# Impaired on pot 5 hrs later...Comments Please



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

I am not against the legalization of cannabis. 

However, the following article concerns me and I am looking forward to reading the comments from others. 

*Please keep it serious. Thanks*
*..........................................................................................*
*Impaired on pot 5 hrs later*
The Canadian Press - Oct 15, 2018 / 11:31 am | Story: 239210








Photo: The Canadian Press
McGill University researchers have found that driving under the influence of cannabis remains dangerous for up to five hours after use.

In research published today in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the study found subjects who consumed cannabis were at a greater risk of crashing a vehicle.

The peer-reviewed study used a driving simulator to assess the effects of smoking cannabis on recreational users aged 18 to 24. It found impairment from a regular dose was significant when people were confronted with complex driving tasks.

A majority of the participants reported they did not consider themselves to be safe to drive five hours after using the drug.

The results are published as Canada prepares for the legalization of recreational cannabis use Wednesday.

The study was conducted with the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre and funded by the Canadian Automobile Association.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Let's put this in context here first...

"*Young people* who use cannabis and drive are at greater risk of being involved in a vehicular collision even if five hours have elapsed since inhaling it, according to a McGill University study published Monday."

"The clinical trial examined the effects of cannabis on driving reflexes among occasional consumers aged 1*8 to 24 years*."

A group of 45, not exactly ground breaking studies.
This is the highest risk group of drivers to start.

Young drivers who use cannabis at higher risk of collisions for at least 5 hours, McGill finds | CBC News


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Most of them cannot drive sober.... but I agree the study was small. The insurance companies will of course pounce on this and raise rates accordingly.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

According to the doctor on CBC this am THC can remain in your system up to 28 DAYS! It's apparently stored in your fat cells and metabolizes differently from person to person.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Intake has a bearing on this too.

The difference between a regular smoker and someone that doesn't, or rarely smokes will be vast.
Two of these types smoking the same amount will have totally different outcomes.

Not to mention that some are just better drivers than others.


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

That's a crock.

Also there was a better study (video documented) where they made people drive an obstacle course repeatedly. First time sober for baseline, then a joint/bong rip before every next try (getting higher each time). They were not able to find any decrease in performance, if anything it showed increased caution in the first few times (after that people knew the course a bit and were bored so that levelled off). They were so frustrated with the results that they kept making them go again to the point that the test subjects started complaining that they did not want to smoke anymore (too baked; these were not noobs, but seasoned stoners). They were only able to find evidence of diminished capacity after this point, when the test subjects resisted smoking more.

Part of the issue here is bad studies. I busted my foot slipping on ice cutting through the park on my bike a few years back - when I went to emerg there was a person doing a pot impairmennt study. Do you know what the question was? Did you consume cannabis in the last week before the accident. Like are they serious? The reason for these biased studies is because law enforcement (and MADD and similar groups) are freaking out so they have to villify it to make it enforceable. See also the 25 (or was it 28) day ban on TO cops smoking before a shift (so basically none of them can ever smoke unless they're on sabbatical - I got news for the Cheif; half your force toke at least weekly already).

Another issue is not making a distinction between noob users and seasoned tokers; the reaction/effects are not the same, especially when it comes to driving or other similar multi-disciplinary tasks.

@sulphur also makes a good point. That age group is at the highest risk anyway, and I would add they are also likely to be noob tokers (in addition to noob drivers).


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

davetcan said:


> According to the doctor on CBC this am THC can remain in your system up to 28 DAYS! It's apparently stored in your fat cells and metabolizes differently from person to person.


It can and it will, but that doesn't mean that you're under the influence for that entire time, or at all for that matter.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Are there any proposed guideline for cannabis "consumption" and driving?

Links to articles/info would be fine.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

If you have an agenda, any study can get the results that you're after too.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

greco said:


> Are there any proposed guideline for cannabis "consumption" and driving?
> 
> Links to articles/info would be fine.


Scene's from a thousand cars on October 18th


----------



## Ti-Ron (Mar 21, 2007)

Funny enough, I'm pretty sure I can't drive 5 hours after being drung too!


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

greco said:


> Are there any proposed guideline for cannabis "consumption" and driving?
> 
> Links to articles/info would be fine.


How about "don't do it" !


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

sulphur said:


> It can and it will, but that doesn't mean that you're under the influence for that entire time, or at all for that matter.


Understood, but how do you prove it if you have an accident and it is found in your system?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

davetcan said:


> Understood, but how do you prove it if you have an accident and it is found in your system?


The government has already come up with comprehensive testing


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

davetcan said:


> Understood, but how do you prove it if you have an accident and it is found in your system?


There's a threshold of some sort, not sure of the teminology.
Probably set so low that my cats will blow over if tested.

That's one of the myths of weed. Yes it stays in your system, no you are not still stoned because it's still in your system.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

sulphur said:


> There's a threshold of some sort, not sure of the teminology.
> Probably set so low that my cats will blow over if tested.


LOL!


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

sulphur said:


> It can and it will, but that doesn't mean that you're under the influence for that entire time, or at all for that matter.


Exactly. It's been metabolised, but the substances THC/CBD break down to are detectable in blood tests for a month or sometimes more (if you have higher fat content in your body for example, or were a heavy user etc). This is why people get busted for cannabis (e.g. in workplace drug tests) and not for cocaine (which is gone/undetectable after something like 2 days). Another policy that disproportionately affects lower income/racialised people (vs managers and stock brokers who are lousey with the blow, and which, IMHO, is a much worse drug, both categorically as well for them specifically to be using at work, to the point that I avoid even socialising with people I know are users).

Same with tobacco smoke FYI - they can detect (from blood tests) that you are (were) a smoker up to 6 months after your last butt. Insurance companies rely on this when you are looking for a pre-underwritten policy.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I think both the medical scientific community, and those who report on them, have t do a much better job on clarifying the many forms of impairment. The impairment of excessive alcohol or hallucinogens is not the same as the impairment of other substances. Take a swig of Nyquil for a cold, and your thinking may not be "impaired" in the way that a drunk is, or one's 103 year-old dementing grandmother might be, but your processing of information IS affected.

All of us older farts here - and there are many of us - also think of ourselves as terrific drivers. Our "impairment" is the normal age-related slowing in reaction time that is one of the only reliably-documented and predictable changes with age. What we used to be able to do/decide/react to in 600msec when we were the age of the test subjects, we now take twice as long to do, if not more.

When one has all the time in the world, we're not "impaired". When we have to make speeded decisions - particularly under circumstances of information overload - we ARE. That said, we also know from many many studies that expertise accrued with age in a psychomotor skill can offset more general age-related slowing. This is most often documented nicely in studies of typing, where older adult former secretaries who may show expected slowing in other areas, can continue to type like the blazes well into their 9th decade. Less studied, because it is not as readily measurable, would be the speed we see on much older jazz musicians. So expertise in an area, and the highly practised and automatized skills, can survive and compensate for more general slowing.

A 22 year-old lacks that accrued skill in driving, and only has the slowing effects of weed. If they are content to drive the side-streets at 40kph, then driving an hour after smoking is no problem, because they are not "impaired" in the sense of being unable to concentrate or evaluate situations accurately and respond to them appropriately, and in a timely fashion. The problem and risk arises when they are placed in a much higher-speed situation (like the 401 during rush hour) when much faster reaction time and speeded decision-making is required to negotiate all the information overload that keeping track of signage, and the bozos trying to pass you and cut in front on BOTH your left and right without signalling, can dump on one's brain. In effect, what is harder for the older driver will also be harder for younger driver who has toked up.

Yes, yes, I know there will be deniers - "I've been smoking every day for 30 years and I've never had an accident" - but the data, the big data, don't lie. What many don't grasp is the nature of risk. If something normally happens once in ten thousand times, but happens 8 times in ten thousand under another set of circumstances, then the risk is increased eightfold. Not everyone, or even everyone who smokes, dies of lung cancer, but we know that smoking dramatically increases the statistical risk. Driving stoned, even with the buzz subjectively wearing off, increases risk.

As for the persuasiveness of the study, let me ask you. If you needed an organ transplant, and someone told you that in a study of 45 people, transplants increased the lifespan of those people by 10 years, would your response be "I dunno, it was only 45 people". No, you would say "Put me on the gurney and wheel me in". Some modest-sized studies can be pretty damn compelling despite their sample size. What may limit the generality of the findings concerns the context the results were obtained in rather than the size of the sample. If the driving simulator was a poor simulation, or unrealistically demanding in some fashion, then one has the right to be sceptical, but not because of the sample size.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Let's take 45 terrible drivers and get them stoned to show that they're terrible drivers when they're stoned, can be one way of looking at it too.


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

Must be nice. If I smoke a full Blunt of primo weed, I might get a 45 minute buzz. 5 hours? Where can I get some of that?


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

The funny part about all of this is that there are people who think that just because weed is legal, every single person out there is going to rush to do it. Weed has been a legal grey area for years in Canada. Everyone I know who smokes has mailed ordered weed online for years at this point. That's how easy it's been to get. Yes, some people might try it who haven't before, but it's already been proven in other countries/states that it doesn't lead to some massive increase in the amount of users. There are countries where they have legalized all drugs and it hasn't led to that.

No one should be driving impaired. But whatever weed habits most people have developed, they have already had them for a long time. I live in a rural area where people drink and drive like crazy. Driving impaired is generally something certain people do habitually. Because weed is legal, everyone isn't going to rush out and start driving impaired. The people who always driven impaired will keep doing what they have been doing.

I don't mind balanced articles, but there are so many 'scare' articles out there. I am 42 at this point, which makes me aging, but also puts me at an age where I know just how common and easy to get not just weed is, but all drugs are. Other than some growing pains with this new system getting functional, it's really not going to change anything.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)




----------



## mawmow (Nov 14, 2017)

I did not hear nor read about baseline control : how did these drivers rate before smoking ?
I hope the full article bears that mandatory info before anyone can draw any conclusion.

Anyhow the mass protestation emerging this week comes too late to make Premier pot advocate to back up !
Where the hell were they last year ?!


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

A little off topic but just heard on CTV that municipalities are considering property tax increases to support policing LEGAL drugs!

Jesus wept.


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

davetcan said:


> A little off topic but just heard on CTV that municipalities are considering property tax increases to support policing LEGAL drugs!
> 
> Jesus wept.


Interesting. I attended a few Federation of Canadian Municipalities conferences where resolutions were tabled to legalize cannabis in order to lower policing costs.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Is t


davetcan said:


> According to the doctor on CBC this am THC can remain in your system up to 28 DAYS! It's apparently stored in your fat cells and metabolizes differently from person to person.


Is this why T.O. police are being told no pot for 28 days before reporting for duty? 28 days? Those cops must have very long weekends


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

ronmac said:


> Interesting. I attended a few Federation of Canadian Municipalities conferences where resolutions were tabled to legalize cannabis in order to lower policing costs.


That was just the sales pitch


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

davetcan said:


> According to the doctor on CBC this am THC can remain in your system up to 28 DAYS! It's apparently stored in your fat cells and metabolizes differently from person to person.


there is more than one type of thc. the one stored in your fat cells does not get you high. your body cannot metabolize it. i noticve being tired affects my driving more than weed does. i am probably an outlier, because i've been smoking daily since forever, and i drive like a man on fire


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> there is more than one type of thc. the one stored in your fat cells does not get you high. your body cannot metabolize it. i noticve being tired affects my driving more than weed does. i am probably an outlier, because i've been smoking daily since forever, and i drive like a man on fire


One of the big upsides to it getting more commonly accepted is that I think the research and information out there will greatly increase. There's already been so much progress on that in such a short amount of time. There's a whole lot of stigma that needs to get worked past.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

I'd personally have been much happier with them legalizing the drug but still banning the smoking of it


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

davetcan said:


> I'd personally have been much happier with them legalizing the drug but still banning the smoking of it


why? i'm curious.

for me, and for many others, smoking it is where part of the enjoyment comes from. some of us appreciate weed much the same way an connoisseur appreciates fine wine. it is evaluated for taste, aroma, appearance, burn quality, as well as potency and the type of high you get. you lose all that eating a cookie or a gummy bear. you also won't get it from vaping.
one of my personal favorites is blueberry kush. it smells and tastes like blueberries. the buds are spongy, and small to medium sized. it is usually rather moist, and burns slowly with alot of residue.
the high is less of a body high, and more of a head high. people who experience paranoia when they smoke usually do pretty well with small amounts of this, as opposed to other strains that are more intense.

did you know this has been a thing for years and years? Home

*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

the stigma is amazingly persistent. i am somewhat surprised by that in this day and age. when it comes to people, i continue to be surprised. we really are unusual creatures.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> Is this why T.O. police are being told no pot for 28 days before reporting for duty? 28 days? Those cops must have very long weekends


As I understood it, the issue is that the metabolites of THC (i.e., byproducts resulting from the breakdown of THC), which are used to assess the presence of pot-that-has-been-ingested, linger for up to 4 weeks, such that any blood-testing of officers who may have smoked 2 weeks ago would be unable to distinguish between them and someone who toked up the morning before reporting for work. In other words, the 28-day period is to unambiguously clear them for duty.

Many blood tests we rely on measure of indirect markers of the substance one is directly interested in.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

mhammer said:


> As I understood it, the issue is that the metabolites of THC (i.e., byproducts resulting from the breakdown of THC), which are used to assess the presence of pot-that-has-been-ingested, linger for up to 4 weeks, such that any blood-testing of officers who may have smoked 2 weeks ago would be unable to distinguish between them and someone who toked up the morning before reporting for work. In other words, the 28-day period is to unambiguously clear them for duty.
> 
> Many blood tests we rely on measure of indirect markers of the substance one is directly interested in.


Yet they apparently have a viable roadside test to be able to detect your use within hours?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I don't know that the roadside test and this particular one are the same test.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

sulphur said:


> Yet they apparently have a viable roadside test to be able to detect your use within hours?


I wonder how long before the first court case comes along that blows that out of the water?


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

cheezyridr said:


> why? i'm curious.
> 
> for me, and for many others, smoking it is where part of the enjoyment comes from. some of us appreciate weed much the same way an connoisseur appreciates fine wine. it is evaluated for taste, aroma, appearance, burn quality, as well as potency and the type of high you get. you lose all that eating a cookie or a gummy bear. you also won't get it from vaping.
> one of my personal favorites is blueberry kush. it smells and tastes like blueberries. the buds are spongy, and small to medium sized. it is usually rather moist, and burns slowly with alot of residue.
> ...



These stigma's and old views are precisely why I decided to create that new forum. For me, I was old school too. I could not tell you the difference between one strain or the next and frankly did not know there were any differences. This shoulder injury has forced me to learn, and it's been an eye opener as well as a very effective way to manage the pain without heading down the dark path of opioids. Essentially I NEED to learn all I can since I am apparently stuck with this shoulder pain for life. I wouls suspect that the majority of Canadians are in the same place I was. Ignorant of just about anything connected to weed. Nothing to be ashamed of, but I think it's important that we all make an effort to learn a little about it.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

Well had to have a few quick tokes to be able to read all of this. Can't wait for the court cases to start I'm sure that it will be super interesting I always wondered how do you really prove someone is to stoned to drive. I know when I was younger I actually learnt to drive while stoned don't remember not being stoned at that age and when I stopped smoking I found it difficult to actually drive without cannabis.
Blood tests are not really going to be reliable as each lab will have different results we see that with many blood tests Diabetics can tell you that using different test strips or even the machines will give you different reading.
However at this point I won't drive until I can feel the effects diminish from my head I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens next.
Hey big guy hope that shoulder is getting a bit better and yep have seen folks who were dead set against pot and now they are using to help with cancer tremors and other serious aliments.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Same reason I can't stand cigarette smoking in public places. I grew up in a family of smokers, it killed both of my parents eventually. I'd really rather not walk around smelling someone else's nicotine or cannabis as i don't like the smell of either. Knock yourself out in your own home or car though 



cheezyridr said:


> why? i'm curious.
> 
> for me, and for many others, smoking it is where part of the enjoyment comes from. some of us appreciate weed much the same way an connoisseur appreciates fine wine. it is evaluated for taste, aroma, appearance, burn quality, as well as potency and the type of high you get. you lose all that eating a cookie or a gummy bear. you also won't get it from vaping.
> one of my personal favorites is blueberry kush. it smells and tastes like blueberries. the buds are spongy, and small to medium sized. it is usually rather moist, and burns slowly with alot of residue.
> ...


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

davetcan said:


> Same reason I can't stand cigarette smoking in public places. I grew up in a family of smokers, it killed both of my parents eventually. I'd really rather not walk around smelling someone else's nicotine or cannabis as i don't like the smell of either. Knock yourself out in your own home or car though


I would agree with that. I am all for not bothering people. The smoking laws for the most part were needed. I am sure that over time the weed thing will follow suit.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

GuitarsCanada said:


> I would agree with that. I am all for not bothering people. The smoking laws for the most part were needed. I am sure that over time the weed thing will follow suit.


As far as I know, weed smoking and smoking laws will be the exact same in Ontario. If you can't smoke cigarettes in an area, you can't smoke weed there either. I think this was passed awhile back.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

That's my understanding too.




torndownunit said:


> As far as I know, weed smoking and smoking laws will be the exact same in Ontario. If you can't smoke cigarettes in an area, you can't smoke weed there either. I think this was passed awhile back.


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

davetcan said:


> I'd personally have been much happier with them legalizing the drug but still banning the smoking of it


Et il mange; et il mange....


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Granny Gremlin said:


> Et il mange; et il mange....


mais bien sûr


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

GuitarsCanada said:


> These stigma's and old views are precisely why I decided to create that new forum. For me, I was old school too. I could not tell you the difference between one strain or the next and frankly did not know there were any differences. This shoulder injury has forced me to learn, and it's been an eye opener as well as a very effective way to manage the pain without heading down the dark path of opioids. Essentially I NEED to learn all I can since I am apparently stuck with this shoulder pain for life. I wouls suspect that the majority of Canadians are in the same place I was. Ignorant of just about anything connected to weed. Nothing to be ashamed of, but I think it's important that we all make an effort to learn a little about it.



you might want to consider acupuncture as well. it did amazing things for me. it's the reason i can still go to work


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

torndownunit said:


> As far as I know, weed smoking and smoking laws will be the exact same in Ontario. If you can't smoke cigarettes in an area, you can't smoke weed there either. I think this was passed awhile back.


Which is how it should be. Smoke is smoke is smoke. I shouldn't have to be subject to cigar smoke, cigarette smoke, marijuana smoke, smudging, joss sticks, those things that Ukrainian priests wave with the smoke coming out of them, or car exhaust in a workplace, school, store or similar enclosed space, or small outdoor space adjacent to one of those. The real or perceived "sinfulness" of the smoke source shouldn't matter. People are always free to choose something else, if they keep it to themselves, but clean fresh air is a right.

I harken back to Steve Martin's retort to a fellow passenger on a plane asking him "Mind if I light up?" (a long time ago). Martin's reply was "No, mind if I fart?".


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

I checked out the OCS site this morning and it's looking a bit rough at launch. There's nowhere near enough information on each product. And there's errors all over the place like the strain type being mentioned in a product name, then another mentioned in the description. For those of us actually using the products for some medicinal usage, those are pretty glaring errors as I would have no idea what I am actually buying. The prices are definitely pretty high on oils, which is my primary usage.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

torndownunit said:


> There's nowhere near enough information on each product. And there's errors all over the place like the strain type being mentioned in a product name, then another mentioned in the description.


See how much confusion was caused by making it illegal in the first place? I believe "big pharma" had a hand in that, or some other corporate entity. Now they are relying on government to sort it out, and they can mess even the simplest thing up.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Jim DaddyO said:


> See how much confusion was caused by making it illegal in the first place? I believe "big pharma" had a hand in that, or some other corporate entity. Now they are relying on government to sort it out, and they can mess even the simplest thing up.


It's not a huge deal because you can just loop up the strains on one of the huge databases like Leefly. But considering how much time they had to get the site ready, and how many working examples they had to follow of the dozens of online sellers, it's not a great site. The buds section is a lot better than the oils sections. It's a start I guess. Once more online retailers get licensed, the situation will improve.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

mhammer said:


> As I understood it, the issue is that the metabolites of THC (i.e., byproducts resulting from the breakdown of THC), which are used to assess the presence of pot-that-has-been-ingested, linger for up to 4 weeks, such that any blood-testing of officers who may have smoked 2 weeks ago would be unable to distinguish between them and someone who toked up the morning before reporting for work. In other words, the 28-day period is to unambiguously clear them for duty.
> 
> Many blood tests we rely on measure of indirect markers of the substance one is directly interested in.


But 28 days "before returning for duty" is the essentially the same as "never".


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

allthumbs56 said:


> But 28 days "before returning for duty" is the essentially the same as "never".


You are correct sir


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

allthumbs56 said:


> But 28 days "before returning for duty" is the essentially the same as "never".





GuitarsCanada said:


> You are correct sir


It's a feel free to smoke one if you take a sabbatical leave. I love when entities make policy decisions that ignore any sort of evidence.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> But 28 days "before returning for duty" is the essentially the same as "never".


Conceivably. The standards for "buffer periods" seem to be highly variable across regions and institutions. At first blush, that can strike one as so inconsistent as to render such buffer periods meaningless/moot. I doubt that anyone has collected the sort of bulletproof data that would permit one to declare with certainty "If you've consumed THIS much, per bodyweight, you must wait THIS long before attempting THIS activity". So for now, I think the best way to approach the various contrasting standards for buffer periods is as if they were each experiments, and the aggregated data to be gathered will eventually provide the clarity that will permit making such a statement, and also result in many of the suggested buffer periods being revised and harmonized to be consistent with each other.

That said, the criteria that the buffer period are _for_ will vary, relative to the activity in question. What constitutes impairment for activity X may not constitute impairment for activity Y. Would a charge based on the behavioural observations of an O.P.P. officer, toking up outside the squad car by the 401 hold up in court? I highly doubt it. Would you want to be a warehouse worker where the guy operating the forklift was baked? I doubt it. The McGill study that sparked this thread, however, would suggest that, if you smoked up yesterday, your driving today should not be any worse than anyone else's.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

mhammer said:


> I doubt that anyone has collected the sort of bulletproof data that would permit one to declare with certainty "If you've consumed THIS much, per bodyweight, you must wait THIS long before attempting THIS activity".


This answers my question. Thanks.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

Traffic crashes on rise in parts of U.S. with legalized cannabis: Study

Yet another excuse for insurance companies to raise our rates again.

_After retail sales of recreational cannabis began, the frequency of collision insurance claims in Colorado, Nevada, Oregon and Washington State rose about 6 per cent higher than in nearby states where marijuana is still illegal, the IIHS said in the study.

A separate IIHS study saw a 5 per cent increase in the rate of crashes per million vehicle registrations reported to police in Colorado, Oregon and Washington versus neighbors that haven’t legalized the drug.

“The bottom line of all of this is that we’re seeing a consistently higher crash risk in those states that have legalized marijuana for recreational purposes,” Harkey said._


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Impaired 5 hours after smoking weed?

Which brand / strain and where can I buy some?

In my 40 plus years of smoking weed I have yet to sample such supremely potent and long lasting bud.


----------



## mawmow (Nov 14, 2017)

Granny Gremlin said:


> Et il mange; et il mange....


So weed, when eaten instead of smoked, as other vegetables and fruits, would help lower cholesterol, protect from vascular diseases and manage weight ! lol !!!


----------



## Granny Gremlin (Jun 3, 2016)

mawmow said:


> So weed, when eaten instead of smoked, as other vegetables and fruits, would help lower cholesterol, protect from vascular diseases and manage weight ! lol !!!


I dunno about those, but it’s high in fibre so it’d help keep you regular.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Impaired 5 hours after smoking weed?
> 
> Which brand / strain and where can I buy some?
> 
> In my 40 plus years of smoking weed I have yet to sample such supremely potent and long lasting bud.


1) Street weed has increased in strength over the years, but the stuff being grown by licensed regulated producers is apparently, or can be, pretty strong. We don't know what the researchers used. It probably says in the published report.

2) The research participants were young adults. Part of accident risk rests on the extent to which the driver perceives the driving circumstance as low-risk; something which younger drivers are more likely to do than mature drivers. I imagine the investigators provided some incentives for keeping accidents to a minimum (usually something like a fixed honorarium for participation, with amounts deducted for each simulated collision, or added for each collision avoided), so participants were unlikely to be entirely blase about their driving. But then they also realized no one, including themselves, was going to die, based on the screen. So while I would accept that risk remained elevated at 5hrs post consumption, I would not equate the quantitative risk observed in the simulation with specific actual risk in a real-world driving situation. That doesn't in any way make it a bad study. But it does mean that generalization from _those_ drivers in _that_ circumstance, to all drivers in any circumstance, should be very very tentative. That's not the fault of the researchers. It's the fault of those reporting on the study or publicly interpreting it. BTW, if you've never been in a driving simulator, they can be pretty darn realistic. Enough that you get that sick feeling in the pit of your stomach when you feel a collision about to happen.

As an undergrad at McGill, I knew a number of the grad students, some of whom I'm still friends with, 45 years later. One of them was doing work with pot, sponsored by the LeDain Commission, and she'd get bags of high-quality stuff shipped to the lab from the National Experimental Farm, here in Ottawa, which research participants would use "for science" in a special lab with candles, day-glo Hendrix posters and paisley-print sheets on the walls and ceiling (pure "hippie", a la 1969). One day, I'm waiting by the elevator, with this grad student on one side of me, and my lab partner on the other side. He was a cigarette smoker. He also didn't know this particular grad student. He turns to her, not noticing the large clear bag of stuff she was holding, and asked if she had a smoke she could spare. No, she replied. She looked at me. I looked at her, and we both started giggling. As we went downstairs on the elevator, I didn't tell him.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

davetcan said:


> Traffic crashes on rise in parts of U.S. with legalized cannabis: Study
> 
> Yet another excuse for insurance companies to raise our rates again.
> 
> ...


That artivle states that there's an increase in three states that have legalized weed, 
but didn't attribute weed for those increased accidents, it just implied that.

It also stated that there's six other states that have also legaized weed, but says nothing about increased accidents.

I would like to know just how many accident involved weed only impairment, I'd bet that number is very low, if not zero.
Most, if not all involving weed, there were other drugs involved, namely alcohol.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

sulphur said:


> That artivle states that there's an increase in three states that have legalized weed,
> but didn't attribute weed for those increased accidents, it just implied that.
> 
> It also stated that there's six other states that have also legaized weed, but says nothing about increased accidents.
> ...


It will take some time, and a valid method of testing for all narcotics found in the system, before we have valid data. I was actually only questioning the fact that it's the insurance companies publishing the data.

On a personal note no one should get behind the wheel with any form of narcotic or alcohol in their system, but we know damn well that's not going to happen. I used to drive drunk, stupid, stupid, stupid, but that's what a lack of cogent thought does to people.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

davetcan said:


> It will take some time, and a valid method of testing for all narcotics found in the system, before we have valid data. I was actually only questioning the fact that it's the insurance companies publishing the data.
> 
> On a personal note no one should get behind the wheel with any form of narcotic or alcohol in their system, but we know damn well that's not going to happen. I used to drive drunk, stupid, stupid, stupid, but that's what a lack of cogent thought does to people.


Insurance outfits also have an agenda and a bias.

I agree, don't drive impaired regardless, but disingenuous reporting doesn't help anything.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

mhammer said:


> 1) Street weed has increased in strength over the years, but the stuff being grown by licensed regulated producers is apparently, or can be, pretty strong. We don't know what the researchers used. It probably says in the published report.


myth, conjecture, unsubstantiated, misinformation. there is absolutely no way to scientifically arrive at such a conclusion. my own personal experience says that's a complete lie. however, waxs, oils, edibles, and other concentrated forms of non-flower cannabis are about 4 times stronger than flower.



sulphur said:


> That artivle states that there's an increase in three states that have legalized weed,
> but didn't attribute weed for those increased accidents, it just implied that.
> 
> It also stated that there's six other states that have also legaized weed, but says nothing about increased accidents.
> ...


excellent point, one i would have made myself. nicely done


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

mhammer said:


> 1) Street weed has increased in strength over the years, but the stuff being grown by licensed regulated producers is apparently, or can be, pretty strong. We don't know what the researchers used. It probably says in the published report.
> 
> 2) The research participants were young adults. Part of accident risk rests on the extent to which the driver perceives the driving circumstance as low-risk; something which younger drivers are more likely to do than mature drivers. I imagine the investigators provided some incentives for keeping accidents to a minimum (usually something like a fixed honorarium for participation, with amounts deducted for each simulated collision, or added for each collision avoided), so participants were unlikely to be entirely blase about their driving. But then they also realized no one, including themselves, was going to die, based on the screen. So while I would accept that risk remained elevated at 5hrs post consumption, I would not equate the quantitative risk observed in the simulation with specific actual risk in a real-world driving situation. That doesn't in any way make it a bad study. But it does mean that generalization from _those_ drivers in _that_ circumstance, to all drivers in any circumstance, should be very very tentative. That's not the fault of the researchers. It's the fault of those reporting on the study or publicly interpreting it. BTW, if you've never been in a driving simulator, they can be pretty darn realistic. Enough that you get that sick feeling in the pit of your stomach when you feel a collision about to happen.
> 
> As an undergrad at McGill, I knew a number of the grad students, some of whom I'm still friends with, 45 years later. One of them was doing work with pot, sponsored by the LeDain Commission, and she'd get bags of high-quality stuff shipped to the lab from the National Experimental Farm, here in Ottawa, which research participants would use "for science" in a special lab with candles, day-glo Hendrix posters and paisley-print sheets on the walls and ceiling (pure "hippie", a la 1969). One day, I'm waiting by the elevator, with this grad student on one side of me, and my lab partner on the other side. He was a cigarette smoker. He also didn't know this particular grad student. He turns to her, not noticing the large clear bag of stuff she was holding, and asked if she had a smoke she could spare. No, she replied. She looked at me. I looked at her, and we both started giggling. As we went downstairs on the elevator, I didn't tell him.


Even so, I'm consuming the best you can get (as far as I know) and 5 hours is just plain silly. That includes shatter and rosin.

Acid maybe.

Pot?

Nah


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Milkman said:


> Even so, I'm consuming the best you can get (as far as I know) and 5 hours is just plain silly. That includes shatter and rosin.
> 
> Acid maybe.
> 
> ...


I agree, a few hours after smoking anything cannabis and you're good to go.

No way are you still impaired the next day, or especially after 28 days, ridiculous.
Just because it's in your system, doesn't mean that you're impaired.

Take that from someone with 40+ years experience with this shit.

Obviously, our "all knowing" government never bothered to engage anyone that has been imbibing.
No need to listen to those dirty hippies, right?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

sulphur said:


> I agree, a few hours after smoking anything cannabis and you're good to go.
> 
> No way are you still impaired the next day, or especially after 28 days, ridiculous.
> Just because it's in your system, doesn't mean that you're impaired.
> ...


Quite frankly, impairment from weed is dramatically less than with booze anyway. I wouldn't dream of driving after more than one or two glasses of wine. I can tell my motor reflexes and judgement are way off.

A couple of tokes is just not the same. Anyone who smokes should know that.


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

sulphur said:


> I agree, a few hours after smoking anything cannabis and you're good to go.
> 
> No way are you still impaired the next day, or especially after 28 days, ridiculous.
> Just because it's in your system, doesn't mean that you're impaired.
> ...





Milkman said:


> Quite frankly, impairment from weed is dramatically less than with booze anyway. I wouldn't dream of driving after more than one or two glasses of wine. I can tell my motor reflexes and judgement are way off.
> 
> A couple of tokes is just not the same. Anyone who smokes should know that.


When I was a toker, I would agree. Nowadays, if I have a few puffs I am NOT fit to drive anything. 

As for 5 hours, I've been messed up for far longer than that from edibles.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

cheezyridr said:


> myth, conjecture, unsubstantiated, misinformation. there is absolutely no way to scientifically arrive at such a conclusion. my own personal experience says that's a complete lie. however, waxs, oils, edibles, and other concentrated forms of non-flower cannabis are about 4 times stronger than flower.


I''m unclear as to what you are rejecting: that pot has increased in strength? that the stuff used in studies is strong? that hey noted what they used in the report? Help me out here. I will say that researcher after researcher has noted that the measurable THC content of street weed has increased substantially since the '70s. Given the availability of horticulture information and technology, one would be naive to assume that it hasn't. And the licensed growers are applying all of that information and technology. These are no simple basement grow-op.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

cboutilier said:


> As for 5 hours, I've been messed up for far longer than that from edibles.


Edibles have slow absorption rates.

Back when my wife was my girlfriend, she had a room-mate with a cat that was dangerous and crazy. Its nails were long and sharp and unconstrained. I spoke with the head vet at McMaster about anesthetizing the cat so we could trim its nails to render it harmless. He stipulated the dosage and loaned me the right scissors for the job. We had a big jar of pentobarbitol in the lab fridge at work, and the needles and syringes. I was used to injecting animals, so I took on the task. Unfortunately, the hypodermic needles that were quite suitable for rats, were a little on the short side for cats. We threw a towel on the cat, I injected it, and we waited. Because the needle was too short, the drug got lodged in the layers of body fat. The animal never went down completely, but walked around groggy and drunk for a day or so, causing the room-mate to think I had given her precious animal irreparable brain damage. Happily, while not completely sedated, it was laid back enough to not fight hard when we attended to its nails. Once rendered "de-weaponized",and after the drug wore off, it was easier to life with the little beast.

Method of administration matters for all drugs and all species.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

I'd agree that edibles would take longer to wear off.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

davetcan said:


> It will take some time, and a valid method of testing for all narcotics found in the system, before we have valid data. I was actually only questioning the fact that it's the insurance companies publishing the data.
> 
> On a personal note no one should get behind the wheel with any form of narcotic or alcohol in their system, but we know damn well that's not going to happen. I used to drive drunk, stupid, stupid, stupid, but that's what a lack of cogent thought does to people.


Can we expext that they'll come up with some guideline as to how much and how long before you can drive? Kinda like the "1 beer an hour and you'll be under .005 if you weigh this much" tables?


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> Can we expext that they'll come up with some guideline as to how much and how long before you can drive? Kinda like the "1 beer an hour and you'll be under .005 if you weigh this much" tables?


With different ingestion methods, activation lengths can vary greatly. Be multiple answers, intake level differences (1 puff on a passed joint vs smoke a j or big bowl yourself), time variables, etc. Would they even come out with suggestions and lessen their legal position? Thinking of the gov’t when I say that, not the courts or cops or even merchants.


----------



## mawmow (Nov 14, 2017)

Granny Gremlin said:


> I dunno about those, but it’s high in fibre so it’d help keep you regular.


I based my half serious thought on the fact that when you replace offending foods, you so get some benefit. ;-)


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

keto said:


> With different ingestion methods, activation lengths can vary greatly. Be multiple answers, intake level differences (1 puff on a passed joint vs smoke a j or big bowl yourself), time variables, etc. Would they even come out with suggestions and lessen their legal position? Thinking of the gov’t when I say that, not the courts or cops or even merchants.


Maybe the world will progress to not having to share that joint ... just sayin'


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

shoretyus said:


> Maybe the world will progress to not having to share that joint ... just sayin'


I stopped passing joints around many years ago. Seems dumb to me. Everyone who smokes in my home has their own pipe.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

davetcan said:


> According to the doctor on CBC this am THC can remain in your system up to 28 DAYS! It's apparently stored in your fat cells and metabolizes differently from person to person.


Man, another reason to get ride of my fat cells. Damn things cause nothing but trouble.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

While I will concede that for stoners ( say 25+ years of toking ) will recover much faster then someone who only very occasionally tokes well they can and probably will still be to impaired to drive.
We must remember for those of us old enough with pot that was maybe only 4 -6 percent THC and these days even the mildest pot will be over 20 percent THC and a lot more even into the 30+ range so are brain receptors reacts differently because it has been trained to respond in a way that we can control our stones to a degree where someone who only once in a while well his brain will react a lot stronger to the same amount much liker you see with chronic drinkers who are harder to detect the alcoholic effects they seem like they were not drinking so unless you smell it.
As for edibles well they are illegal here in BC and myself I have only tried a few and did not enjoy the effects.
As for the insurance part well I see it as nothing more then a way to grab more money from folks and you hear the news state that those states that have legalized pot have higher rates of accidents what they don't say is that it was caused by impairment form pot hell it could be just more drunks or even just really stupid drivers all they list is that they have had more accidents without specifying why so you have to wonder if it is really a cause and effect situation ( myself I say fuck them with their bullshit ).


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Sure weed is more powerful these days, that doesn't mean that everyone is smoking the same amount amd hence ripped out of their gourd.
Has anyone ever thought that people might smoke less because it's more powerful?


----------



## Guest (Oct 19, 2018)

Milkman said:


> I stopped passing joints around many years ago.


I can't recall where/when I seen/heard this.
80's, Tommy Chong asked about his opinion to Nancy Reagan's 'just say no' to drugs campaign.
'I do that all the time' he says.
"Dude asks me to pass the joint, I say NO!'.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

sulphur said:


> Sure weed is more powerful these days, that doesn't mean that everyone is smoking the same amount amd hence ripped out of their gourd.
> Has anyone ever thought that people might smoke less because it's more powerful?



Exactly. Smoking the Mexican weed we used to have in the early 70s, before the better Columbian stuff started coming up, was like smoking rope.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

It's the same thing with the concentrates, the government has some fear of these.

They're of the same compounds, just concentrated. Duh.

You only need a tiny bit of this stuff at a time, nobody is going to pound back a pile of this (unless they're trying to prove some type of point).
I included the caveat, as there's always that one guy.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

Ship of fools said:


> these days even the mildest pot will be over 20 percent THC and a lot more even into the 30+ range


In Nova Scotia the range of available THC content in the various strains (the ones available from the legal source anyway) range from 2% to 24% so there are definitely milder options.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

gtrguy said:


> In Nova Scotia the range of available THC content in the various strains (the ones available from the legal source anyway) range from 2% to 24% so there are definitely milder options.


The lower THC strains tend to have more CBD.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

gtrguy said:


> In Nova Scotia the range of available THC content in the various strains (the ones available from the legal source anyway) range from 2% to 24% so there are definitely milder options.


Could you imagine that kind of range in alcoholic beverages? Beer ranges from, what, 4% - 6%? Imagine if you could buy and drink a single beer with 60% alcohol? It'd be like drinking half a case in one can.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i want to know how they reliably knew the thc content of weed in the 60's/70's, and where the study is that shows it, from that time period. just because they tested one weak ass strain and called it a day doesn't make it science. otherwise, it's conjecture. no one has a time machine (afaik) to go back to the 60's so they can buy shitty mexican weed for testing. i can tell you that in 77/78 i was getting weed from afghanistan, morocco, and other countries that was every bit as strong as what i am getting now. i get mine straight from the vp of N.O.R.M.L. if anyone has an answer, it will be that guy. when i see him tonight i will ask him, and let you guys know what he says.

even if the weed is stronger now, all you have to do is consume less of it, to not get totally wasted. it's not like fentanyl or something, it's just weed.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

gtrguy said:


> In Nova Scotia the range of available THC content in the various strains (the ones available from the legal source anyway) range from 2% to 24% so there are definitely milder options.


Note that being able to identify and assure such levels of THC content requires considerably more technology, data collection and production-monitoring, and technical expertise than one's traditional connection was able to provide, or interested in providing. When people complain about the cost of regulated product, these additional costs are part of the reason.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

cheezyridr said:


> even if the weed is stronger now, all you have to do is consume less of it, to not get totally wasted. it's not like fentanyl or something, it's just weed.


Right. And because it will now be a regulated consumer good, subject to standards and monitoring, you can know that it doesn't have fentanyl or anything else in it.

Now, I'm not so naive and trusting as to believe or declare that there will NEVER be any slip-ups. Long-established car manufacturers have recalls. Well-known brand-name food products have e coli sometimes. And many here will be able to tell of expensive instruments that came up short in some ways. But unlike an alleyway connection, retailers will be subject to litigation if their quality standards slip or if products are falsely advertised or portrayed. Once something becomes a regulated commercial product, there are formal expectations that manufacturers and retailers have to live up to.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Note that being able to identify and assure such levels of THC content requires considerably more technology, data collection and production-monitoring, and technical expertise than one's traditional connection was able to provide, or interested in providing. When people complain about the cost of regulated product, these additional costs are part of the reason.


Of course... But I wasn't complaining about anything. Just pointing out to Ship of fools that there is cannibis available that's less than 20% THC


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Sorry if it seemed like I was referring to you. No harm done. But some folks HAVE complained about the price, relative to what they were used to in the pre-10/17 days.

It's probably a good thing that there are low-dose varieties available, particularly for those folks who are going to stick one toe in that water and don't know what to expect.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

Some folks can spot a business opportunity when they see it.

Some folk are only 9 years old too.

Munchies for the masses: Girl Guide sells out of cookies in cannabis store lineup | CBC News


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

mhammer said:


> Right. And because it will now be a regulated consumer good, subject to standards and monitoring, you can know that it doesn't have fentanyl or anything else in it.
> 
> Now, I'm not so naive and trusting as to believe or declare that there will NEVER be any slip-ups. Long-established car manufacturers have recalls. Well-known brand-name food products have e coli sometimes. And many here will be able to tell of expensive instruments that came up short in some ways. But unlike an alleyway connection, retailers will be subject to litigation if their quality standards slip or if products are falsely advertised or portrayed. Once something becomes a regulated commercial product, there are formal expectations that manufacturers and retailers have to live up to.


laced weed is extremely rare irl, because unless you deliberately plan to harm someone, no dealer gives away free product. in my entire life i have only heard of it happening a few times. scare mongering. the quality issue is a non problem as well. buying it on the street, if you buy shitty weed, you don't buy from that guy again, just like any store. retail sales aren't going to fix problems that don't exist, but i guarantee it will create some. when people no longer fear the dealer's wrath, and it is a commercial product, it gets easier to tamper with, not harder. now your not screwing the dealer you know, you're screwing some faceless corporation. once it becomes a commercial product you begin to deal with corporate morality, which as we already know, is no morals other than profit. it wouldn't take long for gmos to change all the available weed, so that becomes all that's available. i dont trust government or corporations. my dealer has a face. if he screws me, i know who i'm after. i know where to get to him. not the same with a corporation. start the clock to countdown how long it takes for a commercial grower to be caught using insecticide that causes cancer. it's not what if, but when. legal weed is a good thing. allowing the gov't and corporate entities to handle it is a lit fuse


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Not exactly the trusting type, are we?

"only heard of it happening a few times". Right. And if _only_ 8 out of million of buyers of lettuce get sick from e coli and die, or if _only_ 10 out of millions of Toyota owners get killed in collisions because their brakes failed, or _only_ 9 toddlers die from getting their heads stuck between bars in a crib, we expect government and corporate action to FIX that problem and manufacturers to be liable for those deaths.

The statistical incidence of a given preventable problem is not the basis for neglecting health policy and whatever commercial law accompanies it. Nor does it seem to be the basis of what the public expects when it comes to their government protecting their health. I doubt that any of us here would say "Well, it was ONLY 9 kids that died. I don't know why they're changing the regulations on crib safety, so that I can't re-sell my kid's crib, now that they've grown out of it. You pays your money and you takes your chances. Personal responsibility, right?"

I'm not trying to depict pot as some sort of instant death trap here, OR commercial production as absolutely ironclad, mistake-proof, and not motivated by the profits that can be realized by investors. Rather, as consumers we expect certain protections, even IF that protection is from something statistically rare, and the legal mechanisms for pursuing recourse that go a bit beyond "I'm never buying from THAT dude again.". If a commercial producer does have quality-control issues that become public, that will be known by consumers, and provide pressure on that producer through investors, loss of consumer confidence, possible change in national regulations, and all the usual mechanisms we have come to expect from any commercially-manufactured product.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

This article (in French) confirms similar findings. Reflexes are slowed down and judgement and anticipation of problems is reduced. The tests were conducted at 2.5 hrs after smoking half a joint.

Les conducteurs vulnérables face aux imprévus - La Presse+


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

sulphur said:


> Sure weed is more powerful these days, that doesn't mean that everyone is smoking the same amount amd hence ripped out of their gourd.
> Has anyone ever thought that people might smoke less because it's more powerful?


A million page long posts could be made on the subject but this really is a key issue. There are people out there that have no clue about usage. It makes me optimistic that someone like my Dad who is 77 has been reading up a lot on this, and discussing it with me and asking questions.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

"Smoke less because it's more powerful" presumes some sort of continuous or regular usage (e.g., several times a week, or even daily; though how daily use is NOT considered a dependency is beyond me). If a senior who is pot-curious tries stuff too strong for them, much like folks whose first exposure to tobacco is Gitanes cigarettes, they may simply decide they don't like it at all, and not ingest again. If they went that many years without feeling the impulse, chances are also good that the experiment was a try-it-once-and-see. Conversely, if they obtain a strain much lighter than would induce a buzz, what attraction would it hold to try again with something stronger?. If there is some health issue that ingestion improves (e.g., arthritic pain), that's another thing. Would someone who tried something far too strong for them to help with physical discomfort treat the improvement in discomfort as "worth" the discombobulation? Maybe, but likely not.

Every medication has a dose window, below which there is no effect, and above which there can be serious side-effects or even dangers. Whatever the risks with alcohol, at least you can see how far up the side of the glass the whisky has been poured, and the bottle says what the alcohol content is. I imare better-informed about the traditional substances.agine that sort of information will become available eventually, but for now older potential users


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

mhammer said:


> "Smoke less because it's more powerful" presumes some sort of continuous or regular usage (e.g., several times a week, or even daily; though how daily use is NOT considered a dependency is beyond me). If a senior who is pot-curious tries stuff too strong for them, much like folks whose first exposure to tobacco is Gitanes cigarettes, they may simply decide they don't like it at all, and not ingest again. If they went that many years without feeling the impulse, chances are also good that the experiment was a try-it-once-and-see. Conversely, if they obtain a strain much lighter than would induce a buzz, what attraction would it hold to try again with something stronger?. If there is some health issue that ingestion improves (e.g., arthritic pain), that's another thing. Would someone who tried something far too strong for them to help with physical discomfort treat the improvement in discomfort as "worth" the discombobulation? Maybe, but likely not.
> 
> Every medication has a dose window, below which there is no effect, and above which there can be serious side-effects or even dangers. Whatever the risks with alcohol, at least you can see how far up the side of the glass the whisky has been poured, and the bottle says what the alcohol content is. I imare better-informed about the traditional substances.agine that sort of information will become available eventually, but for now older potential users


That one shot of whiskey affects me completely different than you. I have nasty reactions to alcohol and get impaired incredibly quickly. Yes, there is a % listed on a bottle, but the reaction is still dependent on biology. I am not disagreeing with your point completely. I just always find is interesting when alcohol is brought into conversations about weed with the amount of harm alcohol actually has on society, vs the perceived threat of weed.

The strides in research as far as growing weed nowadays are ridiculous though. It's such a growing field both commercially and research wise that it's a desired career goal for people in school. I've been buying product online for a long time, and using databases like Leefly. I simply don't get a 'surprise' with that's delivered anymore. What they say is generally what I get.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

Yoiu ask how I know because it was tested back in the 60's at UBC testing hasn't changed to much since then so thats how I know. As for smoking less come on you must be living in a haze to think that you can judge from one person to the next to decide that smoking less would make some difference. Like with anything one persons tolerance is going to be different to say a 100 other people.
So for a person who hasn't indulged for many years is not going to be able to smoke the same way as those who smoke every day even folks who smoke more often will react to different strains then say you or me.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

mhammer said:


> "Smoke less because it's more powerful" presumes some sort of continuous or regular usage (e.g., several times a week, or even daily; though how daily use is NOT considered a dependency is beyond me). If a senior who is pot-curious tries stuff too strong for them, much like folks whose first exposure to tobacco is Gitanes cigarettes, they may simply decide they don't like it at all, and not ingest again. If they went that many years without feeling the impulse, chances are also good that the experiment was a try-it-once-and-see. Conversely, if they obtain a strain much lighter than would induce a buzz, what attraction would it hold to try again with something stronger?. If there is some health issue that ingestion improves (e.g., arthritic pain), that's another thing. Would someone who tried something far too strong for them to help with physical discomfort treat the improvement in discomfort as "worth" the discombobulation? Maybe, but likely not.
> 
> Every medication has a dose window, below which there is no effect, and above which there can be serious side-effects or even dangers. Whatever the risks with alcohol, at least you can see how far up the side of the glass the whisky has been poured, and the bottle says what the alcohol content is. I imare better-informed about the traditional substances.agine that sort of information will become available eventually, but for now older potential users





Ship of fools said:


> Yoiu ask how I know because it was tested back in the 60's at UBC testing hasn't changed to much since then so thats how I know. As for smoking less come on you must be living in a haze to think that you can judge from one person to the next to decide that smoking less would make some difference. Like with anything one persons tolerance is going to be different to say a 100 other people.
> So for a person who hasn't indulged for many years is not going to be able to smoke the same way as those who smoke every day even folks who smoke more often will react to different strains then say you or me.


first of all, what's the worst case scenario if someone smokes too much? they eat a few more doritos and take a nap. the end. however, the reality of it is, when you are trying something new out, only a fool dives in head first. you can't fix stupid, i don't care what you do. if someone is exploring the first time, they'll take 2 or 3 tokes an see what happens. if they want more, they do more. if they don't they don't. comparing it to alcohol has no value because consuming too much alcohol makes you sick. there is such a thing as alcohol poisoning. there ain't no such thing as weed poisoning. as i've pointed out before, the amount you'd have to smoke before it kills you is 1500 lbs in 15 minutes. even cheech marin can't pull that off. on the other hand, it only takes about a litre of whiskey to kill you. before you got to that point you'd be seriously sick, and could cause damage to your body. smoke too much weed, you take a nap, wake up fine. as i said, the scare mongering is worthless.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

Look cheezy that's not even slightly true they could also have other reactions that I have personally seen from paranoia to extreme anxiety so lets keep it real. I get what you are saying for most folks but there are always going to be those that just can't tolerate the pot and yes no one is going to die from smoking but they could from the two things I mentioned as a cause and effect situation ( I have seen this from personal experience in hospital settings ).
I am not posting this as a scare mongering but more to say that there is always going to be two sides to any pancakes ( and no fucking dorito's doughnuts apple fritters are much better for munchies ) so I am not arguing against your point just expanding on it that its not for every one and that just leaves ( he he he don't smoke them but they do make a nice tea sometimes ) more for those of us who do, so there not much to argue against this idea most can and some can't period.
And some how we got off the actual subject of smoking and driving I can't and won't drive if I ever smoked.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Ship of fools said:


> Look cheezy that's not even slightly true they could also have other reactions that I have personally seen from paranoia to extreme anxiety so lets keep it real.


ok lets keep it real:

paranoia = i'm scared people are out to get me
extreme anxiety = i'm really sad 

except when the weed wears off, it's gone. MAX 2 hours, it's over, and you're fine.

you're shifting the goal posts. your answer to my earlier post was centered around weed being dangerous, and comparing it to alcohol. but when it's all said and done, the real truth is this - 
weed is safer than aspirin. no one is looking to label aspirin as potentially dangerous. so some first timer smokes too much. 99.9% chance it won't hurt them, even in the worst case scenario. 
over inflating the danger is scare mongering.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

Anxiety is NOT sadness. Do some research.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

JBFairthorne said:


> Anxiety is NOT sadness. Do some research.


It'd be nice if people did that before throwing around terms like "anxiety" and "depression".


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

JBFairthorne said:


> Anxiety is NOT sadness. Do some research.


I may be wrong, I think he worded this wrongly and mean situational anxiety specifically from smoking weed. As in a momentary side effect from smoking it. I am just basing that off the preceding discussion.

By ya, as someone who has mental health issues, it's not worded well, and I hope I was right on the context.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

cheezyridr said:


> weed is safer than aspirin. no one is looking to label aspirin as potentially dangerous. so some first timer smokes too much. 99.9% chance it won't hurt them, even in the worst case scenario.
> over inflating the danger is scare mongering.


No one here is attempting to brand cannabis as the devil's work, but declaring weed-smoking as safer than aspirin is a bit beyond the pale. Inhaling smoke from just about anything into your lungs runs contrary to how lungs are _supposed_ to function. I don't care if its weed, tobacco, sweetgrass, or the fumes from a charcoal-broiled grade A steak. Smoke puts tens of thousands of people in hospital or the grave, annually. Aspirin, used in excess, can irritate the lining of the stomach. If one makes a point of swallowing a bottle of them, yeah it can be dangerous, but swallowing the same amount of Sugar Twin or Keen's Mustard Powder probably would too.

There are many who would probably like to try THC in some form other than smoke. Certainly no conscientious parent with a 5 year-old who has seizures is going to get their kid to smoke weed as a means to potentially control seizures, but they might be willing to try oil or edibles. Why? Because smoking anything is NOT good for you.

So, I understand your passion for the cause, and you're welcome to use some other hyperbole to make your point, but that ain't the way to make the point. Sometimes complacency-mongering can be as bad as fear-mongering.

And, for accuracy's sake, while both anxiety and sadness can be signs of depression, and sadness can result from anxiety that is perceived as hampering one's life (i.e., it saddens me that my anxiety makes it impossible for me to be out with my friends, or forge any close relationships), anxiety does not equal sadness.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

mhammer said:


> No one here is attempting to brand cannabis as the devil's work, but declaring weed-smoking as safer than aspirin is a bit beyond the pale. Inhaling smoke from just about anything into your lungs runs contrary to how lungs are _supposed_ to function. I don't care if its weed, tobacco, sweetgrass, or the fumes from a charcoal-broiled grade A steak. Smoke puts tens of thousands of people in hospital or the grave, annually. Aspirin, used in excess, can irritate the lining of the stomach. If one makes a point of swallowing a bottle of them, yeah it can be dangerous, but swallowing the same amount of Sugar Twin or Keen's Mustard Powder probably would too.
> 
> There are many who would probably like to try THC in some form other than smoke. Certainly no conscientious parent with a 5 year-old who has seizures is going to get their kid to smoke weed as a means to potentially control seizures, but they might be willing to try oil or edibles. Why? Because smoking anything is NOT good for you.
> 
> ...


it's such a tough issue to discuss, while I won't downplay the effects of any drug, I definitely feel the fear-mongering is much more of an issue with weed than complacency-mongering. More people leaning towards the complacency side will be willing to admit it's still a drug and isn't completely issue free. People on the other side tend to have an all or nothing attitude though, which makes discussion the issue so damn hard. If I say in a discussion, "I am fully for weed but can see people develop dependency issues with it". All that becomes is something for people against to latch on to and completely write it off. Not a discussion point about the same draw backs that a lot of other legal drugs have. It's led to so many ridiculous conversations with me, that I have exaggerate my views, and I hate it.

I also don't think people are fully aware of the scope of the opiate epidemic. If you know anyone who works in a hospital emergency room, you quickly learn what an issue it actually is. I would hope that if people really knew more about this, they would see how legalized marijuana could provide a route to fight this. But ... then you just get into the ridiculous gateway drug argument. There just isn't a way to win with the fear-mongerers.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

Not shifting the goal post I worked in a hospital and saw the results myself self mutilation and also death after someone smoked and heart palpitations so I doubt that I am fear mongering. And yes like anything there is always some danger to an item including aspirins.
All I am saying is that some folks should never smoke weed and for those that can well that's great I do NOT have any problem with that, but don't ever tell me or any one else that it is great for every one it isn't and tell me that you haven't seen someone who freaked out after smoking even a slight freak out can cause serious effects for that person you are dismissing the 2 hours that they may feel the anxiety or the paranoia oh and I don't recall comparing it to alcohol except to say some tolerate it better then others.
I remember my brother in law after many serious years of smoking had a serious anxiety attack which then lead into a panic attack and could not control himself at that moment his blood pressure shot through the roof 197 over 147 that is more then enough to bring on a heart attack now that is some serious shit and you can check that info out about the blood pressure creating a heart attack its out there.
Well said torndownunit I agree that the opioid's are a terrible thing and that weed does help in getting some folks to go off from them and I am not against weed but I think like all things it just can't be for everyone. And I do not believe in gate way drugs I think if you are going to smoke heroin or coke that's because you want to, I have seen plenty of folks who never smoked weed but were complete heroin users. As I have mentioned I have used and continue to use CBD's and some THC when I am unable to sleep do to pain and my very first toke was in 1965 so I am not like unknowing and that's my story.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

torndownunit said:


> it's such a tough issue to discuss, while I won't downplay the effects of any drug, I definitely feel the fear-mongering is much more of an issue with weed than complacency-mongering. More people leaning towards the complacency side will be willing to admit it's still a drug and isn't completely issue free. People on the other side tend to have an all or nothing attitude though, which makes discussion the issue so damn hard. If I say in a discussion, "I am fully for weed but can see people develop dependency issues with it". All that becomes is something for people against to latch on to and completely write it off. Not a discussion point about the same draw backs that a lot of other legal drugs have. It's led to so many ridiculous conversations with me, that I have exaggerate my views, and I hate it.
> 
> I also don't think people are fully aware of the scope of the opiate epidemic. If you know anyone who works in a hospital emergency room, you quickly learn what an issue it actually is. I would hope that if people really knew more about this, they would see how legalized marijuana could provide a route to fight this. But ... then you just get into the ridiculous gateway drug argument. There just isn't a way to win with the fear-mongerers.


That's a good post. Nicely done, Chris.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

torndownunit said:


> I may be wrong, I think he worded this wrongly and mean situational anxiety specifically from smoking weed. As in a momentary side effect from smoking it. I am just basing that off the preceding discussion.
> 
> By ya, as someone who has mental health issues, it's not worded well, and I hope I was right on the context.


that is exactly how i meant it, i'm glad someone understood it. i'm not the most eloquent guy most of the time. 

but, addressing mhammer and ship, those folks you mention are outliers. exceptions always prove the rule. using them to call for extreme cautions is not how we have behaved with any other substance i can think of. look at any tv commercial for cold medicine, cialis, viagra, laxatives, the list of possible side effects from those things is again, longer and more concerning than recreational weed. with anything one does, whether it's choosing a cough syrup, or planning your next meal, some fore thought should go into as it's going into your body. however, i dont see the need for all the worrying and had-wringing over pot. i'm not pointing at you guys when i say that, but society and the media in general.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

My overall take is this. For those people who don't use weed and don't want to, it's very unlikely weed being legal will have any effect on your life. If you think it will, you probably aren't aware that people have been easily mail ordering weed products in this country for a solid 10 years at this point. Anyone who wants it has been getting it.

For those of us who use it for health reasons especially, this is a huge deal and it DOES affect our lives in an incredible way. Even after paying for a medical license, we still deal with a ridiculously outdated stigma. This helps towards removing that, and allows everyone the chance to try it for health issues were other drugs just aren't working.

Even on the strictly recreational side, there may be a small percentage increase in users due to the initial excitement but people will not flock to it as new users just because it's suddenly legal. Other places have done this and the world hasn't ended.

And as far as everyone of us, no matter what side we are on? There's all kinds of economic benefits and a future in this. And this also makes things like medical research easier and more accepted which can benefit everyone. Even hemp, which is a great material for a million uses, is stigmatized/illegal in some areas for being associated with the same plant. This can stop all of that with time, and become an environmental pro.

So ya, there's cons to almost everything you do in life. But people should really look at the big picture and think about if those really outweigh the pros. Especially beyond us, and into the next generations.

Edit: This also shows why I think this is a bigger issue than what 'a bunch of dopers think' as has been so eloquently stated in some other threads in politics.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

torndownunit said:


> My overall take is this. For those people who don't use weed and don't want to, it's very unlikely weed being legal will have any effect on your life. If you think it will, you probably aren't aware that people have been easily mail ordering weed products in this country for a solid 10 years at this point. Anyone who wants it has been getting it.
> 
> For those of us who use it for health reasons especially, this is a huge deal and it DOES affect our lives in an incredible way. Even after paying for a medical license, we still deal with a ridiculously outdated stigma. This helps towards removing that, and allows everyone the chance to try it for health issues were other drugs just aren't working.
> 
> ...


Yet one more thoughtful and rational post. Also nicely done.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

I can't tell chezzy if you think I am against pot smoking or for it, just to be clear my position is very simple I believe it has a better purpose then other over the counter or even prescription drugs for many things.So I am for it but I understand that it isn't for everyone and my only disagreement is that there are some things that go with it that no one ever talks about the bad side for a few.
I know when I started to use CBD's as an alternative to the drugs my Doctors where giving me it was a relief to finally stop the tremors in my arms which made it difficult to drive or do anything and there wasn't that physical dependency as there was for Gabapenton ( very nasty drug ) and several others that made mood swings extremley hard on the family and the damage it was doing to my mind and body was well just to much for any one person to endure and it was hard convincing my Dr. that it was a better way to go with the CBD's.
So not sure that I was saying use extreme caution as I use it myself so that is like saying one thing and doing another just trying to make a point that it is not for everyone just like those folks who shouldn't use aspirins or alcohol or other drugs nothing more nothing less. And let us hope that the stigma some folks feel will disappear me I don't care what others think of my usage it helps and thats all my life and wife cares about.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> My overall take is this. For those people who don't use weed and don't want to, it's very unlikely weed being legal will have any effect on your life. If you think it will, you probably aren't aware that people have been easily mail ordering weed products in this country for a solid 10 years at this point. Anyone who wants it has been getting it.
> 
> For those of us who use it for health reasons especially, this is a huge deal and it DOES affect our lives in an incredible way. Even after paying for a medical license, we still deal with a ridiculously outdated stigma. This helps towards removing that, and allows everyone the chance to try it for health issues were other drugs just aren't working.
> 
> ...


I haven't partaken in many years and don't intend to now (I've got enough vices as it is). Having said that, I grew up with it all around me, some of my best (and best-grounded) friends still smoke recreationally and my older brother smokes it for his cancer. Heck, almost half of my investments are in pot.

My hopes are that we'll free up the courts and the cops and make life a little easier for those that wish to partake and save everybody some money. My fear is that the cops and courts will be busier and the hassles will be manifold as the enforcement and legal costs get caught up in the minutiae of all the ifs, ands, or buts of the Dr Seuss-like rules ("Not in a box, not with a fox, not in the rain, not on a train, ......."). In short, I hope legalization simplifies things - not complicates them. I hope the powers that be are trying to save money - not make it.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2018)




----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> I haven't partaken in many years and don't intend to now (I've got enough vices as it is). Having said that, I grew up with it all around me, some of my best (and best-grounded) friends still smoke recreationally and my older brother smokes it for his cancer. Heck, almost half of my investments are in pot.
> 
> My hopes are that we'll free up the courts and the cops and make life a little easier for those that wish to partake and save everybody some money. My fear is that the cops and courts will be busier and the hassles will be manifold as the enforcement and legal costs get caught up in the minutiae of all the ifs, ands, or buts of the Dr Seuss-like rules ("Not in a box, not with a fox, not in the rain, not on a train, ......."). In short, I hope legalization simplifies things - not complicates them. I hope the powers that be are trying to save money - not make it.


It totally depends on what area of the country you live in, but for a lot of areas the cops didn't really care much before legalization, so I don't know how much they will now. As mentioned, mail order weed has been going on for a decade. Everyone I know has ordered that way for years, and I have never heard of anyone having an issue. It was always amazing to me how easy it was. My friends who are medical users have never had a single issue having to prove why they are carrying either. It's pretty much been the most legally-grey illegal activity you could partake in. So I really hope what you are worrying about is not the case. But, I can also see people who vehemently disagree with all this being hyper-focused on what everyone is doing and constantly calling the cops for any little thing they see people doing that possibly violates the laws, leading to huge hassles for a bit. Because some people just love to be assholes.

The one thing that will obviously cost a lot of money initially is the pardons they are offering people. But, it's the right thing to do (at least in my opinion).


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> It totally depends on what area of the country you live in, *but for a lot of areas the cops didn't really care much before legalization, so I don't know how much they will now.* As mentioned, mail order weed has been going on for a decade. Everyone I know has ordered that way for years, and I have never heard of anyone having an issue. It was always amazing to me how easy it was. My friends who are medical users have never had a single issue having to prove why they are carrying either. It's pretty much been the most legally-grey illegal activity you could partake in. So I really hope what you are worrying about is not the case. But, I can also see people who vehemently disagree with all this being hyper-focused on what everyone is doing and constantly calling the cops for any little thing they see people doing that possibly violates the laws, leading to huge hassles for a bit. Because some people just love to be assholes.
> 
> The one thing that will obviously cost a lot of money initially is the pardons they are offering people. But, it's the right thing to do (at least in my opinion).


Right there.

Cops didn't enforce the law prior to legalization because to do so would make the user a criminal and on top of giving that poor soul that particular stigma it would tie up the cops and courts accordingly. Now an infraction is not much different than a speeding ticket. Write it up, hand it out, pay at city hall. Thank you very much, good sir.

As great a revenue generator as a speed trap.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

torndownunit said:


> A million page long posts could be made on the subject but this really is a key issue. There are people out there that have no clue about usage. It makes me optimistic that someone like my Dad who is 77 has been reading up a lot on this, and discussing it with me and asking questions.


Is @greco your dad?


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> Right there.
> 
> Cops didn't enforce the law prior to legalization because to do so would make the user a criminal and on top of giving that poor soul that particular stigma it would tie up the cops and courts accordingly. Now an infraction is not much different than a speeding ticket. Write it up, hand it out, pay at city hall. Thank you very much, good sir.
> 
> As great a revenue generator as a speed trap.


I know in my case is actually have to try hard to create an infraction. I would never need to carry a fraction of what you are allowed to at once hah. I think you can possess 30 grams in Ontario. I don't know how much we'll be able to grow, but it's likely going to be a high number too. 

The one I can see people getting nailed on possibly is smoking in areas where they shouldn't. But I really have no issue with that one. There's no need to smoke weed or cigarettes in those places, and I have no issues with those laws. Same thing with impaired driving. If they come up with a reliable test, I have no issue with enforcing that.


----------



## shoretyus (Jan 6, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> Right there.
> 
> Cops didn't enforce the law prior to legalization because to do so would make the user a criminal and on top of giving that poor soul that particular stigma it would tie up the cops and courts accordingly. Now an infraction is not much different than a speeding ticket. Write it up, hand it out, pay at city hall. Thank you very much, good sir.
> 
> As great a revenue generator as a speed trap.


I know a guy that got busted about 5 yrs ago with 700 + plants.. he has gone through the entire court system to the Supreme court..... the judge has yet to sentence him .. doubt if he will before a reasonable amount of time


----------



## fogdart (Mar 22, 2017)

I'll be honest, I didn't read this thread.... But, I did eat a weed brownie a little more than a decade ago that made me so damn high that I was completely incapacitated for about 7 or 8 hours. I might as well have been on LSD or something similar. It was not fun. I remember driving home probably 10 hours after first feeling the high, and thinking that I probably should have waited longer. At that point I'd been smoking weed semi-regularly for probably 5 years, so I was no beginner. Driving at the 6 hour mark would have been very dangerous. For what it's worth, I haven't smoked weed in about 10 years and I have no desire to, but I'm in no way against the legalization. That said some modern marijuana strains and some modern consumption methods are no joke. Others, I'm sure, are pretty tame.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

fogdart said:


> I'll be honest, I didn't read this thread.... But, I did eat a weed brownie a little more than a decade ago that made me so damn high that I was completely incapacitated for about 7 or 8 hours. I might as well have been on LSD or something similar. It was not fun. I remember driving home probably 10 hours after first feeling the high, and thinking that I probably should have waited longer. At that point I'd been smoking weed semi-regularly for probably 5 years, so I was no beginner. Driving at the 6 hour mark would have been very dangerous. For what it's worth, I haven't smoked weed in about 10 years and I have no desire to, but I'm in no way against the legalization. That said some modern marijuana strains and some modern consumption methods are no joke. Others, I'm sure, are pretty tame.


Aaaaaaannnnnnddd that's why it's gonna take a while before edibles get approved by Health Canada.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

Some one was telling me that they had ate a gummie and there was no reaction for about an hour so they tried another one and they got so pie faced that they started to panic they had eaten gummies before so they were not expecting that to happen but they say they will not try any gummies again. I am a vap smoker which just makes it so much easier to deal with it would suck not to be able to use it when I need to get some sleep.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Ship of fools said:


> Some one was telling me that they had ate a gummie and there was no reaction for about an hour so they tried another one and they got so pie faced that they started to panic they had eaten gummies before so they were not expecting that to happen but they say they will not try any gummies again. I am a vap smoker which just makes it so much easier to deal with it would suck not to be able to use it when I need to get some sleep.


There are always people who just don't research what they are doing or listen to anyone lol. Editables are not to be toyed with, even by regular users. If people just followed instructions though, it would definitely help with their experience. People just need to treat it like pharmaceutical drugs. Most people will follow the instructions on a prescribed medication. Nothing you read related to editables is ever going to say "if you don't feel anything after 45 minutes, double the dose" lol.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

*Pot penalties could be huge*
The Canadian Press - Oct 25, 2018 / 5:48 am | Story: 240139








Photo: The Canadian Press
Marijuana joints rolled with Canadian-themed paper are photographed at a "Wake and Bake" legalized marijuana event in Toronto on Wednesday, October 17, 2018.


The federal government is warning newcomers that stiffer impaired driving and cannabis-related penalties could lead to their removal from Canada.

The measures are part of the sweeping package of changes taking place as Canada becomes the first G7 country to legalize recreational cannabis use.

The Cannabis Act includes penalties of up to 14 years in prison for illegal production or distribution of cannabis and for taking it across the Canadian border. The same maximum penalty applies for giving or selling marijuana to someone under 18 or using a young person to commit a cannabis-related offence.

On Dec. 18, new impaired driving penalties take effect, and the maximum penalties for most of these offences will increase to 10 years from five. It means they will fall under the definition of serious crimes for immigration determination purposes.

"The impact of these new penalties on permanent and temporary residents could be significant," the Immigration Department advises in a statement.

People who work with immigrants and refugees agree that it will make things tougher for newcomers.

"The significance of this change from an immigration point of view is very high," said immigration lawyer Lorne Waldman.

Immigration officials could rule that a person is inadmissible to Canada for "serious criminality," even if an impaired driving offence took place in another country.

Under federal immigration law, a permanent resident or foreign national can be deemed inadmissible if they have been convicted of a Canadian offence punishable by up to 10 years in prison, or of an offence for which they have actually been sentenced to more than six months behind bars.

In addition, the same rule applies to those who have committed an offence in another country that, if committed in Canada, would carry a penalty of up to 10 years.

As a result, the department says, the new cannabis and impaired-driving provisions could mean:

— Permanent residents might lose their status and have to leave the country;

— Temporary residents — including visitors, international students and foreign workers — may not be able to enter or stay in Canada;

— Refugee claimants may be ineligible to have their claim referred for a refugee hearing.

Moreover, appeal rights for permanent residents and foreign nationals, including sponsored members of the family class, could also be affected, the department says.

Under the changes, permanent residents convicted of impaired driving in Canada will have to worry about the prospect of deportation proceedings, Waldman said.

Impaired driving is an extremely serious matter given the danger it poses, Waldman said. "But do I think people should be barred from Canada, possibly for life, over one impaired driving (offence)? No."

He cautioned that it remains to be seen how strictly Canadian authorities will apply the removal provision.


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

They aren’t going to remove anyone over this and “serious criminality” does not seem to be of much concern to our governments or the civil service in general.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

greco said:


> *Pot penalties could be huge*
> The Canadian Press - Oct 25, 2018 / 5:48 am | Story: 240139
> 
> 
> ...


Fight with ISIS and your welcomed home. Smoke a joint and you're toast ................................


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Ship of fools said:


> Some one was telling me that they had ate a gummie and there was no reaction for about an hour so they tried another one and they got so pie faced that they started to panic they had eaten gummies before so they were not expecting that to happen but they say they will not try any gummies again. I am a vap smoker which just makes it so much easier to deal with it would suck not to be able to use it when I need to get some sleep.


That's part of the risk from edibles. There is an expectation of fairly rapid onset of effects from pot, based on the received wisdom from smoking. Any drug administered orally takes longer to be absorbed. That is, after all, why people _smoke_ pot, and _snort_ cocaine, rather than swallowing tablets; they would prefer sooner, and more robust, onset of the drug state.

It's also why people administered morphine _orally_, during their treatment for various serious health problems, tend not to develop addictions. Or more specifically, they are much less likely to develop _conditioned drug tolerances_ - which form the basis of addictions. ( Classical Conditioning of Drug Tolerance ) Why? Basic Pavlovian conditioning principles dictate that the tighter the spacing between a predictive stimulus and some consequence, in this instance an ingestion ritual and discernible drug state, the greater the likelihood that presentation of the ingestion ritual will elicit a "conditioned compensatory response" that counteracts the anticipated effect of the drug. It's the involuntary compensatory response that results in the perceived need for greater and greater dosages over time, as what used to be enough is experienced as "not enough"; as well as more frequent ingestion. Absolutely no different than any other learned association (including getting sniffly at the very _sight_ on a screen or picture of something one is allergic to).

So, on the one hand, while the risk of dependency is reduced with edibles, it is also much harder to calibrate dosage, because the amount consumed doesn't immediately show up in experienced effects. I mean, I suppose someone who ate pot-laced brownies, using the same recipe, every single day for months would eventually have a sense of how much to stop at...but I think we've passed the point of "recreational use" there.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Simple, snort your edibles!


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

mhammer said:


> That's part of the risk from edibles. There is an expectation of fairly rapid onset of effects from pot, based on the received wisdom from smoking. Any drug administered orally takes longer to be absorbed. That is, after all, why people _smoke_ pot, and _snort_ cocaine, rather than swallowing tablets; they would prefer sooner, and more robust, onset of the drug state.
> 
> It's also why people administered morphine _orally_, during their treatment for various serious health problems, tend not to develop addictions. Or more specifically, they are much less likely to develop _conditioned drug tolerances_ - which form the basis of addictions. ( Classical Conditioning of Drug Tolerance ) Why? Basic Pavlovian conditioning principles dictate that the tighter the spacing between a predictive stimulus and some consequence, in this instance an ingestion ritual and discernible drug state, the greater the likelihood that presentation of the ingestion ritual will elicit a "conditioned compensatory response" that counteracts the anticipated effect of the drug. It's the involuntary compensatory response that results in the perceived need for greater and greater dosages over time, as what used to be enough is experienced as "not enough"; as well as more frequent ingestion. Absolutely no different than any other learned association (including getting sniffly at the very _sight_ on a screen or picture of something one is allergic to).
> 
> So, on the one hand, while the risk of dependency is reduced with edibles, it is also such harder to calibrate dosage, because the amount consumed doesn't immediately show up in experienced effects. I mean, I suppose someone who ate pot-laced brownies, using the same recipe, every single day for months would eventually have a sense of how much to stop at...but I think we've passed the point of "recreational use" there.


There's so many factors with editables. Even if they did replicate the same recipe, using the same strain, there could still be variances in the actual weed. And if anything is even slightly off with the process of baking/making the editable, it will affect the end result. Oils are generally better because the process is so refined at this point.

I think ingesting is the best way to use weed medicinally. I have great luck using that method for my migraines. But I really have no idea how the government will deal with the issues. And no matter what route they go, there's going to be issues with people not following instructions whether it be for the scientific reasons you laid out, or simply because they are stupid. California has every editable you could possibly think of. And the State hasn't burned to the ground because of it. Along with every other issue with legalized weed, it's probably just not as big of an issue as some people want it to be.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

mhammer said:


> That's part of the risk from edibles. There is an expectation of fairly rapid onset of effects from pot, based on the received wisdom from smoking. Any drug administered orally takes longer to be absorbed. That is, after all, why people _smoke_ pot, and _snort_ cocaine, rather than swallowing tablets; they would prefer sooner, and more robust, onset of the drug state.
> 
> It's also why people administered morphine _orally_, during their treatment for various serious health problems, tend not to develop addictions. Or more specifically, they are much less likely to develop _conditioned drug tolerances_ - which form the basis of addictions. ( Classical Conditioning of Drug Tolerance ) Why? Basic Pavlovian conditioning principles dictate that the tighter the spacing between a predictive stimulus and some consequence, in this instance an ingestion ritual and discernible drug state, the greater the likelihood that presentation of the ingestion ritual will elicit a "conditioned compensatory response" that counteracts the anticipated effect of the drug. It's the involuntary compensatory response that results in the perceived need for greater and greater dosages over time, as what used to be enough is experienced as "not enough"; as well as more frequent ingestion. Absolutely no different than any other learned association (including getting sniffly at the very _sight_ on a screen or picture of something one is allergic to).
> 
> So, on the one hand, while the risk of dependency is reduced with edibles, it is also such harder to calibrate dosage, because the amount consumed doesn't immediately show up in experienced effects. I mean, I suppose someone who ate pot-laced brownies, using the same recipe, every single day for months would eventually have a sense of how much to stop at...but I think we've passed the point of "recreational use" there.


I'm guessing that there won't be an_ "all you can_ _eat buffet"_ anytime soon.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

allthumbs56 said:


> I'm guessing that there won't be an_ "all you can_ _eat buffet"_ anytime soon.


i laughed, because it actually is a funny comment. but then some part of me said "hey, that would be insanely expensive."



but then a different part of me said "shut the fuck up. just fucking laugh and shut up already." and then the first part was all like "but i was just say.." and the other me interrupted with "zip it clown!"
and the first me said "but.." and was immediately interrupted by the other me who was goin "zip it, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shuuuuuuttt uuuupppp." and the first me got discouraged and just shut up after that.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

A buffet what a cool idea or we could call it a smogasbord of fun.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Ship of fools said:


> A buffet what a cool idea or we could call it a smogasbord of fun.


I expect that if I approached it the same way I approach The Mandarin All You Can Eat my typical 3rd plate would kill me.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

And now here's a study to the contrary...

First of its Kind Study Finds Virtually No Driving Impairment Under the Influence of Marijuana


----------

