Cannabis anyone?

Tony2011 posted:

Drugs control is a fallacy!

It depends what you mean... 

If you mean banning / prohibition then I agree ... that form of control doesn’t work.

Eloise posted:

Tony2011 posted:

Drugs control is a fallacy!

It depends what you mean... 

What do you think I meant, Eloise?

Tony2011 posted:

Eloise posted:

Tony2011 posted:

Drugs control is a fallacy!

It depends what you mean... 

What do you think I meant, Eloise?

Well if you mean prohibition then yes that doesn’t work.

If you mean attempts to control the “quality” and restrict access, then it works partly and allows you to tackle the “symptoms” while limiting the “causes”.

Tony2011 posted:

I think they should legalize MDA:  it’s a lot more cost effective than cannabinoids. 

 

yes, and lsd too....

Eloise posted:

To be clear, I don’t think anyone that calls for legalisation of canabis (or other drugs) intends for legalisation in an “anarchic” way.  In the same way as tobacco is controlled and restricted, and alcohol is controlled and restricted, legalising drugs allows for them to be controlled.  One of the main dangers in drug taking is the lack of consistency; in essence the user doesn’t know exactly what they are taking.  

Drugs sold through controlled sources could be monitored so that users do know.

In addition, much of the secondary dangers of drugs can be eliminated and much of the criminality around drugs would be removed.  Legalisation also gives opportunity for more open education and treatment programmes.

Yes there are dangers in recreational use of currently illegal drugs... but there is also dangers in smoking and drinking alcohol.  Prohibition is a failure, let’s be open to some other options.

but in fact alcohol and tobacco is not controlled or restricted.  A legalization of cannabis with medical prescription or other restrictions and restrictions of quantity per month, why not...

Eloise posted:

Tony2011 posted:

Eloise posted:

Tony2011 posted:

Drugs control is a fallacy!

It depends what you mean... 

What do you think I meant, Eloise?

Well if you mean prohibition then yes that doesn’t work.

If you mean attempts to control the “quality” and restrict access, then it works partly.

I did mean the former although not empirical but completely viable.

Tony2011 posted:

Eloise posted:

Tony2011 posted:

Eloise posted:

Tony2011 posted:

Drugs control is a fallacy!

It depends what you mean... 

What do you think I meant, Eloise?

Well if you mean prohibition then yes that doesn’t work.

If you mean attempts to control the “quality” and restrict access, then it works partly.

I did mean the former although not empirical but completely viable.

 

i would say more the later...

French Rooster posted:

but in fact alcohol and tobacco is not controlled or restricted.  A legalization of cannabis with medical prescription or other restrictions and restrictions of quantity per month, why not...

 

Yes, both are... perhaps only restricted and controlled in minimal ways but they are controlled. Age restrictions, requirements for filters for “safety”, controls and requirements for labelling for strength and contents, etc.

But if you do believe they are not controlled or restricted, then given that it can be argued the dangers associated with them can be much greater than cannabis, then either they should be restricted / controlled more tightly or cannabis (and a number of other drugs) should be de restricted and available for recreational use.  

Let’s regulate drugs and let users decide.

French Rooster posted:

Tony2011 posted:

French Rooster posted:

Jan-Erik Nordoen posted:

Max_B posted:

The world is crazier every day.

And there are risks in everything. I'm strongly in favour of legalization, for 50 and over. Cannabis has been incredibly helpful for me, taking me from phonophobic and antisocial to outgoing and athletic. The improvements in eye-hand coordination are astounding.

 

you have parkinson’s desease ?    if cannabis is therapeutic in your case, i understand.  

If not, all the benefits of cannabis will progressively disappear and will be replaced by tiredness, memory loss, paranoia or other mental disorders. At long term, cannabis has adverse affecs and is not good for health.  A lot of studies have demonstrated that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If only we had had all this debate back in the 60/70s':!!

perhaps you are an exception.... For myself i saw the effects on me when i had 18 and on a lot of friends at that time.  I am working with teenagers since more than 25 years and see the results.  Only a minority who can smoke very occasionally have beneficial effects, as wine or champagne on some occasions.

As for therapeutic point of view, it is a completely different aspect.....

See the results of what? How do you know marijuana is responsible?

French Rooster posted:

all the benefits of cannabis will progressively disappear and will be replaced by tiredness, memory loss, paranoia or other mental disorders. At long term, cannabis has adverse affecs and is not good for health.  A lot of studies have demonstrated that.

Bollocks - and I speak from nearly 50 years personal experience!  Studies have failed to find any evidence of causation (as opposed to association). 

 

Eloise posted:

French Rooster posted:

but in fact alcohol and tobacco is not controlled or restricted.  A legalization of cannabis with medical prescription or other restrictions and restrictions of quantity per month, why not...

 

Yes, both are... perhaps only restricted and controlled in minimal ways but they are controlled. Age restrictions, requirements for filters for “safety”, controls and requirements for labelling for strength and contents, etc.

But if you do believe they are not controlled or restricted, then given that it can be argued the dangers associated with them can be much greater than cannabis, then either they should be restricted / controlled more tightly or cannabis (and a number of other drugs) should be de restricted and available for recreational use.  

Let’s regulate drugs and let users decide.

This to me neatly sums up the present ridiculous anomaly!

I have never used any recreational drug other than alcohol - and I have been offered many a time, particularly in the places I frequented back in the 70s, when I passed on joints - maybe not because I didn’t like the idea, but because being in cigarette form and I couldn’t bring myself to try, not being able to stand breathing smoke. And I have seen very clearly the effects on people who have got into drugs, and increased consumption, and moved to ‘harder’ drugs. But I have also seen the effects of people who have become alcoholics, and who have suffered the harm tobacco can do. So I support the notion that either all should be banned, or all should be permitted. 

Given the reality that banning does not stop consumption, but drives it underground with all the negative aspects that brings (and that I do rather enjoy the odd pint or three of real ale, good wines, malt whisky, cocktails in the sun...), I am in favour of permitting cannabis and maybe other drugs, with appropriate regulation and control of quality and labelling - and in that framework the prevention of access to particularly damaging drugs might be easier to make effective. The illegal supply problem of course wouldn’t completely disappear, instead becoming part of the burgeoning counterfeit goods trade, but maybe richness of pickings would diminish substantially and so drive out the drug barons, while parts of the world where at present farming of crops for drug production would shift from being wholly illicit and subject to all the negative aspects of that, to being part of a recognised and regulated farming community.

i don’t know how realistic that is, but it seems to make sense to me -and far more than the evident failure of the present approach, which appears to be totally ineffective.

Kevin Richardson posted:

French Rooster posted:

Tony2011 posted:

French Rooster posted:

Jan-Erik Nordoen posted:

Max_B posted:

The world is crazier every day.

And there are risks in everything. I'm strongly in favour of legalization, for 50 and over. Cannabis has been incredibly helpful for me, taking me from phonophobic and antisocial to outgoing and athletic. The improvements in eye-hand coordination are astounding.

 

you have parkinson’s desease ?    if cannabis is therapeutic in your case, i understand.  

If not, all the benefits of cannabis will progressively disappear and will be replaced by tiredness, memory loss, paranoia or other mental disorders. At long term, cannabis has adverse affecs and is not good for health.  A lot of studies have demonstrated that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If only we had had all this debate back in the 60/70s':!!

perhaps you are an exception.... For myself i saw the effects on me when i had 18 and on a lot of friends at that time.  I am working with teenagers since more than 25 years and see the results.  Only a minority who can smoke very occasionally have beneficial effects, as wine or champagne on some occasions.

As for therapeutic point of view, it is a completely different aspect.....

See the results of what? How do you know marijuana is responsible?

because the teenagers i am speaking of are or were addicted to cannabis.....

Cannabis, unlike alcohol or tobacco, is non-addictive.

tonym posted:

Cannabis, unlike alcohol or tobacco, is non-addictive.

physically not but psychologically.  There is cannabis addiction and a lot of medical centers are treating and helping addicted persons for cannabis.  

French Rooster posted:

Kevin Richardson posted:

See the results of what? How do you know marijuana is responsible?

because the teenagers i am speaking of are or were addicted to cannabis.....

There is evidence (albeit a lot anecdotal) of correlation between cannabis use and mental issues, but there is (afaik) very little evidence of causation.

French Rooster posted:

tonym posted:

Cannabis, unlike alcohol or tobacco, is non-addictive.

physically not but psychologically.  There is cannabis addiction and a lot of medical centers are treating and helping addicted persons for cannabis.  

Yet cannabis is illegal; while alcohol and tobacco remain legal... and the addictive effects of those are much greater.

There is no medical reason why these are legal and cannabis is illegal!

Jus being addictive shouldn't make something illegal. If so naim would be illegal too. It's an addictive sound.

As is Facebook, twitter, video games, the internet, chocolate - this forum - really anything that caused endorphines to be produced has the potential to be addictive in a portion of the population..

Coffee, coke, sugar ....

I'd go so far as to say the human race function due to its addictions....

Tiny bursts of endorphines released Everytime you got a math problem right would make you an A student... Since you'll practice more and more ...

Obesity is a bigger problem in the USA - probably kills more people than all drugs combined - no one wants to outlaw sugar... 

Eloise posted:

French Rooster posted:

tonym posted:

Cannabis, unlike alcohol or tobacco, is non-addictive.

physically not but psychologically.  There is cannabis addiction and a lot of medical centers are treating and helping addicted persons for cannabis.  

Yet cannabis is illegal; while alcohol and tobacco remain legal... and the addictive effects of those are much greater.

There is no medical reason why these are legal and cannabis is illegal!

sorry, i think you are not well informed.  The consequences of cannabis addiction are very negative, in general and for people smoking cannabis everyday and several times per day, much more negative than tobacco.

As for alcohol, you are right, it is even worse.  But you can find people who are smoking cannabis everyday or drinking alcohol everyday, with no health problems. But it is a minority.

But you are missing my point... take three behaviours: drinking alcohol; smoking tobacco and smoking cannibis.  All three have a high risk of causing medical problems... yet 2 of them are deemed legal while one is prohibited.  The law is not based on any medical or scientific evidence of the dangers, simply due to political decision.

I am not suggesting there is no risk from cannibis: what I am suggesting is that people could be better informed of the risks IF it was legalised.  That “doses” could be managed, that “product” would not be contaminated.  It would also allow for more openness, more education, more treatment programmes.

(PS. I do think your post underestimates the problems of smoking if you put them on par with cannibis though given that cannibis is often smoked WITH tobacco cannibis taken that way does increase the risks).

Eloise posted:

But you are missing my point... take three behaviours: drinking alcohol; smoking tobacco and smoking cannibis.  All three have a high risk of causing medical problems... yet 2 of them are deemed legal while one is prohibited.  The law is not based on any medical or scientific evidence of the dangers, simply due to political decision.

I am not suggesting there is no risk from cannibis: what I am suggesting is that people could be better informed of the risks IF it was legalised.  That “doses” could be managed, that “product” would not be contaminated.  It would also allow for more openness, more education, more treatment programmes.

(PS. I do think your post underestimates the problems of smoking if you put them on par with cannibis though given that cannibis is often smoked WITH tobacco cannibis taken that way does increase the risks).

finally we are globally agree i think.  I will be open to legalizing cannabis but with a lot more restrictions as in united states or spain.....with a restriction of quantity per month ( 2g?), restriction of age(20 ?) , a medical prescription every year....

Eloise posted:

I am not suggesting there is no risk from cannibis: what I am suggesting is that people could be better informed of the risks IF it was legalised.  That “doses” could be managed, that “product” would not be contaminated.  It would also allow for more openness, more education, more treatment programmes.

And it (legalisation) will also allow for more research, which is sorely needed.

The earliest archeological record of cannabis use, as hemp, dates back over 10,000 years to the Stone Age (no pun intended). It has long been used as a medicine in India, China, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, South Africa, and South America.

Yet, it wasn't until 1964 that the endocannabinoid system was discovered by the Israeli researcher Raphael Mechoulam, who identified and isolated THC for the first time, then CBD. In 1992, Mechoulam found the first endogeneous cannabinoid, anandamide. NIMH researchers William Devane and Dr. Lumir Hanus also found it. A second endocannabinoid was identified in 1995, again by Mechoulam’s group: 2-arachidonoylglycerol or 2-AG. 

(Exercise-induced euphoria (runner's high) is thought to be induced by anandamide, along with other euphoriant neurochemicals.)

Discovery of the endocannabinoid system was a major breakthrough. This molecular signalling system is present in all mammals and regulates a wide variety of physiological and cognitive processes, to bring them into homeostasis.

As we move into full legalisation here in Canada (medical marijuana was legalised in 2001), we'll be seeing far more research into isolating the various cannabinoids and testing their effects in clinical trials. At the moment, prescribing cannabis and finding the right strain and dosing regime is something of a moving target. Which is why (getting back to investments) I tend to focus on companies such as MedReleaf and InMed.

Canopy Growth closed at $42 a share today. They were just over $8 in July. I sold at $32, figuring that would be the peak...

Insane isn't it?  Congrats Jan-Erik.  I'm following a US based stock and its going gangbusters as well.  I have no idea what the peak is going to be but seriously it's going to fund my equipment upgrade for sure!

I am sticking with Aurora and Canopy - thinking about MedReLeaf, but not sure yet.