I know did not and got into worse things. It is not a gateway for all but for those who have pre-loaded or addictive personalities, it certainly can be IMO.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

So is it acceptable to teach your kids to fight for things that they don't agree with? 
The only gateway that pot has opened for me is politics...... 

Of course they found my father dead in his bed .. with 15 empty bottles of that legal non gateway drug....


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The problem with marijuana and the law is that it has traditionally been used for the purpose of intoxication, and intoxication only (don't start dragging out hemp cultivation for making sails in the 1800's; it's irrelevant to the present discussion). Other non-prescription CNS alterations, like tobacco/nicotine and alcohol have been next to impossible to make out of bounds because they both enjoy plenty of uses _other_ than intoxication. So, it has traditionally been easier to declare weed as totally out of bounds and tobacco, booze, caffeine, as undesirable in excess, but okay-enough-most-of-the-time-to-be-in-bounds.

"Medicinal" use of marijuana, however, has messed up that neat and tidy difference, having created a subset of uses for weed that are not strictly intoxication. And if the goal is not intoxication then it starts to be more like allowing whisky to be available because people use wine for sacrament or to deglaze frying pans.

But what has messed all of THAT up, as was brought to my attention the other day in several interviews with physicians who were decline to prescribe pot-as-medicine was that there was no medical training nor research on appropriate dosages, no safety standards, or product-quality standards, or indeed any of the factors in place that would let any health professional recommend X amount of marijuana, twice daily, to a patient weighing X kgs, age 55, for some specific health problem that research had indicated this to be the preferred treatment. Apotex, Glaxo, Pfizer, or wherever, has to meet product safety/purity/quality standards and can be inspected. Should a person prescribed one of their products suffer an ill effect resulting from inattention to those standards, then that company could legitimately be sued. Put simply, if it's going to be used like medicine, then it needs to play by the same rules as medicine, and health professionals need to be able to apply the same rules as medicine.

But its advocates are approaching it the way they approached laetrile at first; i.e., it's my life so bugger off and let me take what I believe will cure me. And since weed makes people happy, and often happier than they normally are, those folks can become VERY fervent advocates - humans being easily persuaded in the truthfulness of something by the emotions they feel.

So, are those who claim "medicinal" use successfully treated, or merely happy to be stoned? If they would be content to use a purified THC nasal spray that would control pain without producing intoxication, then we could study that, and trustworthy suppliers could turn out a quality reliable product that could meet all the same production standards that Aspirin, Tylenol, and birth control pills meet (and have to meet). But advocates and medicinal users like to toke, or are at least accustomed to toking. And therein lies the problem. If it was produced, prescribed, and administered like a medicine, then drafting laws that bring it into the fold would be dead easy. But because health professionals are currently really only in a position to write a prescription for "access", it is hard to identify the line where it is a medical practice and where it is simply a get out of jail free card. If the excuse for having unrestricted access to an intoxicant IS for medical purposes, and not just intoxication, then the medicinal use has to be demonstrable. And right now, the desired use is starting to be so broad that demonstrability is being undermined. And that's a problem for the law, or rather those who draft law and health policy.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

[video=youtube;ZnjyH2LGCLU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnjyH2LGCLU[/video]


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2014)

@Scotty. I think you're missing the gist of her article.

_We have to accept that marijuana is making its way out of the back alleys and into our homes, 
right next to the whiskey and the painkillers, and *we have to prepare our kids accordingly*.

The only way I know how to do that is to be completely honest, with my kids and with myself. 
Shame and secrecy only produce more of the same, and from what I've seen, *as soon as our 
kids stop trusting us, they stop talking to us and we can lose them to abuse*. We can abuse 
anything if we overdo it, and THAT is the important lesson to impart. We can't deny that we 
smoke, but we can have our own discipline around it and model healthy choices for our children... 
and to do that, we have to start talking about it._


----------



## Scotty (Jan 30, 2013)

laristotle said:


> @Scotty. I think you're missing the gist of her article.
> 
> _We have to accept that marijuana is making its way out of the back alleys and into our homes,
> right next to the whiskey and the painkillers, and *we have to prepare our kids accordingly*.
> ...


Ah yes, The written word can be misread. My take is that she was endorsing it.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Here are some problems I see with this issue.

One: Smoking pot is different than drinking alcohol for a little alcohol will not get you inebriated but a little pot will do so. (Unfortunately, I know that from experience in my younger days. One toke and I was on my way.)

Two: Also from experience I know you lose your short term memory when you smoke pot on a regular basis. 

Three: Much pot is full of chemicals these days which make it much more addictive than it did 30 years ago.

Four: How can you protect your children and tell them not to do something harmful when you as a parent or close relative do it?


----------



## Chito (Feb 17, 2006)

Sorry Steadfastly but none of the 4 things you said is proven anywhere. First, your experience is not the experience of the people I know. So your comparison between alcohol and pot doesn't hold water. Second, that short term memory loss, again is based on YOUR experience. It's not a proven thing and I know a few people who can attest to having a different experience. Third saying that the pot today has more chemicals is rubbish. I don't know of chemicals being added to it. And lastly, you're saying it's harmful. There is no study that has conclusively say that it is harmful.

And this is not just directed to you, but I hate people talking about the good and the bad things about pot when their only experience is when they tried it out when they were young. There is a lot of things that are being said about it, but in reality there has not been enough research to prove or disprove anything.

Just my opinion.

Sent from my Q10 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Steadfastly said:


> Three: Much pot is full of chemicals these days which make it much more addictive than it did 30 years ago.


The first time I smoked pot was 1974. I smoked it till about 1978 when I quit for good. Even back then much of it was spiked with some kind of chemical. Since chemicals such as acid, mda, mescaline and on and on, were very popular, I'd hazard a guess that chemicals in pot were more prevalent back then


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Unless a person grows it themselves, I would hasten to guess that they have no idea what has or has not been sprayed on the plant. I would imagine that if I was growing such a potentially high-revenue crop in clandestine fashion, I would not wish to be out there daily, weeding in a place where onlookers did not expect to see someone. In which case, I'm going to spray whatever I need to spray so that I don't have to weed, so that the weeds I am trying to grow will grow quickly and efficiently without my attention prior to harvest.

I don't know if it's a function of what the substance brings out in people, or simply who leans more towards one means of intoxication vs another, but yeah people inclined to become obstreperous when intoxicated are more inclined to do so under the influence of alcohol than THC. I doubt that anyone has done, or could do, the controlled study whereby the same individuals are assessed for aggressiveness or ease of provocation under the influence of multiple intoxicants in some sort of latin square design (okay you have pot first, then acid, then crystal meth, then booze, on successive weeks, and you're going to have crystal meth, then pot, then booze, then acid....).

Memory deficits are noted with extensive pot use, but we probably have different notions in mind of what constitutes a deficit and what constitutes extensive use.

To reiterate a point I tried to make earlier, and one that I think others here have tried to make, there is no tradition/culture of moderation in marijuana use, the way that one might have a glass of wine to bring out the flavour of a meal, but not go beyond that to a state of tipsiness. Indeed, there is no real reason to put up with smoke, whether from cigars, pipes, tabacky or weed, unless you get something out of it.


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2014)

Have a dozen guys split up into two rooms.
Put a case of beer in one, a bag of weed in the other.
Which room do you think will turn into a brawl.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

nkjanssen said:


> This I definitely agree with. I've never seen pot turn a seemingly normal person into a violent, obnoxious a-hole. Alcohol on the other hand...


I agree...I havent had a toke in 12-13 yrs, but Id much sooner deal with someone stoned on pot than someone drunk on booze.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

mhammer said:


> The problem with marijuana and the law is that it has traditionally been used for the purpose of intoxication, and intoxication only (don't start dragging out hemp cultivation for making sails in the 1800's; it's irrelevant to the present discussion). *Other non-prescription CNS alterations, like tobacco/nicotine and alcohol have been next to impossible to make out of bounds because they both enjoy plenty of uses other than intoxication*. So, it has traditionally been easier to declare weed as totally out of bounds and tobacco, booze, caffeine, as undesirable in excess, but okay-enough-most-of-the-time-to-be-in-bounds.
> .


I don't really understand this...what positive uses come from tobacco/nicotine for the vast majority of the public? I can think of none. its only pleasure is in satisfying an addiction once it has taken root.
and really how many ppl drink alcohol; without seeking at least some small degree of intoxication (if not usually, a lot)? So if pot smokers limited themselves to just a puff or 2 "just for the smell of it " would that be ok then? I used to know quite a few ppl who would smoke pot during coffee breaks at work, and you could barely tell theyd had any....its not like everyone who smokes it, is incapacitatedly stoned.

I personally don't think it has to do with the above at all....its simply that weed has been stigmatized, and isn't the drug of choice for the straight-laced " powers that be"...YET.


----------



## fretboard (May 31, 2006)

Interesting point brought up on the timeline for the 1900's - 1920's & 30's to why pot is "bad"...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dope/etc/cron.html

Now lets move to the 80's & 90's and figure out who the "typical" crack user is vs. the "typical" cocaine user, then discuss why penalties for crack are harsher than powder cocaine.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

My point is that substances are controlled in law, whether that control means a prescription is required, it is unavailable to persons under certain circumstances, or is plain and simple illegal, to the extent that uncontrolled access is seen as posing some degree of risk to abuse. If it's seen as mild risk, then controlling is all that's needed. I can't just buy as much Valium or Percodan as I want over the counter. I can buy it, but it is controlled by someone on the other side of the counter keeping track of my purchase. If it is considered inappropriate to give unrestricted access to children, then it is controlled. If the risk is seen/deemed as high, then the substance may be declared off-limits under any circumstance.

I'm not Catholic, but I'm pretty sure people don't go to mass to get wasted. I'm also pretty sure that recipes for boeuf Bourgignon do not include enough wine to get wasted on, that beer-batter fish-n-chips is not intended to make people drunk, and that rum and raisin ice cream is not meant to get 5 year-olds absolutely faced. There are long traditions of non-intoxication-directed uses of the fruits of fermentation.

Similarly, there are plenty of folks who can have a cigarette or a cigar once in a blue moon, but in between those blue moons are not chain-smoking anything.

Why would someone smoke pot for the purposes of NO psychotropic effects? Does it taste good? Does it taste any better than inhaling lawn shavings or plain tobacco? And remember, there is a big range of potential effects between getting a little buzz, and being unable to move off the couch. My sense is that plenty of people might ingest without intending to be completely unable to operate heavy machinery, but precious few, if any, have any intention of avoiding or neglecting getting a buzz. I'm not intending to cast such folks as "bad" or immoral. I'm just trying to explain what sorts of considerations come into the drafting of laws. remember that contemporary law is not intended to be vindictive or exploitative. It is intended to address what is perceived as a problem or challenge. Whether it does so effectively or not is a whole other thing.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

> I used to know quite a few ppl who would smoke pot during coffee breaks at work, and you could barely tell theyd had any....its not like everyone who smokes it, is incapacitatedly stoned.


There is a video of a driving test done in England. They did not see much sign of impairment of a habitual pot smoker driving where there where clear signs from an infrequent smoker. 



Also ... if your going to smoke pot ... why would you smoke pot that is laced with chemicals??? Clean pot is worth more money. With legalization of pot and all the medical programs in the US and Canada there has been a huge increase in growing. Prices have dropped in half. Nobody not notice all the grow shops? You know how the market takes care of things..... you get more money for organic... that's what market provides. 

Don't imagine there are too many Old Milwaukee drinkers here. There is different levels of high. Different strengths of pot. Lots of people will just have one hit pipes, which sounds like a Martini to me. I can feel the effects of one drink. 

It is about getting high. I am in the town where Dr. Kammerman lives, who is in court this week for giving out all those licenses. I talked to lots of people in his office and I asked lots of them why. The general answer was that by being high and in pain was way better that being on pills and in pain. The sure lots of people abused the last med program and grew extra dope.....but the truth of it is that most of those people were on some type of Disability, comp, basically subsistence living. A bit of extra cash means that they got buy all their prescriptions that month. 

Now they want to bust everybody and put it all in that hands of corporations..... 

F'n silly to me... all I want to do grow is one plant ....right next to the peas and potatoes. They want to throw me in jail and spent $177,00 a year...*oh wait*... THIS government now wants to charge me $250 everytime you turn around ....


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

In between do-whatever-the-hell-you-want-it's-your-body-and-your-life and don't-you-even-DREAM-of-anything-like-that, is the law. There needs to BE law of some kind, to establish responsibilities, and the challenge is that:

a) the law has to be fair, and on par with laws regarding comparable areas,
b) the law has to be enforceable,
c) the law cannot have unintended consequences, either good or bad, for any stakeholder (including other jurisdictions or professional bodies),
d) the law has to be readily interpretable by those tasked with enforcing it.

So, for instance, with respect to C, granting legal rights to access via medical prescription also means that the recipient should have some rights to litigation, should that prescription be inappropriate or otherwise reflect medical malpractice or negligence. You can't say "It's legal for you, but you forfeit rights to sue anybody for anything related to dope", and you also can't have the law say to health professionals "You can prescribe, and they can sue you, but you can't won't have any detailed info available on how to prescribe appropriately, dosages, etc.". Leaving either stakeholder defenseless is NOT what good law looks like.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

> There needs to BE law of some kind


 Ya we have to feed the system of lawyers, judges, officers, and bullet proof vest manufacturer's. 

Make it legal. If you want to use as medicine, you can. Then the doctors can keep their good insurance rates. 

In then end the money will win out ... always does. The police are using it as a money grab. This government is trying to position themselves that way but they have to think about their voters base. Two months in Colorado can't believe how much tax revenue that they are getting. 

Silly ..it's a plant unlike poppies that is relatively harmless. Because it is a plant there is no way that it can ever be contained. Let's use the monies for something else. Peace and brotherly love... or whatever the current beauty pageant speech is


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

No, the law has to be there to provide assurances of other people's responsibilities to YOU. Without it, nobody owes you anything, no matter what they do to you or those you love.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

mhammer said:


> My point is that substances are controlled in law, whether that control means a prescription is required, it is unavailable to persons under certain circumstances, or is plain and simple illegal, to the extent that uncontrolled access is seen as posing some degree of risk to abuse. If it's seen as mild risk, then controlling is all that's needed. I can't just buy as much Valium or Percodan as I want over the counter. I can buy it, but it is controlled by someone on the other side of the counter keeping track of my purchase. If it is considered inappropriate to give unrestricted access to children, then it is controlled. If the risk is seen/deemed as high, then the substance may be declared off-limits under any circumstance.
> 
> I'm not Catholic, but I'm pretty sure people don't go to mass to get wasted. I'm also pretty sure that recipes for boeuf Bourgignon do not include enough wine to get wasted on, that beer-batter fish-n-chips is not intended to make people drunk, and that rum and raisin ice cream is not meant to get 5 year-olds absolutely faced. There are long traditions of non-intoxication-directed uses of the fruits of fermentation.
> 
> ...


What you fail to address is why MJ needs to be controlled any more than alcohol. Has alcohol addiction not ruined the lives of many? Why are the "risks of abuse" worse for MJ than for alcohol? It doesn't make any sense to rationalize the hypocrisy.

as for the taste, do cigarettes taste better?

i can accept that laws and regulation are necessary for society. I just can't figure out the logic behind discriminating against something like pot while profiting off things that are really no better, like cigarettes and alcohol.


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

Diablo said:


> What you fail to address is why MJ needs to be controlled any more than alcohol. Has alcohol addiction not ruined the lives of many? Why are the "risks of abuse" worse for MJ than for alcohol? It doesn't make any sense to rationalize the hypocrisy.
> 
> as for the taste, do cigarettes taste better?
> 
> i can accept that laws and regulation are necessary for society. I just can't figure out the logic behind discriminating against something like pot while profiting off things that are really no better, like cigarettes and alcohol.


I don't think anyone can reasonably address why MJ needs to be any more controlled than alcohol, but I'd sure like to see someone give it a shot. 

Given the devastation to families and society in general caused by alcohol abuse that has gone on for generations, and considering the hypocrisy of law makers cracking down on MJ and then going home and kicking back with a Scotch after a tough day of lawmaking, it's impossible for any reasonably enlightened person to argue for stricter controls never mind that people have actually gone to jail for growing their own plants. 

The suggestion that people don't drink poison, I mean alcohol, for a buzz but do so because it tastes good is pretty funny to me and I'd say if that's true at all it represents a portion of drinkers so small that statistically they don't even register.

Edit; BTW if you're going to post and tell me something like "I have a drink or two max a few nights a week after a tough day and I don't get a buzz", I'm gonna tell you you're an alcoholic.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Diablo said:


> What you fail to address is why MJ needs to be controlled any more than alcohol. Has alcohol addiction not ruined the lives of many? Why are the "risks of abuse" worse for MJ than for alcohol? It doesn't make any sense to rationalize the hypocrisy.
> 
> as for the taste, do cigarettes taste better?
> 
> i can accept that laws and regulation are necessary for society. I just can't figure out the logic behind discriminating against something like pot while profiting off things that are really no better, like cigarettes and alcohol.


I repeat. It is not that marijuana NEEDS to be more controlled than alcohol. Rather, it is much easier to *have* legislation to control marijuana than legislation to control alcohol, because the line is easier to draw. Same way, despite the fact that sugar probably kills a lot of people via the magic of diabetes, you can control alcohol more than you can control sugar. 

The principle in operation here is that the law controls what it can, not just what it should. Truthfully, we'd probably have fewer problems with drugs, and wouldn't have to concern ourselves with controlling them if people were much better parents and raised their kids well...._but you can't legislate good parents_. 

People seem to think that the law should correspond perfectly to what they believe to be the "ranking of sins". That is, lots of strict laws for the things I think are worst offenses, and no laws for the things that don't bug me at all or strike me as unproblematic or a matter of personal choice. But that's not how it works.

Believe me, I'm not scolding you or anyone here for their beliefs about the societal risk posed by pot. I'm saying that the feasibility of draftable, enforceable laws about anything does not map perfectly onto how big of a problem you or I happen to think it is.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

it amazes me, in this day and age that we are still having this discussion with the same cast of characters. 

the guy who tried it once, wrote it off, and believes he knows something about it because of that one time

those who know absolutely nothing about it, other than the propaganda they've been fed by the media, and law enforcement over the past several decades

potheads that come off as refugees from norml.

i've been a daily smoker for 30 yrs, with a period of about 5 or 6 yrs here in canada when i didn't smoke it. the general fear of legalization amazes me. i understand why marijuana is illegal, and where prohibition comes from, an why it still exists today, because i have done the research. the propaganda is sooo powerful. at the end of the day, in my mind, the issue is not about marijuana or whether it's bad for you. it's about legislating people's behavior. i am one of those who believes in _do what thou wilt and harm ye others none_. if i ain't hurtin anyone, they have no business telling me what i can or can't do. especially when they accept substances *known* to be far worse than they *suspect* pot to be. alcohol, tobacco and processed sugar, as mentioned above are just a few examples. it's so hypocritical it should be completely indefensible, and yet society in general routinely throws logic and reason right out the window when discussing this issue.
i encourage those of you who have an interest in where prohibition is heading should definitey research for yourself where it came from and why it continues. no matter what your current stance on the subject might be. what you learn may suprise you. or not.
either way, you'll be more informed, and better equipped to take a position one way or the other.


----------



## Adcandour (Apr 21, 2013)

without investigating further (a la cheezy's reco), I can say that I'm sure it ('it' being the way things are or are headed) simply comes down to money. 

I'm not sure how, but it seems to be the motivation for everything else. 

If someone asked me right now, "Here's a button to push that will keep MJ illegal for another decade - do you want to push it?" I would push it. Why? Money.

I don't make money by dealing, but by cleaning up clandestine drug labs (hells angels, crooked old people, puppy mills/grow-ops). You know how creepy it is to walk into a powerless home (by yourself) left in the exact state it was in prior to the cops busting through a door? People are weird.

On a side, how does legalizing pot affect people from a financial standpoint? iirc, I used to sell an ounce of skunk weed for around $200 around 20-25 years ago. What's it at now? If you get a prescription, I suppose your company pays? I guess I would use Benecaid in my specific case. Is medicinal cheaper? I'm out of touch with street prices, since I had to entirely give up drugs at around 18 years old - aah, to smoke a pinner.... (seriously, sob sob sob cry cry cry)


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

mhammer said:


> Truthfully, we'd probably have fewer problems with drugs, and wouldn't have to concern ourselves with controlling them if people were much better parents and raised their kids well...._but you can't legislate good parents_.


That couldn't be further from the truth, evidenced in the fact that two children, products of the same household, will have completely individual characters.

Parents are only one influence in a child's life. Society, media, peer group, all play major roles in development.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

Diablo said:


> i can accept that laws and regulation are necessary for society. I just can't figure out the logic behind discriminating against something like pot while profiting off things that are really no better, like cigarettes and alcohol.


Ban cigarettes and alcohol to end the hypocrisy! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chubba (Aug 23, 2009)

adcandour said:


> I don't make money by dealing, but by cleaning up clandestine drug labs (hells angels, crooked old people, puppy mills/grow-ops). You know how creepy it is to walk into a powerless home (by yourself) left in the exact state it was in prior to the cops busting through a door? People are weird.


now - this, this is a reality show I would watch! 

i thought the article in the OP was not bad, written from a point of view that i get - i tend to look at smoking marijuana casually, in that it serves a similar purpose as having a beer after work , or having a coffee in the morning (though I guess the effect is kind of opposite), and if you've had too much of it, don't drive, or go to your kids' school or whatever. 

(I was picking up my kids at school the other day, and while waiting in the small waiting area, got a small whiff of pot, like the smell that might be on one's jacket a little bit after having partaken. I couldn't decide which of the other 2 waiting dads it might be coming from, if in fact that's what i was smelling. They were both government office-worker looking guys, fairly conservatively dressed, etc...not that that would be an indicator of anything. I was standing there in my jeans, Darth Vader hoodie, and cap, as the next parent walked in, if she smelled it, I bet I can guess where she thought it was coming from...lol)


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

dradlin said:


> Ban cigarettes and alcohol to end the hypocrisy!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ban booze, that would probably work for the best but there would be an interim period where nothing worked as 25 to 35% of the country went through the DT's.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2014)

dradlin said:


> Ban cigarettes and alcohol to end the hypocrisy!


Wont happen. Governments will never give up that lucrative tax flow.
Yet they're missing out on the money that weed taxes would bring in.
Colorado is collecting $2mil (IIRC) a month when they legalized it.


----------



## dradlin (Feb 27, 2010)

dradlin said:


> Ban cigarettes and alcohol to end the hypocrisy!


I'm not serious...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jimmy_D (Jul 4, 2009)

dradlin said:


> I'm not serious...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I was just taking the opportunity to have have some fun and take a shot at another pet peeve - alcohol, I know you're not too serious and Laristotle mentioned we all know the revenue from booze will ensure further generations suffer. 

We all know the revenue from herb would come in handy, instead the braintrust that runs this place decides that we don't need the cash, in fact they've decided we need to make the cash flow should go the other way and we should spend billions outlawing it - what an ass backwards line of thought.

Here's a thought, lets legalize it and spend the cash on subways and roads outside the city - the new subway line could be called the reefer express and the new highways could be called green roads.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Chubba said:


> i tend to look at smoking marijuana casually, in that it serves a similar purpose as having a beer after work , or having a coffee in the morning (though I guess the effect is kind of opposite), and if you've had too much of it, don't drive, or go to your kids' school or whatever.


Bingo.
Do intoxicants affect reaction time? Yes. 
Do CNS depressants slow down reaction time? Yes. 
Do most drivers these days have enough time to react to the circumstances they too often face? No.
Is there currently any sort of non-invasive impromptu assessment of THC level that is as straightforward as a roadside breathalyzer? No.

Back when Vic Toews was Justice Minister, there was a move on to make driving under the influence of pot a criminal offense. The underlying motivation was sound: if your reaction time is impaired by something you _knew _would impair it and deliberately did, then you shouldn't be out on the road, and should be fined..or worse, depending on circumstances/outcome.... But this proposed legislation was about as bad as legislation gets, because it was unenforceable, and would have likely crumbled when it reached the Supreme Court.

I sent a note to the Minister's office warning of this, and by the time I got a response, it was over a year later, Toews had moved on to another cabinet post, and Rob Nicholson (now Defense Minister) was Justice Minister. The response was boilerplate talking points from the comms people, with no discussion of the caveats I had pointed out. But, in the end, the proposed legislation was either scrapped or died on the order paper.

Now, there is absolutely NO BASIS for existing pot legislation as a full response to driving-while-high. I'm sure Cheezy can tell you in more than sufficient detail how far back and how extensive the paranoia around dope goes. But at the same time, I'll bet you $10 that if there were a THC equivalent to the roadside breathalyzer available, such that responsible and irresponsible use (in that particular high-consequence context) could be more easily separated, you'd see much faster action towards more lenient pot laws than you're currently seeing.

And again, I cannot emphasize enough that, as much as people all too often think about laws as infringements on their innate rights, laws exist to assure that others observe their responsibilities to YOU. And part of those responsibilities is "Stay off the damn road if your reaction time is too compromised to react to whatever happens at any moment!". If someone has not observed those responsibilities, AND you can demonstrate it, then they owe you.

Speaking of which, I wonder what Colorado and Washington built into their various highways acts or other driving-related legislation, now that they've gone more pot-lenient. If everyone's stoned and traffic moves at 30kmh, fine. The problem arises when you have Civic, Corolla, and Smart Car drivers, darting in and out at 80kmh, and their adjacent drivers need another 500msec to process the information.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

again, knowing why it's illegal in the first place will help folks understand why it actually generates more money being illegal, than it would if we legalize and tax it. tbo, i was suprised as hell when 2 states legalized it.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

I fully support the idea of making pot legal to adults and not because of the taxation it could bring nor do I really care about the criminal aspect to this whole process. We must look at why it was made illegal in the first place and understand that it wasn't because of serious drug use at the time.
And I would argue Mark that bringing in more laws are not the way to go either, except to keep it out of kids hands is the only place I could accept that we need to protect them till they are the age of majority and can make their own decisions as to smoke it or not.
Now when it comes to medical marijuana Mark all of the places in Canada actually do control the pot grown and distributed by having it regularly tested for pesticides and other molds and other agents that could pose a harm to the user and some of your arguments well there is just no way to say if client A needs two grams a day and if client B needs more or less the Client A as it reacts to each individual differently, so it would be impossible to regulate it that way for medical purposes.
I can tell you that many other countries outside of North America have done some very important research into medical cannabis and THC and the effects on humans and how it might help those with serious medical needs. 
One should not get hung up on if they smoke it or inhale it as we know already for a fact that inhalers do not give the same response as smoking it does ( scientifically proven ) and that THC has many healing factors that are often over looked in folks with symptoms like Fibromyaligia, cancer treatments, osteoperorsis patients and to many more to list.
Not everyone who uses it for their medical needs are interested in getting high, while it might have started that way many years ago now its about finding relief from constant pain, the inability to feel hunger or even things like Gluacoma and I can tell you for a fact that all the ones I know do not smoke and drive. They get it that it does alter your ability to function at the same level as someone who hasn't smoked.

These are different times today then they were even 20 years ago and sometimes one must look past the ignorance of yester years and understand that while we may not understand many of the consequences of how it might effect us we can't also just sit by blindly and not look at the fact that the research is out there and we can't say to people that this is bad for you because then we also need to regulate other parts, a great example would those who refuse to immunize their children and what then are the consequences to those parents who didn't and yet allowed other kids to be effected and the deaths that can and will follow for not doing so.

To many laws and it becomes obscure and redundant to actually help the citizens, it may just be time to look at controlling it and legalizing it for adults. ship


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The "dosage thing" is not a legal objection. Rather, physicians themselves are saying "I'm not going to direct patients to it if I have no training in how to use it properly." Their professional obligations, and legal liabilities demand clarification about its precise and appropriate use, and so far it isn't rolling in.

That is not to say it could NOT roll, or that initial clinical evidence is wrong, or that some meta-analysis** of clinical reports would compel its effective use for X and Y but cast doubt on Z. But it presently lacks the precision available with so many other things that health professionals direct their clients to. There are so many malpractice cases hinging on small differences between what doctor X did/recommended vs what the approved/recommended dosage/treatment is, that health professionals are only right to say "If I don't have anything more to go on than 'yeah, people find it works well for them', I ain't touching it with a 10-ft pole."

Now, it is only fair to note that your doctor can _also_ tell you "You need to get more exercise and lose some weight" and that's about as nonspecific as it gets. I have yet to see any malpractice claims revolving around misunderstandings about how much exercise to get or weight to drop.

** Many clinical reports rely on relatively small samples of patients, and results of such reports can often conflict with each other, or be inconclusive due to insufficient "statistical power" (the capacity to determine if an effect, or non-effect, exists). *Meta-analysis *is a statistical technique, that follows strict rules, for selecting studies, combining the samples and results observed across multiple studies, such that one can treat, say 30-40 published reports, as if they were one large scale study with thousands of data points. Sometimes, meta-analyses confirm what we thought to be true, and simply put any doubts to rest once and for all. Sometimes they tell us things that surprise us, or even things we don't want to hear, or thought couldn't possibly be true. For example recent meta-analyses of early mammography on breast cancer treatment and survival, whether "fats are bad for you", and so on. 

To the best of my knowledge, there are no such published meta-analytic studies of medicinal marijuana, merely anecdotal evidence and small-scale studies. The small-scale studies are not wrong, as such, but are not deemed to be "enough".


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

Okay but then how many patient really need to use it so the percentage of patients available is very limited also and thus how can you do a clinical study when you do not have a large amount of patients, as for doctors being sued well I have yet to hear of one doctor anywhere that has signed off a patient to use medical marijuana being sued by said patient.
And we all know that when it is enough is determined by a review panel of so called experts, its like when they develop a drug for a patient who may be 1 in a million ( rare illness's ) how many patients can they study when there are so few. 
And we need to remember the multi usage of this drug and yes it is a drug but it is also a medicine needed by so few and so that really does leave it in a position that is where one can not prove something because of low numbers but do you then disqualify it because of that.
All I guess I am really saying is if they need it let them have it, no one to this date has ever died from smoking cannibus and what happens in a private home should be there business as I think the rest of the world has its own issues.
Oh and both England and Israel have done some excellent research into the usage of Marijuana that are well documented.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/.../130822/israel-embraces-the-miracle-marijuana Raphael is a leading research specialist on the highs and lows of it
http://www.marijuana.com/news/2014/...ch-uncovers-additional-anti-cancer-compounds/
And while its a small study it does have some documentation behind it, its not perfect but taking away something because we don't understand it is not the right answer either. ship


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Are doctors actively prescribing it, or being asked to prescribe it, anyone know? (I have a guess, but I don't like to make assumptions  ) Feeds right into what Mark is saying, re: docs not being trained in its use. Also, doesn't it vary in 'torque' depending on what (blend, variety, format) you get?

Ship, haven't they proven smoking cannabis is a higher lung cancer (might have been other lung disease, ie, emphesyma) risk by volume than cigarettes? I know I read that somewhere some time. You SURE nobody's died from smoking it?


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

Injunction granted 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...uana-users-can-grow-at-home-for-now-1.2581742


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Ship of fools said:


> Okay but then how many patient really need to use it so the percentage of patients available is very limited also and thus how can you do a clinical study when you do not have a large amount of patients, as for doctors being sued well I have yet to hear of one doctor anywhere that has signed off a patient to use medical marijuana being sued by said patient.
> And we all know that when it is enough is determined by a review panel of so called experts, its like when they develop a drug for a patient who may be 1 in a million ( rare illness's ) how many patients can they study when there are so few.


That's why meta-analysis was developed; because most clinical studies are hamstrung by exactly those factors. If nobody can run a large-scale study, and the results of each individual study are statistically equivocal, then one can get over that hurdle by finding a bunch of studies whose data can be combined to mimic one large-scale study. That's also why it can often take years until researchers in some area actually get to carry out a meta-analysis; not all published clinical reports necessarily qualify for being smoothly combined together. For example, you would not take the results of a report on 37 people who used weed for migraines, and pool that data with 23 people suffering from MS (but at a variety of stages in the progress of their MS). Yes, they are all being treated with weed for a health problem, but not the same problem.

There has to be some basis for Health Canada, the Canadian Medical Association, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the various provincial licensure bodies, and their comparables in other jurisdictions, to be able to say how and when substances should be used. There has to be some basis for being able to set exam questions for physicians and other health professionals that ask what you use as first and second choices for treating X, and how much you give children, adults, and elderly patients. And by gum, we're all glad those questions ARE there to serve as a barrier between us and incompetents who don't deserve licensure. (and licensure exam questions are often constructed using the "Angoff technique", in which subject matter experts in a given field are asked to identify what professionals with _this_ level of expertise in the field ought to know, and what physicians ought to know is how much of X you would prescribe for such and such a health symptom/condition).

There will always be some grey areas, where there is a strong hunch that X is effective for Y, and we don't yet know exactly how it does what it does, but there are no reports of untoward side-effects...yet. I've recounted here in past how my late father miraculously recovered his sense of balance following a stroke by holding a vibrator, prescribed to him by someone in rehab medicine who used vibrational devices with stroke patients to assist in recovery of function. Now, 30 years later, it has been refined as a rehabilitation technique, more is known about the mechanisms, and the likely beneficiaries of this therapy have been narrowed down.

Still, the physician should be able to say "Okay, let's start with a small dose, and see how that works out. Make an appointment on your way out for 2 months from now and we'll see then if the dose needs to be adjusted at all." And the physician has to have some faith that there will NOT be any untoward effects. Again, my emphasis is on physicians' desire to protect both patients and themselves. There is no telling what doctors will get sued for. Our family doctor and her partner in practice were successfully sued in Canada's first "wrongful birth" suit. (They had not carried out extensive enough testing to identify that a couple's child would be born with muscular dystrophy. The couple would have aborted had they known their child would be born with MD.)


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

keto said:


> Are doctors actively prescribing it, or being asked to prescribe it, anyone know? (I have a guess, but I don't like to make assumptions  ) Feeds right into what Mark is saying, re: docs not being trained in its use. Also, doesn't it vary in 'torque' depending on what (blend, variety, format) you get?
> 
> Ship, haven't they proven smoking cannabis is a higher lung cancer (might have been other lung disease, ie, emphesyma) risk by volume than cigarettes? I know I read that somewhere some time. You SURE nobody's died from smoking it?


I would be a little reluctant to use the word "proven". Very little in the life sciences is "proven". Evidence accumulates, to be sure, and sometimes it can be compelling, but "proving" things is more the domain of the mathematical and physical sciences.

My understanding is that the things that come from unfiltered cigarettes which are strongly associated with lung cancer and lung disease, are found in equal or greater amounts when smoking marijuana. Those who use weed for medicinal purposes would be likely to smoke daily, but my impression is that the level of cumulative consumption of any of these carcinogens would be lower than in a chain-smoker. Certainly higher than in someone who doesn't smoke at all, but lower than a pack-a-day person. Even if there were twice as much of the crap in a joint, compared to a cigarette, and one inhales dope smoke more deeply, a two-joint-a-day patient would be exposed to roughly the same risk as someone who smoked maybe a half-dozen cigarettes a day. So, not "good" for you, but not as bad as other things, and considering the health problem being treated, maybe only two steps back for five steps forward (i.e., net benefit). If I were a doctor, I certainly wouldn't prescribe it for anything that had a respiratory component.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

Actually the British science community has found that pot has some redeeming value in helping fight certain cancers.
*The groundbreaking study conducted at St. George’s University of London**, *led by Dr. Wai Liu, examined six non-hallucinogenic chemicals found in marijuana, called cannabinoids. The study found that each of these chemicals showed anti-cancer properties as effective as THC.
And when these chemicals are used in combination, they have an even greater impact on cancer cells.
_The anti-cancer properties of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary hallucinogenic component of cannabis, has been recognized for many years, but research into similar cannabis-derived compounds, known as cannabinoids, has been limited._
_…_
_Of six cannabinoids studied, each demonstrated anti-cancer properties as effective as those seen in THC. Importantly, they had an increased effect on cancer cells when combined with each other._
_Dr Liu said: “This study is a critical step in unpicking the mysteries of cannabis as a source of medicine. The cannabinoids examined have minimal, if any, hallucinogenic side effects, and their properties as anti-cancer agents are promising. These agents are able to interfere with the development of cancerous cells, stopping them in their tracks and preventing them from growing. In some cases, by using specific dosage patterns, they can destroy cancer cells on their own.”_​Despite all the supporting evidence demonstrating natural cannabinoids as beneficial for humans, some doctors claim that the plants natural cannabinoids are no longer necessary thanks to the creation of synthetic drugs like Marinol. Regardless of the glaring omission that Marinol only contains THC – omitting all of the other beneficial cannabinoids shown to fight cancer, limiting the potential benefits that medical marijuana has to offer.

As for trying to prove something like has anybody ever died from smoking marijuana well that a loaded question that can't be answered, has anybody died from it while smoking being the cause. No not that any research has ever shown was there a death reported. ship


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

you can't compare smoking unfiltered pot to smoking a cigarette, even a filtered one. there are nearly 2 dozen chemicals added to tobacco during the cigarette manufacturing process. gunpowder is among them. formaldehyde is another. you will not find those chemicals in a joint.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

cheezyridr said:


> you can't compare smoking unfiltered pot to smoking a cigarette, even a filtered one. there are nearly 2 dozen chemicals added to tobacco during the cigarette manufacturing process. gunpowder is among them. formaldehyde is another. you will not find those chemicals in a joint.


It is surprising the amount of chemicals in cigarettes and which ones they are. Some of these are also found in pot and the paper used to roll it in.

http://www.tricountycessation.org/tobaccofacts/Cigarette-Ingredients.html


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

that shows some of what is in a cig. nothing showing what is found in pot. which is still kinda moot anyhow. these days not too many smoking joints. lotsa folks use a vaporizer. it's not even burned.


----------



## Guest (Mar 23, 2014)

mmmm fudge!


----------

