ADVERTISEMENT

Weed 2018

All the Cannabis Legalization Measures in Play Right Now

Petition drives to get ballot initiatives in 2018 are ongoing in Florida, Michigan, Missouri, South Dakota, and Utah. I'd not be terribly optimistic about any of them. Michigan probably most likely.

Legislative action ongoing in Vermont, New Jersey, and Delaware. Sounds like a pretty decent chance in all of those - least info about Delaware. Chris Christie is what's been standing in the way in New Jersey, and he's in his final year. Vermont has passed it and had it vetoed, but is working to get something passed the governor will sign. Article doesn't mention Illinois but there are legislators working on a 2018 push for legalization there. 66% popular support there, but a governor who's sent mixed signals on his openness to it.
 
Last edited:
All the Cannabis Legalization Measures in Play Right Now

Petition drives to get ballot initiatives in 2018 are ongoing in Florida, Michigan, Missouri, South Dakota, and Utah. I'd not be terribly optimistic about any of them. Michigan probably most likely.

Legislative action ongoing in Vermont, New Jersey, and Delaware. Sounds like a pretty decent chance in all of those - least info about Delaware. Chris Christie is what's been standing in the way in New Jersey, and he's in his final year. Vermont has passed it and had it vetoed, but is working to get something passed the governor will sign. 66% popular support in Illinois and a governor who's open to it. Article doesn't mention Illinois but there are legislators working on a 2018 push for legalization there. 66% popular support there, but a governor who's sent mixed signals on his openness to it.
I would be pumped about Illinois. What kind of drive is it into Illinois from Kentucky?
 
I would be pumped about Illinois. What kind of drive is it into Illinois from Kentucky?

2-hour drive from Louisville to the border. Not sure how many dispensaries would be set up in the rural areas though. I'd definitely be excited about sampling some things on Chicago trips, though.
 
2-hour drive from Louisville to the border. Not sure how many dispensaries would be set up in the rural areas though. I'd definitely be excited about sampling some things on Chicago trips, though.
Springfield looks to be in the southern portion of the state. I've never been to the state
 
Orrin Hatch announces medical marijuana research bill with pun-filled statement.

It’s high time to address research into medical marijuana. Our country has experimented with a variety of state solutions without properly delving into the weeds on the effectiveness, safety, dosing, administration, and quality of medical marijuana. All the while, the federal government strains to enforce regulations that sometimes do more harm than good. To be blunt, we need to remove the administrative barriers preventing legitimate research into medical marijuana, which is why I’ve decided to roll out the MEDS Act.”

I urge my colleagues to join Senator Schatz and me in our joint effort to help thousands of Americans suffering from a wide-range of diseases and disorders. In a Washington at war with itself, I have high hopes that this bipartisan initiative can be a kumbaya moment for both parties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IdaCat
Smoking the seedy Mexican pressed weed is a right of passage amongst veteran smokers. Everyone has had it, nobody really likes it but if it's all that you can get kinda high is better than not high at all.

Almost like an initiation into a secret club. Nowadays if you can't find Loud then you aren't searching very hard. Very happy to have found someone with 10/g loud.

Used to pay 20/g back when I was a rook.
 
Smoking the seedy Mexican pressed weed is a right of passage amongst veteran smokers. Everyone has had it, nobody really likes it but if it's all that you can get kinda high is better than not high at all.

Almost like an initiation into a secret club. Nowadays if you can't find Loud then you aren't searching very hard. Very happy to have found someone with 10/g loud.

Used to pay 20/g back when I was a rook.
I get 10 a g for small sacks around 5g for bigger size
 
I get 10 a g for small sacks around 5g for bigger size

That's a great deal. I usually will do 100 for 10. Really thought about upping the size so I don't need to buy as often but I'd hate to get pulled over with a decent amount and end up in court because of it.

Cops are Fin dicks.
 
That's a great deal. I usually will do 100 for 10. Really thought about upping the size so I don't need to buy as often but I'd hate to get pulled over with a decent amount and end up in court because of it.

Cops are Fin dicks.
Weeds bad mkay
 
I live in Idaho and see absolutely NO reason to expect any kind of legalization or decriminalization in the foreseeable future. Last I heard, the governor vetoed a bill legalizing mere CBD oil for treating epilepsy. IIRC, even Utah allows that. We're near surrounded by legal weed, but this state is backward ass in this regard with heavy Mormon influence. What are you hearing?

That your a lot closer to it than me. Not that many native Kentuckian's end up out west, though in our increasingly mobile society even that's changing. In my going on nearly 40 years out west I've only met, and gotten to know two. One of them, a gorgeous redhead from Lexington. But I digress. What I've read is that the demographics of Idaho and Montana are changing due to a influx of people from those surrounding states. Boise is a boom town isn't it? You live in a beautiful place that tends to attract people from the coast with big bucks, and open minded attitudes towards pot. Believe me I know all about it.
 
Michigan already has medical and I expect they will go recreational next year. Missouri will most likely go medical. They are getting signatures now and they have very little opposition so far. The amazing thing is that there are 23 states with some form of legalization. 2018 should tip the balance to more than half the country. Unfortunately Kentucky is in the half that continues to hold out.
 
That article is all over the place, and lol at lumping cbd into it. You can read 10 articles saying weed causes xyz and then 10 other articles saying the exact opposite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chroix
Where does it say it makes people sick? A lot of cognitive research on kids of course that’s been known since the get go. There’s a blurb about emphysema but that seemed anecdotal. Not much new in that article
Emphysema is not sickness anymore? Oh. Well, maybe you should send the publisher an email and let them know.

Despite its history, there hasn’t been much health research on pot until recently, said Giselle Revah, an assistant professor at the University of Ottawa whose research last yearin the journal Radiology linked marijuana smoking to the lung condition emphysema.
 
Last edited:
Where does it say it makes people sick? A lot of cognitive research on kids of course that’s been known since the get go. There’s a blurb about emphysema but that seemed anecdotal. Not much new in that article

Congressional wankers want some of that $13.5 billion.
 
Conclusion of the actual study they cited:

Airway inflammation and emphysema were more common in marijuana smokers than in nonsmokers and tobacco-only smokers, although variable interobserver agreement and concomitant cigarette smoking among the marijuana-smoking cohort limits our ability to draw strong conclusions.

————————

Variable interobserver agreement on the results of medical tests makes this “study” sound like some straight up agenda driven BS.
 
They can’t even reach that conclusion. It seems logical but they state the limitations and their own inability to draw strong conclusions from the results.

They say that the fact that marijuana smokers often also smoke cigarettes impacts conclusions. Which also makes sense.

Of course, that distinction has implications only between cig and pot smoking, not nonsmokers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chroix and rudd1
Seems like a shoddy study of you can’t find a control group of weed smokers that never had cigarettes. Also would seem like a thing to put up front and be more transparent about.
Radiology is a peer-reviewed publication. That does not mean that there cannot be criticism.

A total of 56 marijuana smokers (34 male; mean age, 49 years ± 14 [SD]), 57 nonsmoker control patients (32 male; mean age, 49 years ± 14), and 33 tobacco-only smokers (18 male; mean age, 60 years ± 6) were evaluated. Higher rates of emphysema were seen among marijuana smokers (42 of 56 [75%]) than nonsmokers (three of 57 [5%]) (P < .001) but not tobacco-only smokers (22 of 33 [67%]) (P = .40). Rates of bronchial thickening, bronchiectasis, and mucoid impaction were higher among marijuana smokers compared with the other groups (P < .001 to P = .04). Gynecomastia was more common in marijuana smokers (13 of 34 [38%]) than in control patients (five of 32 [16%]) (P = .039) and tobacco-only smokers (two of 18 [11%]) (P = .040). In age-matched subgroup analysis of 30 marijuana smokers (23 male), 29 nonsmoker control patients (17 male), and 33 tobacco-only smokers (18 male), rates of bronchial thickening, bronchiectasis, and mucoid impaction were again higher in the marijuana smokers than in the tobacco-only smokers (P < .001 to P = .006). Emphysema rates were higher in age-matched marijuana smokers (28 of 30 [93%]) than in tobacco-only smokers (22 of 33 [67%]) (P = .009). There was no difference in rate of coronary artery calcification between age-matched marijuana smokers (21 of 30 [70%]) and tobacco-only smokers (28 of 33 [85%]) (P = .16).
 
  • Like
Reactions: chroix
Radiology is a peer-reviewed publication. That does not mean that there cannot be criticism.

A total of 56 marijuana smokers (34 male; mean age, 49 years ± 14 [SD]), 57 nonsmoker control patients (32 male; mean age, 49 years ± 14), and 33 tobacco-only smokers (18 male; mean age, 60 years ± 6) were evaluated. Higher rates of emphysema were seen among marijuana smokers (42 of 56 [75%]) than nonsmokers (three of 57 [5%]) (P < .001) but not tobacco-only smokers (22 of 33 [67%]) (P = .40). Rates of bronchial thickening, bronchiectasis, and mucoid impaction were higher among marijuana smokers compared with the other groups (P < .001 to P = .04). Gynecomastia was more common in marijuana smokers (13 of 34 [38%]) than in control patients (five of 32 [16%]) (P = .039) and tobacco-only smokers (two of 18 [11%]) (P = .040). In age-matched subgroup analysis of 30 marijuana smokers (23 male), 29 nonsmoker control patients (17 male), and 33 tobacco-only smokers (18 male), rates of bronchial thickening, bronchiectasis, and mucoid impaction were again higher in the marijuana smokers than in the tobacco-only smokers (P < .001 to P = .006). Emphysema rates were higher in age-matched marijuana smokers (28 of 30 [93%]) than in tobacco-only smokers (22 of 33 [67%]) (P = .009). There was no difference in rate of coronary artery calcification between age-matched marijuana smokers (21 of 30 [70%]) and tobacco-only smokers (28 of 33 [85%]) (P = .16).

I read it. It’s interesting but seems to have some issues. But none of those issues were pointed out in the politico article with the title “Pot is making people sick.”
 
The study keeps saying “marijuana smokers” but doesn’t define “marijuana smokers”. Like what are we talking about? Daily, chronic users? Once a month? Like what are they defining as a “marijuana smoker”?
 
  • Like
Reactions: awf and chroix

Those of us who know, know.

Those of us who don’t, post reefer madness articles from a politics site.

In summary: Emphysema is bad. So is cirrhosis of the liver. So is heart disease. Reconsider the legality of beer and Whoppers too. That’s the tone I take from this scare piece for old people.

Yes, children shouldn’t eat edibles. Children also shouldn’t drink alcohol. That falls on the adult user who is legally allowed to buy the products. Liquor is usually stored in a safe place in the home where kids can’t get to it. Do the same with the reefer. I don’t have kids and store my edibles and flower in a lockable safe. Problem solved.

The youth use stats are bullshit. The only difference is marijuana use is less taboo than 30 years ago so the data is more accurate. From age 14-20 in mid 1990s rural Kentucky, it was easier for me to get a bag of weed than a case of beer or bottle if bourbon. Legal markets require ID to even enter a dispensary, so if “the children” (faints) are getting legal weed, it’s being supplied to them by a legal adult similar to the way I used to procure cigs and booze as a teenager.

Legalization makes the product safer than buying on the street. Dispensaries ain’t selling fentanyl laced Mexican brick weed. That’s the black market.

We know the risks associated with fatty foods, tobacco and alcohol. All of those things are perfectly legal. Two of three are advertised heavily every day. Why single out cannabis? It should be fairly obvious that routinely inhaling anything other than oxygen can cause lung damage. It’s not like anyone smoked two joints and now has emphysema. That condition takes years, if not decades, of heavy use to develop.
 
Hot take but part of me thinks we should legalize all drugs. Leads to better regulation and provides ways for those who want help to have more opportunities to receive it. Some large cities have created spaces for drug users to use their drugs in private but are only allowed certain doses and if overdoses/other health issues still do occur, these spaces have the necessary medication/professionals present to prevent overdose deaths. It sounds like a crazy idea at face value but it has shown that it does work in helping people who are addicted. The main issue is that the stigma in tax dollars going to places like these would be a tough hill to climb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: awf and chroix
Those of us who know, know.

Those of us who don’t, post reefer madness articles from a politics site.

In summary: Emphysema is bad. So is cirrhosis of the liver. So is heart disease. Reconsider the legality of beer and Whoppers too. That’s the tone I take from this scare piece for old people.

Yes, children shouldn’t eat edibles. Children also shouldn’t drink alcohol. That falls on the adult user who is legally allowed to buy the products. Liquor is usually stored in a safe place in the home where kids can’t get to it. Do the same with the reefer. I don’t have kids and store my edibles and flower in a lockable safe. Problem solved.

The youth use stats are bullshit. The only difference is marijuana use is less taboo than 30 years ago so the data is more accurate. From age 14-20 in mid 1990s rural Kentucky, it was easier for me to get a bag of weed than a case of beer or bottle if bourbon. Legal markets require ID to even enter a dispensary, so if “the children” (faints) are getting legal weed, it’s being supplied to them by a legal adult similar to the way I used to procure cigs and booze as a teenager.

Legalization makes the product safer than buying on the street. Dispensaries ain’t selling fentanyl laced Mexican brick weed. That’s the black market.

We know the risks associated with fatty foods, tobacco and alcohol. All of those things are perfectly legal. Two of three are advertised heavily every day. Why single out cannabis? It should be fairly obvious that routinely inhaling anything other than oxygen can cause lung damage. It’s not like anyone smoked two joints and now has emphysema. That condition takes years, if not decades, of heavy use to develop.
Your post seems awfully defensive. The study was linked, so you don’t have to read political articles. Just read the study. I am sure that every time we read bad news about pot we don’t have to get a lecture on all bad things. Right?
 
Hot take but part of me thinks we should legalize all drugs. Leads to better regulation and provides ways for those who want help to have more opportunities to receive it. Some large cities have created spaces for drug users to use their drugs in private but are only allowed certain doses and if overdoses/other health issues still do occur, these spaces have the necessary medication/professionals present to prevent overdose deaths. It sounds like a crazy idea at face value but it has shown that it does work in helping people who are addicted. The main issue is that the stigma in tax dollars going to places like these would be a tough hill to climb.

Not just part, but rather 100% of me thinks this is the way to go.

Once you think it through, and weigh all the positives vs the negatives, it makes too much sense. And because it makes so much sense, none of our half-witted elected officials would ever go for it.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT