[HN Gopher] Germany's move to legalise cannabis expected to crea...
___________________________________________________________________
Germany's move to legalise cannabis expected to create 'domino
effect'
Author : samizdis
Score : 296 points
Date : 2022-07-01 10:49 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| seper8 wrote:
| Hope so. Here in the Netherlands we've fallen hilariously behind.
|
| It's illegal to produce weed with the intention to sell, but
| legal to sell. At the same time it's illegal to have a large
| inventory. So criminals make large amounts of cash by illegally
| growing weed. And cops have to waste their time dealing with
| these guys.
|
| Eventually these guys grow up and start with the more profitable
| stuff such as cocaine & mdma. Next step is to start ripping off
| other criminals, threatening local businessmen who dont want to
| hide your cocaine in their fruit imports...
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > cops have to waste their time dealing with these guys.
|
| Maybe they don't "waste" their time, and instead enjoy job
| security and an endless supply of easy crimes to solve?
|
| I suspect law enforcement is a big reason why drug legalization
| is hard.
| htkibar wrote:
| Well - not really. It is not legal to sell it is just
| "tolerated". Which is I guess making your point even further?
| donkeyd wrote:
| The Netherlands will be especially impacted by this. We refused
| actual legalization for many reasons, many of which will be
| invalidated by Germany decriminalizing. Our current stance on
| weed is so confusing that it's hard to explain to any foreigner,
| but strictly speaking weed isn't legal and not even
| decriminalized... But yes, Amsterdam is in The Netherlands.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| I sure hope this will come ASAP. As much as I like to stroll
| through Amsterdam and around, after 10+ visits, often quite
| long with various people that were/are important in my life, I
| wish to just buy stuff while experiencing other places and
| cultures.
|
| It is expensive place with miserable weather. Dutch ladies are
| always a nice sight though. Plus those drunken crowds of mostly
| young British around Red light district won't be missed by me.
| nostromo wrote:
| This sounds like the confusing US laws. Cannabis is illegal (
| _very_ illegal) nationally. But several states decided to stop
| prosecuting these crimes, and the states do most of the
| policing in the US - so it's all but legal in many states.
|
| I wish there was a legal standard whereby if the state stops
| prosecuting a law, the law automatically can be invalidated by
| a court. We have lots of things that are illegal that are only
| used by prosecutors when they want to throw the book at
| someone.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > This sounds like the confusing US laws. Cannabis is illegal
| (very illegal) nationally. But several states decided to stop
| prosecuting these crimes, and the states do most of the
| policing in the US - so it's all but legal in many states.
|
| That's not an accurate explanation of the situation in the
| US.
|
| Cannabis is illegal at the federal level. Separately, it is
| illegal in some states too (although fewer and fewer as the
| years go by). States do not have the power to prosecute
| people under federal law, so in states where the state has
| legalized marijuana, prosecutors (DA, AG, etc.) have no basis
| to file criminal charges.
|
| The federal prohibition means that people can be prosecuted
| for possession on federal land, or if a federal agency (such
| as the FBI) takes enough interest to enforce the federal law,
| but they rarely bother at this point.
|
| > I wish there was a legal standard whereby if the state
| stops prosecuting a law, the law automatically can be
| invalidated by a court.
|
| What you are describing is actually closer to the Dutch
| system. Marijuana is illegal there, but because it's been
| "tolerated" (best translation of the Dutch word) for long
| enough, it's not actually legal for them to enforce the law
| anymore. (Well, sort of).
| withinboredom wrote:
| > the law automatically can be invalidated by a court.
|
| There are three parts to the law:
|
| 1. The legislature must draft the law
|
| 2. The executives must enforce the law.
|
| 3. The judicial must punish for breaking the law.
|
| If (2) never happens, then it never gets to (3). And courts
| can "invalidate" a law: jury nullification.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _courts can "invalidate" a law: jury nullification_
|
| This doesn't invalidate the law. It decides one case in a
| particular way. An invalidated law is unenforceable for
| everyone.
| withinboredom wrote:
| If someone were willing to fund a campaign telling people
| why they should nullify a certain law, and the people
| agreed, eventually they'll just stop prosecuting it
| because it won't stick.
|
| Technically, there's nothing illegal about a judge
| telling the jury about nullification either.
| Kerbonut wrote:
| SCOTUS ought to invalidate the DEA and drug scheduling
| considering they're overturning other perceived federal
| overreaches.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Did the DEA create the schedules? Or did the Congress? I
| thought it was a latter.
| int_19h wrote:
| Congress created them originally, but they gave DEA very
| wide authority to change them.
|
| (This is also why federal drug legalization could, in
| theory, be achieved through executive order, if Dems had
| the spine for that.)
| Kerbonut wrote:
| Thanks didn't know it was actually congress. Makes more
| sense to me now. But does congress even have authority to
| regulate that? Does it fall under unenumerated rights
| that fall to the people? I guess I remember hearing they
| regulate it under interstate commerce?
| akhmatova wrote:
| Not sure what you mean by "not even decriminalized". If the
| basic status of cannabis in the NL as I understand it -- it's
| technical illegal, but obviously tolerated (and penalties are
| never enforced unless you _really_ step out of line) -- then
| what other word would you use? Leg uit alstublieft.
| danielbln wrote:
| Nitpick: Germany is poised to legalize and not just
| decriminialize, which is an important distinction.
| donkeyd wrote:
| No problem. I read another comment that said it would not be
| legalized. But now that I read the responses to that comment
| I feel like I probably shouldn't have taken that comment as
| the truth.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| Germany is poised to _tax_ that shit. Finally.
| htkibar wrote:
| In all fairness, it isn't like we want people to come as
| tourists here to smoke weed or something so should be fine no?
|
| For anyone else wanting to know more about the Dutch policy on
| this: https://www.government.nl/topics/drugs/toleration-policy-
| reg...
| tommit wrote:
| Quick question for our Dutch neighbors: why not?
|
| I never understood why it is exactly that The Netherlands
| were kind of against the drug tourism. I mean, I'm sure your
| average pot head tourist is not that much trouble and leaves
| quite a bit of money, no?
|
| I studied in The Netherlands and always thought I'd be proud
| as a country to be that "progressive" in a sense --
| especially once it became clear that other countries were
| following.
| Dobbs wrote:
| Amsterdam has lots of issues with tourists that fly in,
| spend a few days, cause a lot of problems, do a lot of
| drugs, visit one or two high profile tourist destianations
| (which puts an oversized burden on these few places), and
| then fly out.
|
| Instead Amsterdam wants to court tourists who fly in, spend
| a week or two, go to many tourist destinations, spend a bit
| more money at many locations. It spreads it around the
| city/country, does less wear and tear to a few places, and
| makes the locals lives much nicer.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > I'm sure your average pot head tourist is not that much
| trouble and leaves quite a bit of money, no?
|
| aha, they literally only come for weed and prostitutes,
| let's say it doesn't attract the most well behaved people
| in the world. Imagine the typical German or English 20
| something years old tourist in Mallorca but instead of
| being drunk they're stoned.
|
| Low travel cost + mass tourism + young adults + drugs =
| problems. You can travel there for 70 euros back and forth
| from any major city in Europe
|
| It's limited to very specific streets but these streets are
| hell on earth, I don't even know why people go there
| anymore:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/world/europe/amsterdam-
| to...
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| >Imagine the typical German or English 20 something years
| old tourist in Mallorca but instead of being drunk
| they're stoned.
|
| So they're sitting in cafes eating fried food? What
| exactly do you think stoned people do lol
| piva00 wrote:
| Fall into canals; move in flocks between narrow city
| centre streets making a lot of noise; bike around with
| disregard to common traffic rules.
|
| I'm not Dutch and I really enjoy going to Amsterdam, have
| friends living there, etc. From what I gather those are
| the main complaints, just annoyances and not really major
| problems.
|
| Financing criminals when these same tourists go searching
| for other drugs, that's a real issue.
|
| Disclaimer: I don't believe that weed is a gateway drug
| and I'm very pro decriminalisation of drugs and
| legalisation of recreational cannabis.
| chimeracoder wrote:
| > Fall into canals; move in flocks between narrow city
| centre streets making a lot of noise; bike around with
| disregard to common traffic rules.
|
| Sounds like you're describing the behavior of people
| who've had too much to drink. Alcohol is already legal.
| flycaliguy wrote:
| Personally, in 2010 I definitely walked across 8 lanes of
| traffic the wrong way on my first day in town... Must have
| been an actual highway. I have a vivid memory of cars
| revving their engine at me.
|
| In Canada the crossing signs with a countdown display how
| much time you have left to cross not how long the wait will
| be.
| monetus wrote:
| This is a good FYI, thanks.
| grapeskin wrote:
| Countries with loads of tourists have loads of trouble with
| them. Those problems are amplified when you're flooded with
| college kids who are away from home for the first time and
| getting high for only the first or second time of their
| life.
|
| I guess there was enough trouble that some people thought
| it was worth trying to cut back on. Money isn't everything
| scyzoryk_xyz wrote:
| The Dutch also have an incredibly advanced
| information/agriculture/tech/corp economy. I'm no expert
| on this but I'm pretty sure that the money from the
| tourism might not be as much to the Dutch as we would
| like to think.
| akhmatova wrote:
| _I never understood why it is exactly that The Netherlands
| were kind of against the drug tourism._
|
| It's a subset of the problem of overtourism in general.
|
| _I mean, I 'm sure your average pot head tourist is not
| that much trouble and leaves quite a bit of money, no?_
|
| Actually they don't, and that's precisely the problem. They
| come over on EasyJet, check into a shitty hostel, score
| some weed, buy a shawarma (and maybe some fries), oggle the
| working professionals in the red light district for a bit,
| and then leave a few days later.
|
| This is a stereotype of course and not 100 percent true --
| but it also probably intersects about 60 percent with the
| spending profile of the average weed tourist. On average
| not usually the type to visit anything other than the most
| obvious tourist destinations, or patronize any of the
| better restaurants, or avail themselves to any of the
| amazingly cool stuff that city has to offer.
| donkeyd wrote:
| It's a bit of a mixed bag, but usually the tourists that
| visit for drugs aren't the ones that spend money on good
| food, hotels and museums. This is a broad generalization, I
| know, but may just come for the weed, get hella stoned,
| drink too much and cause issues in the city. British stag
| parties are the worst example of this. These groups treat
| Amsterdam more like a theme park than a city... But that's
| just Amsterdam.
|
| A lot of the drug tourism isn't the stuff like that, that
| you're probably thinking about. A lot of it happens in
| border towns and is essentially trafficking by criminals.
| They come to the Netherlands, buy quite a bit of weed and
| go back to their home countries to sell it. In those
| countries it's illegal, hence the criminal part. These are
| not the types of people we like to have visiting our
| country.
| donkeyd wrote:
| Well, it's not about that. It's that one of the reasons the
| Netherlands never legalized is that the rest of Europe
| didn't. So we were afraid that we'd become a place where
| international criminals come to produce massive amounts of
| weed legally to then export it illegally. When countries
| surrounding us start legalizing, we have no reason not to.
|
| Since growing weed is purely done by criminals right now,
| we're also afraid to legalize because legal weed farms might
| get issues with criminal involvement or threat because the
| criminals lose a huge income source. If we don't legalize
| however when Germany does, we'll then get a bunch of
| trafficking from Germany to the Netherlands.
|
| We're in a bit of a pickle and it'll be interesting to see
| what our Christian/Liberal/Progressive government will come
| up with. I expect them to just ignore it and continue by
| doing pretty much nothing until it's a real problem.
| tcmart14 wrote:
| > Since growing weed is purely done by criminals right now,
| we're also afraid to legalize because legal weed farms
| might get issues with criminal involvement or threat
| because the criminals lose a huge income source. If we
| don't legalize however when Germany does, we'll then get a
| bunch of trafficking from Germany to the Netherlands.
|
| Oregon legalized weed and this hasn't been a huge problem.
| But if people fear it is, the solution to this is simple.
| Make it easy to become a legal grower.
| cronix wrote:
| I'm in Oregon as well. There have been many news stories
| in Southern Oregon about the large cartel operations that
| are bigger than before legalization, because now they
| more or less blend in with the legal growers. They also
| involved trafficked humans to work there with passports
| withheld. Some of the increase has been attributed to
| California's drought, so they're moving north to greener
| pastures, so to speak. The illegal growing is more than
| _twice as much_ as licensed growing. Twice. I don 't know
| how you can say there is no problem.
|
| > The $2.78 billion in illegal marijuana found in
| Southern Oregon dwarfs the nearly $1.2 billion in legal
| marijuana sold at shops in the entire state in 2021.
|
| > Behind the scenes, immigrant workers may face threats
| of violent retaliation against their relatives in Mexico
| if they complain about living and working conditions at
| illegal sites, or the withholding of wages.
|
| > "The cartels will kill their family back in Mexico.
| They know there is a realistic likelihood that would
| happen," Barden said.
|
| https://www.mailtribune.com/top-stories/2022/01/22/pot-
| busts...
|
| > "We've heard of the threat of harm to your family if
| you don't go with us", Daniel said. "And then they are
| transported up to the location. From what we are
| understanding, these workers are not paid until the end
| of the year when the shipment goes out and the money is
| brought in. There's not like a weekly payroll going on
| here."
|
| > Sixteen other state and federal agencies joined the
| Josephine County Sheriff's department in the raid,
| including the Department of Homeland Security. The
| operation included more than 1,300 acres of property as
| well as 200 workers.
|
| > Officials found workers living in squalid conditions,
| which included sleeping on cardboard mats or inside
| tends. Workers denying that they had been trafficked,
| Daniel said. The Department of Homeland Security offered
| victim services to the workers, but all turned them down,
| according to Daniel. This could be for several reasons,
| including fear of their employers or immigration
| authorities.
|
| https://www.oregonlive.com/marijuana/2021/08/southern-
| oregon...
|
| > Sergeant Cliff Barden, of the Oregon State Police Basin
| Interagency Narcotics Enforcement Team (BINET), said
| illegal grows in Klamath County are clearly linked to
| drug cartels. He said the cartel's strategy in the area
| is to overwhelm local agencies and resources with the
| sheer volume of production, ensuring that much of the
| operation will go unnoticed and ultimate generating
| immense profits.
|
| > "They are intentionally trying to overwhelm the
| system," Barden said. "And that is why it is so
| difficult."
|
| https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/clear-links-between-
| illega...
| idleproc wrote:
| Why is this the case though?
|
| Take coffee for instance, it's widely grown in South
| America--is most of the production run by cartels?
|
| Or is it just that cannabis is a high-value crop, and
| it's easier to move the produce around the USA from
| within, rather than having to smuggle it over the border?
|
| And if cannabis is a high-value crop, is it because not
| all states have 'legalised' it?
|
| What if the whole world legalised cannabis, would it
| become like coffee?
| aurizon wrote:
| waaay back hemp was grown for fiber. Hemp for THC can be
| grown just as cheaply as hemp for fiber. With no meddling
| it would be very very cheap - $2 a pound or less. The
| selected sterile hybrid female plants are smaller than
| the old hemp used as rope = lower yield, so it will not
| be as cheap as hemp fiber = $250 per ton. $1 a pound is
| $2000 per ton, so it will be in that range if totally
| unregulated.
| cronix wrote:
| Yes, it's because there is a large black market in states
| that haven't legalized it and in a lot of cases, they're
| selling it cheaper than the stores where it's legal. The
| state sanctioned growers all have to have their products
| tested in labs for purity, pesticides as well as
| percentage of THC/CBD. The stores (separate entity) also
| have heavy regulations and security requirements as these
| are strictly cash businesses (since it's still federally
| illegal, you can't use federally regulated banks, or
| credit cards). It's expensive to do so. There is also
| quite a high state tax on cannabis sales. Illegal growers
| don't have any of that. It's also a lot simpler to cross
| state lines than international borders as most states
| don't have border checks. I know California does to check
| if you have fruit on board (large agricultural state
| trying to prevent various pests/diseases), but out of
| hundreds of trips across the border we were only actually
| inspected once and that was likely because we were in a
| camper so they couldn't just look in the window and see.
|
| As a different example, there are "dry towns" where
| alcohol sales are illegal. The bordering bars where it is
| legal do very well.
| idleproc wrote:
| > we were afraid that we'd become a place where
| international criminals come to produce massive amounts of
| weed legally to then export it illegally
|
| I remember a few years back, someone in the Dutch police
| claimed the Netherlands was on its way to becoming a narco-
| state [1].
|
| I'm ignorant about the domestic issues there, so correct
| me, but it seems like the legality of drugs is a separate
| issue to the control of organised crime in the country.
|
| [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50821542
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| Drugs earn criminals literally billions of euro every
| year. Money corrupts. Whether it's in Mexico or the
| Netherlands.
|
| I think the closest analogy for Americans is what
| happened during prohibition.
| MomoXenosaga wrote:
| The Netherlands as I'm sorry to say has been in maintenance
| mode for the last 15 years.
|
| Our glorious leaders governing style has been to do as little
| as possible to avoid elections and let future generations solve
| things.
| jlg23 wrote:
| I sincerely hope so because I get the pain a lot of Dutch
| people felt: Even as a liberal drug policy activist (formerly
| on EU level) I despised the smoking tourism: People not knowing
| their dose who will randomly fall in front of your bicycle or
| generally stumble across streets without being able to look
| left or right. I only fell in love with Amsterdam again after a
| drug policy meeting late January one year: Without hordes of
| stoned tourists Amsterdam was a really pleasant experience -
| even in coffeeshops that usually told you to "smoke quickly and
| fsck off!" one could sit quietly, chat with friends and instead
| of the "fsck off" the waiters come and ask whether one would
| like to have another coffee.
| [deleted]
| ta988 wrote:
| I'm in the US. It is really hard to see clever people around me
| using their almost pure THC at high doses. I can clearly see the
| negative impact coming much faster than people I know that smoked
| lots of lower concentration for decades. I see them having all
| kind of functional issues (memory, motivation, crippling anxiety
| when not high). And there is no way to talk to them about these
| negative effects. Mainly because they have been deeply
| brainwashed to believe that the overall effect is always positive
| and that all criticisms are a conspiracy by people with war on
| drugs level agendas.
|
| As much as I tend to believe that low amounts can have benefits,
| both functional and social, what I see from this trend of heavy
| use of high potency material is clearly not going that way.
| Storm-Bringer wrote:
| Can it be enjoyed by some ways other than smoking? Not trying to
| troll here, its smell honestly makes me want to vomit.
| newsclues wrote:
| It's also a great pain cream for topical use. As well as
| vapour, or edibles/drinks.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| 2nd to edibles. As soon as I had legal access to edibles, I
| switched to edibles almost 100% exclusively.
|
| It's much easier to just pop a candy in my mouth than to pack
| up a bong or vape. (And there's no smell to deal with, which is
| useful with children around.)
|
| The dosage control is significantly easier than smoking. Where
| I live, the amounts of psychoactive chemicals per dose are
| printed on the packaging.
|
| Just make sure you start with one (or a half) dose, and wait
| 2-3 hours before you take any more.
|
| Also, if you want a "smoking" experience, without the smoke,
| vaping does come close. FYI: With vaping it's super-easy to get
| an overwhelming dose, so be careful.
| redisman wrote:
| Edibles and vaporizing are essentially smell free
| mikro2nd wrote:
| In South Africa Cannabis has been legal for personal use in
| "places where you have an expectation of privacy" (but selling is
| still illegal) for several years now. So far the world has not
| ended, the country doesn't sit around stoned all day and we're
| not all hooked on Heroin.
|
| There's talk of introducing legislation to restrict quantities
| (government has plenty of securicrat control freaks), but since
| that violates the very principles which underpinned the
| Constitutional Court's overturning the legislation that made weed
| illegal in the first place, I can't see it going very far.
| humanistbot wrote:
| > The hemp industry is lobbying the German government to tax
| cannabis products at no more than EUR10 a gramme of bud
|
| This is double the street cost of the product. The black market
| will thrive.
| TillE wrote:
| Yeah this is absurdly high, and a really bad sign if that's
| what the industry is asking for. My real hope for the law is
| that small-scale home growing will be allowed, but I'm not very
| optimistic.
| eternalban wrote:
| [Serious question (pot smoker myself)]
|
| Has there ever been a successful civilization that had
| incorporated use of cannabis in general society? I am not talking
| about some priestly caste using it for tripping, divining, or
| making up scripture, I mean like the use of alcohol which
| actually apparently was a key factor in emergence of urban
| civilizations.
|
| Related question is: do we know of any civilization that
| collapsed after embracing cannabis?
| erikpukinskis wrote:
| > _Has there ever been a successful civilization that had
| incorporated use of cannabis in general society?_
|
| California?
| ellopoppit wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cannabis
| j-krieger wrote:
| I think the legalization of cannabis in Europe has a lot of
| potential. I just wish that we would take measures to avoid the
| ever increasing levels of THC dosage in weed to insane levels,
| like you see in the US or California specifically. I firmly
| believe that cannabis can do a lot of good, but the poison is in
| the dosage. It has been shown in the past that increasing THC
| while decreasing CBD leads to an increase in negative side
| effects, some being permanent [1].
|
| Let's see how it'll work out. I also think it's quite funny that
| the German meme "Bubatz" has made it into the highest levels of
| our government.
|
| [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6312155/
| SomeBoolshit wrote:
| Just mix it with CBD-weed to get the overall THC content down.
| alistairSH wrote:
| How does this apply with edibles or oils? I assume since most
| of those are sold with a published THC level, there's an
| incentive to produce stronger plant? Less plant for more
| edible/oil/whatever?
| Fnoord wrote:
| My aunt made her own hash oil (legally, from NL). It was for
| the CBD, her husband (my uncle) had cancer. She grew her own.
| This way, it is more or less standardized.
|
| Standardization is a problem with decriminalized and illegal
| drugs.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| I think experienced users know how much they can smoke and are
| equipped to make rational decisions. I buy weed in the 15%-19%
| thc range. I know if I share a bowl with my wife then after
| that bowl we are good for whatever we want to do that night as
| long as we are home. I smoke far less if I am leaving the house
| and interacting with people, then I limit it to 2 hits off the
| one hitter. This is because of experience though, I know my
| limits and what I am attempting to accomplish. The issue is
| individuals who equate weed with a harmless drug. It is
| harmless in that you are virtually guaranteed not to die from
| it but if you over do it things can be rough. Never understood
| why people feel the need to start with 3 or 4 hits of something
| they have never tried before. Take a hit, relax. See how you
| do. If its your first time, then that's it, next time depending
| on your experience try 2 hits. No need to start at maximum. You
| need the slow increases over days to understand your limits,
| experience comes with time. Its like trying alcohol for the
| first time, taking a shot of everclear and 5 minutes later
| deciding it had no effect so you take another shot. Its not a
| good idea.
| [deleted]
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| >[1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6312155/
|
| This is an opinion piece written by a Psychiatrist. Hardly
| conclusive or convincing. Also focuses on teen use so not sure
| it has much relevance for the vast majority of users in Legal
| jurisdictions.
| numerik_meister wrote:
| darkerside wrote:
| s/*/That's interesting. I've never thought about what
| positive effects there might be. Can you expand?/g
| numerik_meister wrote:
| I did not intend to ask a question. I know for sure that a
| lot of potheads really want to push their recreational drug
| as a miracle do all drug, while ignoring all the negative
| effects. The negative effects are well documented science.
| The positive effects are all vaporous claims from
| questionable studies.
|
| Really goes to show the objectivity of HN, that I get
| downvoted for this.
| lbotos wrote:
| You are getting downvoted for your dogmatic and set in
| your ways views. HN is a place for curiosity and your
| responses are not increasing curiosity they are closing
| it off.
| numerik_meister wrote:
| I have read the countless studies blog spammed on Reddit
| and HN for the past 15 years, and formed my opinion
| accordingly. How is that at all dogmatic?
| andybak wrote:
| Every once in a while you stumble across someone who
| makes you think "that dude really needs to get high once
| in a while".
| nicoburns wrote:
| It's worth noting that almost all medicinal drugs have
| negative effects. Certainly there are people who promote
| cannabis as a cure-all, and that's pretty ridiculous. But
| it's equally ridiculous to assume that it has no
| medicinal uses. You even mention one (pain relief) in
| your comment!
| darkerside wrote:
| If you are operating from a place of fact and not
| opinion, you can also express that by sharing the
| evidence. Otherwise it's just empty claims on empty
| claims.
|
| If you want to challenge an empty claim, do it right. Or,
| don't be a jerk. Either way.
| amalcon wrote:
| I think you're underestimating the pain relief thing. I know
| multiple people who never touched the stuff recreationally,
| developed a chronic pain condition (arthritis, in one
| example), and now swear by it. The only alternatives with
| similar effectiveness are opioids, which are arguably even
| more harmful.
|
| I don't touch it myself, but even as an independent observer
| the benefits there are clear.
| noneeeed wrote:
| One option would be to tax it based on the amount of thc. Get
| the rates right and you could make it more profitable to
| produce less potent stuff.
| [deleted]
| m0llusk wrote:
| Higher concentrations allow people to use less material. That
| higher concentrations cause harm is not clearly established.
| There are always people who will manage to misuse and hurt
| themselves with anything, even Hacker News.
| zug_zug wrote:
| Yup. You can always just take 1/24th of a gummy, I know
| plenty of people who do that weekly at least.
| hef19898 wrote:
| One of the benefits of legalization is the possibility to
| properly regulate the product. If it's black market it's an
| uncontrolled free for all.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| It's a hard problem because any regulations increase cost to
| consumers and increase the likelihood that the black market
| still exists.
|
| The black market is alive and well in the U.S. where it is
| legal.
| bombcar wrote:
| Black markets that are already setup take a bit to knock
| down, and even just taxes can keep them running for years
| (there's a moderately strong black market for cigarettes, for
| example).
|
| For things that are NOT in the process of being banned
| entirely, sin taxes may do more harm than good.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| It does take some effort to knock down, but I think the
| failed war on drugs will mean that there will be little to
| no effort to knock anything down and therefore we will have
| the worst of both worlds.
| mojzu wrote:
| I think legalisation could help in this regard as long as
| companies are required to measure/label products appropriately.
| Similar to how the most popular alcohols during prohibition
| were spirits, whereas now there's a massive range of drinks at
| pretty much any alcoholic percentage you want
| BrianOnHN wrote:
| dpbriggs wrote:
| Racist? Could you elaborate? It's a public health concern as
| people are getting addicted.
| BrianOnHN wrote:
| You also misread. The other stuff is the racist part. This
| part, "rising potency", is just a predictable effect of
| prohibition and "change of literally anything" causes Fear
| in the noobs.
|
| Wake. Up. People.
| dpbriggs wrote:
| That could be the an explanation for only having high
| potency weed in areas where it's prohibited, but it's
| equally available here in Canada where it's legal. I
| think people just like it.
| BrianOnHN wrote:
| Because _all_ the Canadian weed stays there. Right...
| frereubu wrote:
| With respect, it sounds like you're having a bad day, and
| it's coming over as if you want a fight. I agree with you
| that prohibition causes all kinds of undesirable effects
| - including yet another route for racism to express
| itself - but you need to use more temperate language if
| you want a substantive discussion.
| dpbriggs wrote:
| I don't think that makes sense? What are you attempting
| to communicate?
|
| I'm saying that high potency products are still sold in
| legalized areas as there's demand for it.
|
| I remember having issues years ago finding low but not
| non-zero THC products on the government website. I had to
| get 17% which is still high. Things may be different now.
| frereubu wrote:
| I don't really understand how talk about increasing THC
| levels plays into racism, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding -
| can you elaborate?
| peanut_worm wrote:
| You can still find lower THC cannabis at any dispensary. Most
| carry from 10 to 30%. Most also carry CBD flower and very low
| dose edibles.
|
| I also don't understand this argument because you can just take
| 1 hit and be done. No one is forcing you to finish a whole
| joint. Should liquor be outlawed because it is stronger than
| beer?
| standardUser wrote:
| It's really hard to dose "1 hit". It's not like a shot of
| liquor. And inexperienced users are not experts at hitting
| pipes or vapes or joints, so that "1 hit" becomes even
| trickier. And if you fuck up, whoops, now you're
| uncomfortably high for several hours!
|
| Better to have a much wider variety of potencies available,
| like we have with alcohol. Especially for the casual users
| who have been ignored by the market because traditional
| dealers get most of their money from heavy users, and heavy
| users want the chronic.
| TillE wrote:
| You can literally just measure the amount of flower you're
| consuming before you start, either with a precise scale or
| by pinching out a tiny amount.
|
| Use a good vaporizer or a cheap glass pipe.
| standardUser wrote:
| Sure, that is something you can say to an experienced
| marijuana user, but the casual dude who hasn't smoked
| weed since college and just wants to smoke a joint...
| that dude just wants to smoke a joint! There is no need
| for scales or precision to be involved. All that is
| needed is some low-to-moderate-potency weed, hopefully
| with some CBD content.
|
| "Use a good vaporizer or a cheap glass pipe."
|
| You do realize that a lot of people don't really know how
| to use those devices, right?
|
| Why anyone would argue against more variety of weed with
| better labelling is way beyond my comprehension.
| johnisgood wrote:
| So... let them do it. Once. Let us hope they will learn
| after their uncomfortable high. That might actually deter
| them from weed. It did work for me. Is it not how both
| kids and adults learn? If they cannot learn from other
| people's experiences that is.
|
| It does not take a rocket scientists to use those
| devices, but if the average people is really that dumb,
| then we should seriously take control of their lives if
| we want them to be contributing to society (because
| that's what seems to matter the most, right?).
|
| Plus I doubt that many, THAT dumb people who have not
| touched weed would start doing it out of nowhere.
| standardUser wrote:
| Me: We should be able to choose the types and potencies
| of the substances we put in our bodies.
|
| You: HELL NO
|
| WTF, really?
|
| Not that it matters, recreational stores solve this
| problem entirely.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| To that second point, edibles are as easy to very
| specifically dose as your cooking process and ability to
| follow a recipe allow. Legalization makes it much easier
| for industrial kitchens with strict quality control to be
| involved. In the analogy to alcohol there's a huge quality
| control issue in moonshine, and huge benefits to the law
| abiding industrial distillers.
|
| I've sometimes wondered if legalizing and/or regulating
| edibles and smoked products _separately_ should be done
| with THC. No one expects alcohol and tobacco to follow the
| same rules. It could prevent some issues for casual users.
|
| To be fair, in regions that have legalized it the
| dispensaries seem to have voluntarily organized around the
| idea naturally anyway: dispensaries I've been to generally
| are good at explaining the relative safety of edibles to
| potential casual users and edibles seem to make up a larger
| portion of their business in general.
| chimprich wrote:
| > I also don't understand this argument because you can just
| take 1 hit and be done.
|
| The increased THC concentration compared to other
| psychoactive chemicals seems to produce more paranoia and
| other negative effects in some people, so it's not just a
| strength issue. The effect is different if the proportion of
| THC to CBD increases.
|
| It's also easier to get more THC than you intended if you're
| consuming stronger stuff.
|
| > Should liquor be outlawed because it is stronger than beer?
|
| If spirits are legal then people should at least have the
| choice of drinking beer.
| peanut_worm wrote:
| You do have a choice, as I said almost every dispensary
| carries CBD and low THC flower
| ipaddr wrote:
| Vaping at 170 will make you freakout where 200-210+ will
| make you relaxed. Controlling is possible.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| According to the link in the post you're replying to, it
| wasn't all that long ago that it was 2%. 10% is still
| significantly higher.
|
| And for what it's worth, you can't get Everclear in my state.
| j-krieger wrote:
| No, I disagree immensely and I will explain why. I want 2-5%
| of THC. A joint should be like drinking a single beer to be
| perfect in my opinion. If you sit down to relax in the
| evening you don't drown a single shot. The joy is in the
| process and to feel a light buzz
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| _you can just take 1 hit and be done_
|
| Can you imagine how many problems would be solved if people
| could stop after 1? But you are fighting evolution, and the
| compulsion for more is extremely strong in myriad areas.
| kennyadam wrote:
| Strongly agree.
|
| As the THC percentage has increased, so has my anxiety when I
| smoke it. If I go out of my way to find lower quality weed, I
| enjoy it much more.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| You strongly agree that they should regulate weed to be
| weaker so that you don't have to check potency before
| purchase? ok
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Yes, there is something to be said about at least being
| more explicit on warning people about the dangers of
| consuming high % THC products.
|
| An industry that can profit off addiction is being observed
| drastically increasing the level of an addictive substance
| in their product. You expect consumers to be perfectly
| informed. I don't. Thus, it is reasonable to discuss
| whether an at what threshold a product should be labelled
| as higher-risk. If the behavior of an industry seems
| malicious enough and its public health impact adverse
| enough, regulation is necessary.
|
| I'm arguing in the abstract.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| ok!
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| I didn't get that from the GP comment.
|
| IIUC, they're just saying that they prefer less potency,
| but have trouble finding it in the current market.
|
| That doesn't necessarily mean they want only weaker weed to
| be sold.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| excuse me for interpreting "I just wish that we would
| take measures" as promoting regulation
|
| edit to reply to below: California already has accurate
| labeling and is being called out as a problem
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| I assumed that they were talking about regulations
| requiring accurate labelling of THC and CBD
| concentrations.
| j-krieger wrote:
| Yes, that is what I meant
| j-krieger wrote:
| The original comment was from me. Measures include
| warnings and advertisements. They also include offering
| low dosage alternatives
| j-krieger wrote:
| Exactly!
| grasshopperpurp wrote:
| Anecdote: I've never seen someone suffer anxiety from an
| Indica strain, but I have seen plenty of bad trips from
| Sativa strains.
|
| Medical is legal where I live, and I like both (and hybrids)
| depending on what I'm doing. In the evening, I would stick to
| Indicas and Indica-dominant hybrids. Since I work, and I
| never use while working, I use Sativas far less, but I like
| them for weekends - walks, chores, etc.. It's a bright
| feeling and more of a head-high, but under the wrong
| circumstances, that bright feeling turns dark.
|
| Particularly in the evening, Sativas can make you buzzy and
| unsettled. My gf thought she hated herbs until she tried
| Indicas. She knows how and when to use now, so she can enjoy
| Sativas under the right conditions.
|
| Again, this is just my personal experience, but it tracks
| with my understanding of the strains, and I hope it's helpful
| to someone.
| tayo42 wrote:
| I can't tell the difference between the types and have had
| anxiety with weed labeled as both. Individual strain and
| thc, cbd and other canibinoid percentages have a bigger
| effect then anything ime
| treis wrote:
| The difference between Indica and Sativa is to a large
| extent imagined. Even if it's not most of the strains you
| buy today are hybrids.
| grasshopperpurp wrote:
| >The difference between Indica and Sativa is to a large
| extent imagined.
|
| Can you elaborate? This is very contrary to my
| experience.
|
| . . . NM I looked it up and see what you're referring to.
| I'll have to look into it more, because, again, it
| doesn't sync with my experience.
|
| >Even if it's not most of the strains you buy today are
| hybrids.
|
| I've never had an ounce of difficulty finding Indicas or
| Sativas at dispensaries. Maybe there are more hybrids
| (never took the time to count the options), but if there
| are quality options available for all three, I don't see
| how it matters. And, within hybrids, there are Indica-
| dominant and Sativa-dominant strains.
| treis wrote:
| >of difficulty finding Indicas or Sativas at dispensaries
|
| Finding things they call Indica or Sativa. Afaik given
| that there's no objective difference between the two you
| can call it anything you want.
|
| I'm a relatively inexperienced smoker so take the
| following with grain of salt but this is what I've
| noticed.
|
| Since it's a plant there's definitely differences seed to
| seed, soil to soil, season to season, flower to flower,
| etc.
|
| Weed these days is so potent small differences in flower
| smoked add up to large differences in THC/CBD/etc
| consumed. Like you're not carefully weighing out the
| amount you put in a bowl. It's done by eye and by volume
| which both have a large margin of error.
|
| Then there's smoking technique. How you hold the lighter,
| how you inhale, how much water in the bong, and so on all
| impact how much smoke is produced and consumed.
|
| Then we're talking about perception. How high you are is
| really how high you perceive you are. And that can be
| affected by mood, tiredness, what activity you do after
| smoking, and so on.
|
| In my experience same flower, same technique, same
| amount, etc can lead to wildly disparate outcomes. Most
| of the time it's about the same. But every so often I
| find myself blasted to the moon or not really feeling
| much.
|
| But all that said, Sommeliers can repeatedly recognize
| specific vintages where I can mostly just recognize broad
| categories. Maybe there's weed sommeliers out there that
| can do the same.
| treis wrote:
| https://www.insider.com/why-theres-no-difference-between-
| ind...
| grasshopperpurp wrote:
| Just finished reading that article. Interesting. Will
| look further. Ty.
| iinnPP wrote:
| In Canada we can buy such a wide variety of strains, all of
| them labeled with both THC and CBD levels.
|
| We can buy vape carts, prerolls, candy, drinks, and much
| more.
|
| Finding the "dose" that works perfectly for you is quite
| simple and available everywhere.
|
| It's a vast improvement over what was there before.
| macNchz wrote:
| Yeah I never cared much for weed when it was whatever my
| college friends were buying in the early 2000s, it made me
| feel edgy and uncomfortable. I was curious when it started
| to become legal in the US and realized it was actually just
| too strong for me back then.
|
| A small amount of some low THC, high CBD product is
| pleasant without being intoxicating, and so much easier to
| come by with everything being tested and labelled.
|
| To me it's comparable to the single after-work beer I have
| long enjoyed, vs the high grade stuff being more like... an
| after-work 5 shots of vodka.
| scifibestfi wrote:
| I don't understand why this is a problem. You can adjust the
| amount. What am I missing?
| Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote:
| Hopefully the canabis producers will see the low (by todays
| standards) THC level weed as having its own niche and market
| it accordingly. Like 'light beer'.
| BrianOnHN wrote:
| I wonder how alcohol would look of people were so
| incompetent that they would drink vodka by the pint, like
| beer!
|
| Seriously, if you smoke a joint of high-grade then you're
| doing it wrong.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Snoop disagrees.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| High-grade joints are a popular product in Canada
| BrianOnHN wrote:
| Source?
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| you can look it up yourself
| BrianOnHN wrote:
| "Top sellers" === "Most profitable"
|
| Noob bait.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| it's not hard to understand that many people enjoy a
| potent product
| BrianOnHN wrote:
| iinnPP wrote:
| Not everyone is you. Not everyone thinks like you.
|
| A good pre-roll is actually a great experience. It's a
| 'treat" for many habitual users.
| BrianOnHN wrote:
| > Not everyone is you. Not everyone thinks like you
|
| Bravo. Grade "A" insight from HN community!
|
| > It's a 'treat" for many habitual users.
|
| Very true, it is for me, too. Weird how one of the OPs
| suggests they may be the root of problem!
| samatman wrote:
| Stop behaving this way on Hacker News. It is aggressive
| and unwelcome, and we don't want that here.
| BrianOnHN wrote:
| "We're better than reddit because we're the smartest!"
|
| "Yeah!"
|
| _Returns to debating architectural decisions of an
| inconsequential system._
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| No. You sound like a square
|
| edit: disengaging, have a nice day
| [deleted]
| alar44 wrote:
| Um, seriously, I like smoking joints, but I can't because
| the shit around these days is so sticky and potent.
|
| It's as if the only thing available is vodka, but I'd
| like a beer. Drinking less vodka doesn't make it a beer.
| They're completely different things.
| BrianOnHN wrote:
| Vodka + water.
|
| > but I can't because the shit around these days is so
| sticky and potent.
|
| And I call BS on this.
| rascul wrote:
| > Seriously, if you smoke a joint of high-grade then
| you're doing it wrong.
|
| I've met people who prefer smoking joints over other
| smoking methods. Sometimes I like to have a joint, also.
| Why are we wrong?
| BrianOnHN wrote:
| Why are you right?
|
| It's probably best if you don't do anything that could be
| potentially harmful.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Everything is potentially harmful. Not having a perfect
| diet, drinking a couple beers, not having 8 hours of
| sleep a night. Life is short, weed is generally not
| harmful, if you want to occasionally smoke a joint, let
| them smoke a joint.
| rascul wrote:
| You said it was wrong. I'm trying to understand why. Are
| you saying that smoking joints is potentially more
| harmful than using a bong? I don't understand.
| yuuu wrote:
| I live in a state where marijuana is legal and recently tried
| it again for the first time in over a decade. I strolled into
| a recreational store and asked for a recommendation,
| specifically requesting a flower with a low THC
| concentration. They ended up giving me something ("Biker
| Kush") that had 28% THC, which I had only noticed on the
| packaging after I left the store. Gee, thanks. Anyway, then I
| bought supplies to make one marijuana cigarette, sometimes
| also called a "joint." I did not want to get too high, so I
| smoked one hit at a time, putting the joint out for breaks of
| twenty to thirty minutes between attempts. After around four
| of those hits spread over two hours, I did not really feel
| anything.
|
| The next day, I bought a one-hit dry herb vaporizer, to be
| heated with a butane torch. I wanted to feel "high," and the
| joint had not worked. I used the same approach of waiting
| twenty to thirty minutes between hits with the vaporizer. In
| most of these hit attempts, the marijuana ended up combusting
| instead of vaporizing, as I had heated it up too much. For
| the first three hits, I did not really feel anything.
| However, the fourth hit was very rough, burning my throat,
| and sent me into a coughing fit.
|
| Over a period of about fifteen minutes, the effect began to
| take hold. I decided to take a shower, and I started freaking
| out about halfway through, calling out to my wife. I thought
| I was having a stroke and suddenly felt like I did not have
| control over my body. I went up to bed and lied down for a
| long time, where my mind was racing with obsessive, intrusive
| thoughts. It felt like I was not the person controlling my
| actions or my thoughts. The feeling that I would be stuck
| like this forever - that I had lost my mind and entered some
| state of irreversible psychosis - persisted for at least an
| hour while I desperately tried to relax myself. After some
| amount of time, I got out of bed and threw up in the sink and
| the toilet, then went back to lie down. The entire night, I
| felt unable to express what I was thinking, but it was filled
| with the greatest worry that I have ever experienced. (I say
| this as someone who had actually experienced a couple panic
| attacks over a decade ago.)
|
| The next day, when I woke up, the effects had subsided, but I
| was still left with a feeling that I was milliseconds behind
| the present moment. The worry that I would never feel normal
| again continued even after the high had diminished. It's a
| very difficult feeling to explain in hindsight, but after a
| bit of research, I think I experienced what's called
| "derealization." This continued into the rest of the day and
| a bit into the next, and it was a really scary situation for
| me, since I feel like I always need some amount of control
| over my mind. (Alcohol has never made me feel this way,
| though.)
|
| Anyway, the derealization effects were gone after two days,
| and now, I'm afraid to try marijuana again. I would really
| like to enjoy the pleasant feelings reported with its use,
| but I'm worried that my personality is such that I just can't
| lose control over whatever part of my brain is affected by
| THC. But I also partly blame the salesperson who sold me
| something with such a high THC concentration, when I
| specifically requested something with a low concentration.
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| > The feeling that I would be stuck like this forever -
| that I had lost my mind and entered some state of
| irreversible psychosis - persisted for at least an hour
| while I desperately tried to relax myself.
|
| Prototypical bad trip.
|
| Unless you are a mutant or were not inhaling at all you
| were certainly ingesting high amounts of THC and were
| getting higher while not subjectively realizing it. By the
| 4th hit you were far gone.
|
| Would be like being annoyed that the world was spinning
| after you drink a 5th of vodka...
| yuuu wrote:
| But how does such a dramatic change happen when waiting
| twenty minutes between hits? My wife was also an
| objective observer of my behavior in between hits and
| noticed no changes between the first three. The
| experience after the fourth was extremely different -
| more than I think one hit could possibly provide. My
| understanding is that joints and one-hit vaporizers are
| the best option to "control" how much you are ingesting.
| My experience, though, is that it did not provide a good
| amount of control. When I was not accidentally combusting
| the cannabis, I was unsure if I was inhaling anything
| from what was supposed to be the "vaporized" amount.
| Maybe it's because of my lack of consistent and good
| heating and inhaling practices.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| My understanding is that lungs are an extremely
| inefficient way to get chemicals other than oxygen into
| the bloodstream (by specialization of what the lungs are
| intended to do). Twenty minutes may not be enough time
| for _your_ lungs. Anecdotally I 've known people that
| don't get high until two _hours_ after their first hit.
|
| Personally, I prefer the efficiency of the stomach and
| digestion system myself. It seems much more reliable.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Why not try to buy some low potency stuff elsewhere? Joint
| are not good for dosing, since content is not spread
| evenly. I would recommend pipe for just weed. Or vape oil
| if you can get hold of it and take just a small hit. Edible
| effects depends on your stomach so that's not the best for
| dosing neither.
|
| 20-30 mins between hits is too much, if you don't feel
| anything after 5, max 10 minutes it won't come. You
| describe it like that, so it contradicts 25 years of my
| experience though...
|
| It may be true that weed won't be the best for you,
| depends. I had this experience with few people, it was all
| just in their head, too much anxiety and fear but that's
| enough to ruin any trip, anytime. But I would give it
| another (different) chance before you give up on it
| completely.
|
| If you have friend who is doing it and you feel comfortable
| around them, try it with him/her. They can 'guide' you and
| calm you down if required. Remember, sugar will take trip
| down if needed (plus it tastes amazing when high). Or most
| junk food like hamburgers, pizza etc., also an experience
| above any Michelin * restaurant when sober.
| yuuu wrote:
| I'm not even sure where I can buy low-potency stuff.
| Looking online, the lowest at the dispensary where I
| bought the first thing is around 14%. Sixties THC
| concentrations were reported to be around 3%. What I'd
| really like to do is to try 1%, increase to 2%, etc.,
| until I find something that works for me.
|
| Yeah, I know thirty minutes is too long between hits, but
| I was trying to be as conservative as possible about it.
| That's why I'm kind of upset that, even being as careful
| as I was, I still ended up freaking out.
|
| I can't think of anyone I'd feel comfortable smoking
| with. My wife was sober the entire time, thankfully, and
| helped a lot. She tried to guide me out of the
| negativity, but I ended up just feeling like I was too
| afraid to tell her she wasn't really helping. I did read
| about the sugar thing beforehand, but in the moment,
| eating was the last thing I was thinking about. A glass
| of juice might have helped, in hindsight.
| tsol wrote:
| You might be best off with edibles. There you can break
| down the dose and try incrementally higher doses. I find
| it's much easier to microdose with them
| ChoGGi wrote:
| If you do try it again, then go for a park/forest with
| less people.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| That's pretty unfortunate, sorry that happened. I smoke
| flower relatively often (far less than many), twice a week
| for the last 3 years (date nights with my wife) and have
| never experienced anything like that. I have on occasion
| gotten into a negative thought spiral where I start to
| obsess on some of my perceived poor choices in life but
| those generally last less than 20 minutes. Generally I
| start to worry that I don't give my kids enough attention
| and resolve to do so. In reality though I consider myself a
| pretty good parent. Instances of this are very rare maybe
| once every 20 times I smoke and even then they make up only
| a small portion of the overall period. They are not intense
| and no wear near panic level, just reflective.
|
| Unscientifically I would recommend maybe next time smoking
| with someone else, and getting a lower % thc, try for a
| hybrid strain, a mix of Sativa and Indica. If you go on the
| website of the dispensary it will list the details. Don't
| over complicate it, just choose something in the 15% range
| if available. Then just sit down and watch a comedy or
| something. Have some snacks available. Only take a couple
| hits and call it a day. The next week try 3 etc. Its
| cumulative and can sneak up on you.
|
| Either way good luck :)
| yuuu wrote:
| Thank you for the suggestions! If I do try again, I will
| definitely try a flower with the lowest THC concentration
| available. I certainly don't want to go above 15% after
| the recent experience. I was reading that THC
| concentrations in the sixties were around 3%, but I can't
| find any products at my local dispensary with
| concentrations less than 14% (!). I'm also considering
| dividing edibles into very small proportions and
| gradually increasing the dose each week until I feel
| something.
|
| It just seems like a surprisingly tricky thing for me to
| figure out. Another recurring thought I had during the
| experience is that most people don't feel this way after
| smoking and that there must be something wrong with me.
| Maybe that's true, I don't know.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > I just wish that we would take measures to avoid the ever
| increasing levels of THC dosage in weed to insane levels, like
| you see in the US or California specifically.
|
| The trick is to educate consumers. And yes today's pot is way
| stronger than what people used to smoke back in the 80s, but
| people also don't smoke a handful of joints but one or two...
| for me, that argument is a bit of a scapegoat.
| frereubu wrote:
| I remember this happening even during the mid-1990s while I was
| at university. At the beginning there would be a lot more
| giggling after smoking, but as things like skunk started
| replacing the milder stuff it evolved into a more stupefied
| feeling. I stopped smoking weed soon afterwards as I couldn't
| seem to get hold of the lighter strains and hated the feeling
| of the stronger ones.
|
| [Edited to remove a badly-worded piece of anecdata that
| probably wasn't pertinent].
| hopefulengineer wrote:
| clsec wrote:
| I'll just leave these here for anyone who wants to know the
| truth about cannabis testing.
|
| https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americas-pot-labs-have-...
|
| https://www.leafly.com/news/strains-products/lab-shopping-th...
| humbleMouse wrote:
| wishfish wrote:
| Do weed shops in legal states not have "light" options? Seems
| weird if they didn't, but I guess that might be a side effect
| of recent legalization. That the heavy stuff sells better to
| consumers who used to take whatever they could find back in the
| black market days.
|
| Anyways, I'm asking because I unfortunately live in a state
| where it's still illegal.
| bitxbitxbitcoin wrote:
| Generally they do not. The ones that are also medical
| dispensaries are more likely to but it isn't a guarantee.
| hobs wrote:
| Most California dispensaries I have been to absolutely have
| low dosage 5mg options, they also stock 100mg options, but
| stores listen to the market and stock based on what they
| can get and what people want.
|
| It was very typical to see older folks and very light
| smokers to request the smaller dosages. They also seemed to
| trend towards vapes in the younger lighter smokers because
| the dosage can be fairly small.
| pcthrowaway wrote:
| Yeah, I've bought weed in Cali once, didn't have any
| problem at all finding CBD strains which are low THC
| (most would consider it trace amounts). Finding a strain
| with 0 THC (since I'm pretty sensitive and don't enjoy
| THC at all) is a bit harder.
| hobs wrote:
| Yeah, that would definitely be difficult, as far as I saw
| you could get CBD powder at various places if you wanted
| to just add a little to a drink or do a dab.
| samatman wrote:
| The good news is, since 0 THC strains are legal
| everywhere in the US, you can just buy them online.
|
| They don't show up in dispensaries much, because why go
| through all the hassle to meet regulations on a product
| which doesn't _have to_ meet those regulations, unless
| they 're being sold at a dispensary?
| lbotos wrote:
| You can mix high THC flower with high CBD flower and
| "rebalance".
|
| Here is a hemp seller that sells strains that don't have
| enough THC to be classified as cannabis:
| https://holycityfarms.com/product-category/flower/
| kasey_junk wrote:
| Illinois dispensaries offer a wide range of products with a
| lot of light options. I've seen 1mg mints for instance.
| [deleted]
| filoleg wrote:
| They do, and their selection is constantly growing.
|
| Shortly after it became legal (speaking for WA only here), it
| felt like every manufacturer chased the highest THC first.
|
| Many years after, we now have the other side gaining a large
| presence. All sorts of things from high thc to 50/50 blend
| thc/cbd to high cbd/almost no thc concentrates. I can confirm
| that it isn't just a marketing bs, tried one of those low
| thc/high cbd carts before, and it didnt give me the feeling
| of high almost at all, even after about 10 hits (normally,
| 1-2 hits of a typical thc cart is plenty enough for me to
| feel it strongly and be done).
|
| Low thc stuff is getting very high presence/prevalence among
| users and in advertising as well, it isnt reserved for the
| backshelf as "oh yeah, if regular stuff is too strong for
| you, we got a shelf in the back just for lighter stuff." It
| is sold and presented (in marketing and among customers)
| equivalently to how beers are sold in terms of varying
| percentages. Some like 4-5% alcohol, some like 7-8%, others
| prefer imperial versions (typically 9-11%), etc, but there is
| no "this is the one type of beer for everyone, the rest is
| just weaker/stronger alternatives."
|
| However, I've only noticed this type of a push for promotion
| and popularity gain of less-thc-strong oils at dispensaries
| start gaining momentum only since around 2019. However, that
| area has been growing heavily and feels larger than ever now,
| so I can only see it gaining more footing in the future.
| subpixel wrote:
| Hello from legal New England.
|
| The only solution I have found is to buy gummies and cut them
| up into smaller doses. I've found a local company that does a
| hybrid (sativa/indica) gummy and I vastly prefer them to the
| unspecified gummies which tend to be stronger than I am
| looking for.
|
| I'm tempted to get seeds for a low THC strain but I'm not
| such a connoisseur as to make that a priority.
| macNchz wrote:
| Most places in Massachusetts sell a pretty wide variety of
| oil-based tinctures that you can precisely meter out (5 -
| 10mg/ml, with a little dropper). Often there are varieties
| with high ratios of CBD:THC as well, like 1:1 and 10:1.
| Easier than cutting up a gummy.
| doggwalker wrote:
| I would love a light option but with the people I know I am
| in the minority. Most people I know are so use to 20%+ THC
| strains that they would never want something less.
|
| Even before my state legalized, I hadn't run into anything
| besides high grade strains in years. I imagine it would be
| really hard to find low quality weed anywhere in the US at
| this point.
| jotm wrote:
| Is it illegal to grow your own? It's the easiest way to get
| something low THC. Hell, you can even smoke (or better, use
| a dry herb vape) the leaves of any plant if the buds are
| too strong - from my experience, they have a more relaxing
| effect.
| filoleg wrote:
| > is it illegal to grow on your own
|
| Depends on the state, even among those where weed is
| legal. WA has a pretty terrible duality - buying is very
| easy, and i like how that part was handled. Growing your
| own recreationally (i.e., not as a registered
| producer/manufacturer)? Not allowed at all, unless you
| are a medical user, and you are limited to only 4 plants.
| snarfy wrote:
| When I lived in Arizona before it was legal, the vast majority
| of weed came from Mexico. A quarter pound cost $200 and was a
| mix of male and female plants, full of seeds, grown in fields.
| I was a daily user for about 20 years.
|
| I moved to coastal state where it was legal. Now it's all
| hydroponically grown, all female and all seedless. I was a
| daily user for about 12 years and had to completely stop using
| it. It would always help my stomach if I had stomach problems,
| but eventually I had stomach problems daily and the only fix
| was more weed. It turns out the weed was the cause of and
| solution to all my problems.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabinoid_hyperemesis_syndro...
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Maybe I am off, but when drawing from my 25 years of
| consumption and trying most of variants - outdoor, indoor,
| low potency, extreme dutch ones and everything in between,
| local hash in morocco, india and nepal, homemade milk,
| cookies, vaping and oil vaping; eating and oil vaping are
| most potent to me, joint least potent and I avoid them if
| possible.
|
| I don't like eating due to very long ramp up and it last for
| too long for casual evening, it may be great summer weekend
| festival item.
|
| What I want to say - even most potent oil vapes regardless of
| sativa/indica/cbd mix, it was just about dosage. 1 hit was a
| pleasant light trip, 2 was a nice strong one, 3 really strong
| but manageable for simple stuff. I once had 6 draws while
| walking in village & forest - I really went far away form
| this reality, hypnotizing street lights, dancing on empty
| streets. Couldn't trust myself which normally never ever
| happens on weed. It ended up OK somehow but oh boy beware.
|
| If one doesn't have any self control, it may cause issue -
| till it hits you fully (which is cca 5 mins with vape oil,
| unlike ie joint/pipe which is almost immediate), you may have
| already taken too much. But that would be the problem with
| hard alcohol too, there its more like 30 mins and we all have
| seen enough shitfaced folks in our lives who took too many
| shots too fast.
|
| So education, explanation - potency, indica/sativa mixing,
| literally learning consumption of cannabis and products. Its
| not complex but it ain't primitive linear alcohol 'high' (or
| more like low) regardless of type of drink.
|
| I still consider oil vapes the best product for me,
| chirurgically precise amount of high, very convenient, and
| very reproducible once you are familiar with given strain.
| the_only_law wrote:
| > But that would be the problem with hard alcohol too,
| there its more like 30 mins and we all have seen enough
| shitfaced folks in our lives who took too many shots too
| fast.
|
| Yeah, but at least their body will jolt them into stopping.
| The absolute worst vommiting I had in my life was thanks to
| alcohol. Often after a night of getting wasted I don't want
| to touch alcohol again for a while.
| ssfhsfhdjs wrote:
| I'm struggling with this now. Daily cannabis user for 15 year
| or so, started puking not long after I'd switched primarily
| to concentrates. I've landed in the ER several times, and
| been hospitalized a handful of times for dehydration. Usually
| once an episode starts, a cocktail of ativan, reglan, and
| pepcid is about the only thing that'll get me out of it.
|
| I've tried to quit cannabis several times now, but usually
| break down after a week or so when the night sweats and
| nightmares set in. I've been able to mostly get things under
| control by avoiding all concentrates and daily doses of
| nortryptiline and protonix, but quitting entirely is turning
| out to be really hard for me.
| newsclues wrote:
| I live in Canada where there is legal weed, and even some
| of the legal cannabis makes you sick because it's grown
| with chemicals and not flushed or it's contaminated with
| powdered mildew or other shit. And it's able to pass what
| little QC there is, and it makes me sick.
|
| So I buy from people that have been doing it for decades
| and smoke their own stuff as QC.
|
| If it's too strong smoke less, but clean cannabis is the
| solution for that.
| cainxinth wrote:
| This is why I've avoided concentrates. I've tried (and
| enjoyed) them all, but I was already concerned that my
| tolerance to plain old weed was too high. I knew if I got
| too into wax and shatter, I'd end up chasing the dragon (or
| at least the weed version of that) and potentially worse
| (i.e. cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome).
|
| Concentrates are something I treat myself to just a few
| times a year. Everything in moderation... including the
| occasional excess.
| dylan604 wrote:
| "but once you get locked into a serious drug collection,
| the tendency is to push it as far as you can." -- Hunter
| S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
|
| I've always liked that quote as I have seen it over and
| over again in people I know. Those that can use and
| moderate to just a recreational use vs committing to a
| full on daily use (addiction by most acceptable use) is
| very small. I love to partake when I have the time and
| lack of responsibilities requiring all of my faculties.
| But when I've tried the daily use and watched my
| capabilities diminish has shown me that I'm not fully
| functional with that daily use so I just keep it in the
| recreational realm. From my 100% unschooled medical
| perspective, those that think they are 100% with daily
| use are just lying to themselves.
| johnisgood wrote:
| Yeah. I wish that we determined who the actual "junkie"
| is on a case-by-case basis, not by the fact of
| consumption alone. I medicate for the same reasons
| mentally sick people do, but I actually have a physical
| brain damage and my limbic system might be the region
| affected along with many others. I am able to treat the
| mental issues, and the same medication happens to help
| with the incontinence I have. If I told anyone about it,
| they would consider me a junkie. I do not even get high
| from it, for fuck's sake. It makes me more neutral,
| otherwise I'm an emotional wreck, full of suicidal
| thoughts that I end up acting on eventually as I used to.
|
| I go through intentional withdrawal every N months to
| reduce my tolerance. I tend to keep the dose as low as
| possible. Sometimes I fail, sometimes I do not. I might
| buy that box that has a lock with a timer on it or
| something. ^^
|
| I do not consider myself a junkie just because I am
| dependent on it, similarly how people are not junkies for
| depending on beta-blockers. They need it, and I need it
| too. It just happens to be something some people tend to
| abuse. Well, I do not wish to suffer because of them.
| Again, I do not get high, I do not get any of those
| feelings that would make me crave it. Many people might,
| but many people do not have the same medical condition as
| I do, I guess.
|
| As I said, I am not "100% with daily use". I sometimes
| fail at controlling the dose, because sometimes my issues
| are worse, but... I wish I did not have to depend on it.
| It fucking sucks. I do not want to depend on it, but I
| have tried every psychiatric medications there is during
| my years... None of them helped one bit. I had no idea
| that what I am taking would work either, I stumbled upon
| it by accident. Again, I wish I did not need this, but I
| am afraid I will die taking it unless they find a proper
| treatment or cure for what I have. But yeah... it sucks.
| I could talk about it more, like how I cannot even get
| out of bed and do my damn job without it and such, but
| welp.
| bogomipz wrote:
| There was an article this past week in the nytimes about
| this where a young woman was experiencing this. The
| diagnosis was "Cannabis hyperemesis." The article is here
| if you are interested:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/well/mind/teens-thc-
| canna...
|
| See also:
|
| https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/21665-cannab
| i...
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Why are you still smoking concentrates? Switch back to
| flower. Then slowly get flower with lower thc percentages.
| I have never been addicted to anything so its hard for me
| to relate so I dont want to cast negativity your way but
| friend if something is hospitalizing you go see an
| addiction specialist yesterday. Replace the addiction with
| something else that makes you feel good, start running or
| going to the gym. Good Luck!
| skyyler wrote:
| >Why are you still smoking concentrates?
|
| If you read their comment a little closer, you will see
| that they do not.
|
| >I have never been addicted to anything so its hard for
| me to relate
|
| If you have no experience, why are you giving advice?
| tsol wrote:
| I've found concentrates way too strong for me. I've had
| conversations with friends where we both say we miss the
| cheap weak stuff. I've actually moved to microdosing
| concentrates. Using a tiny amount, no more than the head of
| a toothpick, gives me more control over how strong it is.
|
| The other thing you can do is switch to concentrates. This
| also makes it easier to quit because you know how much
| you're taking in so you can slowly taper down.
| j-krieger wrote:
| I agree. The cheap weak stuff needs to come back.
| sam345 wrote:
| And this is good to legalize?
| theptip wrote:
| Just a suggestion - have you tried tapering your dose down?
| It is usually easier to stop a strongly formed dependency
| by gradually reducing the dose, instead of just stopping
| altogether.
|
| Reduce daily intake by X% every week. If a given step down
| ends up being too painful you just go back to the previous
| one for another week and then try a smaller step next time.
| Optimum X varies by drug but I'm sure there are
| recommendations specific for cannabis out there.
|
| It sounds like you have the desire to make a change, with
| persistence and the right technique you can definitely make
| it happen.
| standardUser wrote:
| The solution to this is a legal marketplace.
|
| I was able to start buying lower-potency weed in California as
| soon as recreational stores became established. Now, I'm
| waiting around for the same in NY and buying weed that is way
| too strong in the meantime. A joint as 10-15% THC with some CBD
| is an entirely different experience than the 25% and up THC
| that most dealers sell (and that's usually all they sell).
| lucideer wrote:
| While I'm not proposing "doing nothing" about this problem, how
| much of this is likely to be a "hangover" from prohibition.
| Based on absolutely no data whatsoever, my instinct would be
| that demand for high-THC/low-CBD products would decrease as
| access to cannabis becomes less novel.
| [deleted]
| slfnflctd wrote:
| Being too high can be really uncomfortable for a lot of
| people. Some strains produce more unpleasant side effects
| than others, as well (although people will often react very
| differently to the same thing, of course). I didn't believe
| there was any such thing as weed I wouldn't like before I
| gained legal access. Now I know better.
|
| Perhaps there's been resistance to talking about this much
| because it's a new freedom and consumers are afraid too much
| criticism could lead to that freedom being yanked back away.
| However, I have noticed more conversation about finding the
| right level of CBD... so I think your instinct may not be far
| off.
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| I've taken every non-opiate drug available under the sun.
| The only really bad experience was a night of absolute
| terror after a deep drag on a joint.
| ta988 wrote:
| The dose make the poison. Lots of non-opiate drugs can
| cause nights of terrors (for you or those around you).
| j-krieger wrote:
| I'm not proposing laws that forbid high THC products. But
| there _needs_ to be advertising. People understand that
| downing a bottle of vodka can mail or kill.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| Or people would use less.
|
| I think national regulation around standard strength, doses,
| labeling, etc. could help here in a way that legalization (or
| decriminalization) at a smaller level can't.
| lucideer wrote:
| > _Or people would use less._
|
| Not sure what form you buy your weed in, but typically
| reducing the dose is not as straightforward as it would be
| with, e.g. a powdered or liquid product.
|
| > _national regulation [...] could help here in a way that
| legalization [...] can 't._
|
| I'm not sure I follow - are you proposing regulation in
| addition to legalization, or instead of? I don't really
| understand how the latter would work (or why they
| would/should be mutually exclusive) but maybe I'm just
| misinterpreting?
| nerdponx wrote:
| My intuition is similar, especially as older and less "drug
| oriented" users continue to enter the market. In
| Massachusetts, a lot of dispensaries show the THC level, and
| I usually just buy the one with the lowest content.
| jgtrosh wrote:
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6312155/
|
| > without any clear guidelines or regulations from government
| officials, the cannabis industry has taken a page from the
| tobacco and alcohol industries' play book and developed
| strains of marijuana and concentrated marijuana products with
| much higher concentrations of THC, the psychoactive component
| that causes addiction. The more potent a drug is, the
| stronger the possibility of addiction and the more likely the
| person will continue to purchase and use the product.
|
| Doesn't seem like there's any incentive to reduce potency.
| lucideer wrote:
| I opened with "I'm not proposing doing nothing" - I do
| think measures to remediate this problem in the short term
| are a good idea, in line with the fears outlined in your
| article.
|
| Nothing in your article tackles my main point though?
|
| > _the cannabis industry has taken a page from the tobacco
| and alcohol industries' play book_
|
| As a slightly off-topic aside: tobacco I'm less familiar
| with (I wasn't aware of efforts by the industry to grow
| strains of the plants with higher nicotine content but it
| seems unsurprising), but including alcohol here is bizarre.
| Alcohol isn't naturally occurring in harvested produce -
| it's an output from a process. And even then, maybe they're
| talking about distillation, but that process predates the
| industrial revolution by 100s maybe 1000s of years.
|
| Tbh this throwaway statement kinda makes me question the
| article...
| InefficientRed wrote:
| _> Alcohol isn 't naturally occurring in harvested
| produce - it's an output from a process._
|
| Ethanol is naturally occurring.
|
| That said, I agree that including alcohol here is
| bizarre. As far as I can tell there has never been a
| monotonic increase in ABV; instead, there is a large
| selection ranging from high alcohol content to even
| alcohol-free (which is so unpopular in the US as to be
| barely worth mentioning, but quite popular in Germany,
| and I'm now seeing large and even regional breweries in
| the US produce AF versions of their most popular beers).
|
| _> Unless they 're talking about distillation_
|
| Most alcoholic beverages are made through some sort of
| distillation process, so I'm not sure what difference
| you're alluding to here.
| MauranKilom wrote:
| > Ethanol is naturally occurring.
|
| That's... decidedly not true.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95DPkPW5_PE
| InefficientRed wrote:
| _> > Ethanol is naturally occurring._
|
| _> That 's... decidedly not true._
|
| _> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95DPkPW5_PE [link to
| video of animals becoming intoxicated on rotting fruit]_
|
| I'm confused. Perhaps you read this as "isn't"?
| MauranKilom wrote:
| Indeed I did. Apologies!
| lucideer wrote:
| > _Most alcoholic beverages are made through some sort of
| distillation process, so I 'm not sure what difference
| you're alluding to here._
|
| Most alcoholic beverages (beers, wines) are not distilled
| - distillation is typically only used to take a drink
| above the 20-30% ABV mark (spirit / liquor).
| skissane wrote:
| > Most alcoholic beverages are made through some sort of
| distillation process
|
| How do you define "most"? - but I'm pretty sure non-
| distilled/non-fortified alcoholic beverages
| (wine/beer/etc) make up more of the alcoholic beverage
| market (whether in litres or dollars) than
| distilled/fortified beverages. I think they also are a
| lot more if you were to count SKUs (number of varieties
| of non-fortified wines/beers/etc >
| spirits/liqueurs/fortified wines/etc)
| InefficientRed wrote:
| Oh, okay. Just confusion of terms.
|
| My brain organizes things as "beer, wine, and alcohol
| (aka spirits)" as opposed to "alcohol, including beer and
| wine". And an "alcoholic beverage" is just either a
| spirit alone or a spirit mixed with something.
|
| Probably because that's how my state organizes the stores
| (with wine/alcohol in separate stores from beer, so if
| you say "we need to buy beer" that means going to a
| different place than "we need to by alcohol").
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| The unambiguous word in these situations is "liquor", at
| least in US English.
| InefficientRed wrote:
| I always thought "liquor" was stuff like Lemoncello and
| Amaretto.
|
| (FWIW I'm a native US English speaker.)
| grzm wrote:
| You may be thinking of _liqueur_.
|
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liqueur
|
| > _a usually sweetened alcoholic liquor (such as brandy)
| flavored with fruit, spices, nuts, herbs, or seeds_
|
| vs _liquor_
|
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liquor
|
| > _a usually distilled rather than fermented alcoholic
| beverage_
|
| see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amaretto
|
| > _an almond-flavored liqueur_
|
| and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limoncello
|
| > _Limoncello (Italian pronunciation: [limon'tSel:o]) is
| an Italian lemon liqueur mainly produced in Southern
| Italy_
| ElevenLathe wrote:
| Yep, liqueur is cutesy syrupy stuff made in european
| monasteries or whatever, typically around 40 proof.
| Liquor (as in "corn likker") is the stuff for getting
| messed up fast, typically at least 80 proof.
| [deleted]
| skissane wrote:
| > Alcohol isn't naturally occurring in harvested produce
| - it's an output from a process
|
| Fermentation is a natural process. Alcohol naturally
| occurs in overripe fruits. Humans first discovered it by
| accident - fruit juices or grain-water mixtures left out
| would become alcoholic. In fact, non-fresh non-alcoholic
| fruit juice only became a product in modern times,
| because it was only in the modern period we developed the
| technology to stop the natural process of fermentation.
|
| That said, natural fermentation (without distillation)
| can only get you up to 18% ABV - beyond that, it poisons
| the yeast and they stop producing alcohol. To go higher
| you need distillation/fortification.
| NoGravitas wrote:
| I _suspect_ it 's a reference to the shift in preference
| for hard liquor over beer that happened in the US as a
| result of prohibition, liquor being easier to smuggle due
| to lower volumes. That preference persisted for some
| decades after prohibition ended, but arguably has turned
| around by now.
| lucideer wrote:
| In that case, that would reinforce my instinct. There's
| certainly a recent cocktail boom, and there was a brief
| trend of straight vodka being popular with girls my age
| when I was in college, but these are passing market
| phases, not something systemic in the industry. By-and-
| large ~5% beers and ~12% wines are the popular choice
| today.
| NoGravitas wrote:
| It seems like the biggest growth in the industry is in
| hard seltzers/alcopops, which range from 4-12%, but
| mostly on the lower end. So it does seem like in general
| there's a preference for strengths in a range of beer -
| craft beer - wine.
| lucideer wrote:
| Speaking of trends, there's currently a trend in beer
| world where I am in "low-ABV" and "0.0" products. Not
| sure if it'll be lasting, but I guess that along with the
| emergence of some things like 0% wines and even "spirits"
| (distilled botanical infusions) is further anecdata.
| dmix wrote:
| Probably one of the best trends towards weight loss in
| the general public. Beer is often an underrated
| contributor to weight gain with all of the social
| aspects.
| cheschire wrote:
| I suspect there's some truth here. Like how not everyone goes
| for the 80+ proof drinks, many just go for drinks that are 5%
| ABV or less.
| dmix wrote:
| Same with nicotine vape pens, 35-50mg salt ones have a
| comparable dosage to cigarettes (and are pretty gross) but
| it's easy to slowly move down to 5mg.
|
| This was impossible before with just cigarettes [1], which
| only had a 'lite' option which I doubt had any less
| nicotine. The only option was to quit. Weening off via 5mg
| is way easier.
|
| [1] Besides maybe the nicotine gum which is even grosser
| gigaflop wrote:
| I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers from. The
| vape shop near me sells nicotine salts in 25mg/ml to
| 50mg/ml ranges, which roughly translates to 2.5% and 5%
| strength. I've never seen something so low as 5mg/ml.
| dmix wrote:
| maybe you're only using a disposable brand like Juul? You
| could go down to 3mg here in Canada with the one I used.
|
| Picking a salt liquid at random, this one lets you go
| down to 1mg, since they probably add the nicotine to a
| 0mg product:
|
| https://www.dashvapes.com/products/e-juice/24/grappleberr
| y+i...
| gigaflop wrote:
| Interesting, I'm used to the US market. Back when I was a
| regular user (as opposed to sometimes-caving-and-buying-
| a-dispo quitter), salts were usually 25 and 50, with
| lower strengths provided by freebase nicotine juices. I
| think the last freebase juice I bought was a 3 or 6mg,
| but those were less common.
|
| Disposables are usually 5% salts over here, afaik.
| Semaphor wrote:
| Funnily enough, a law in Germany just went into effect
| today that makes it far cheaper (assuming you vape less
| with more nicotine, certainly holds true for me, I'm on
| 0mg nowadays) to vape with a lot of nicotine. The law is
| essentially a tax per ml. But doesn't care what ml, pure
| propylene glycol, vegetable glycerine, flavor
| concentrates, nicotine, whatever, as long as the intended
| use is for vaping.
| krylon wrote:
| If you legalize it, you can regulate the THC content by
| legalizing only weed with a maximum THC concentration, and/or
| by taxing it based on THC levels.
| gallexme wrote:
| I do hope they keep strong strains tho, I use a herb vape, n u
| love to only vape around 25mg of bud n get high, way less
| irritation
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| Maybe a stupid question but are there any cannabis variants
| which are agreed on as the 'wild'/ original cannabis?
|
| I can see that being used by sellers as a marketing claim for
| health benefits in a not so distant future?
| thebeastie wrote:
| There are, they are called "landraces", but you have the
| problem of replicating the original genetics with a dwindling
| / deteriorating supply of old seeds. Or if it's not that,
| trusting that what you are buying is actually what it
| advertised.
| h2odragon wrote:
| There's ditchweed _everywhere_ almost. It 's been influenced
| by domesticated varieties but after a couple years a patch
| will be pretty well back to "landrace" and potency will
| depend on how much predation and insect load it gets.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| Strain called Durban Poison is supposed to be one, relatively
| common to find in dispensaries. I actually got some yesterday
| so I know what I am doing Saturday night :)
|
| Interesting read on the subject: https://dutch-
| passion.com/en/blog/what-are-cannabis-landrace....
| [deleted]
| vmoore wrote:
| I can't smoke high THC strains. I need high concentrates of CBD
| since it takes the energetic edge off the THC, and CBD is a
| natural anti-psychotic. This is why I prefer hashish over dried
| leaves, since most hashish has a good ratio of CBD to THC.
| Moroccan '00' is my favorite.
| jokethrowaway wrote:
| That's great, a sliver of more freedom in the world - and long
| overdue.
|
| Hopefully this will allow the police to do something about crime
| which is becoming a huge issue in Europe (probably thanks to
| lockdowns, recession, uncontrolled immigration).
|
| I hope it catches on everywhere else but I'm definitely not going
| to buy their overpriced and overtaxed products - I'll just buy
| seeds and grow it for personal use.
| Xylakant wrote:
| > Hopefully this will allow the police to do something about
| crime which is becoming a huge issue in Europe (probably thanks
| to lockdowns, recession, uncontrolled immigration).
|
| Definitely not everywhere in Europe - the PKS in germany shows
| declining levels of crime (+) as well as for violent crimes
| (++) since 2017 until 2021. Now, this statistics need to be
| read carefully since they track what's been _reported_ to the
| police with no further investigation, so there are various
| statistical effects to take into account when reading them
| (+++), but they do provide a good idea of the overall trend. If
| crime were becoming a huge issue in germany, one would expect
| an uptick in reported crimes, but that's not visible anywhere
| in the stats.
|
| (+)
| https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Publikationen/Pol...
| (++)
| https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Publikationen/Pol...
| (+++) for example, it's much more likely that immigrants get
| reported after a street/bar fight than native Germans. Another
| example is that rape and sexual harassment are underreported,
| but the willingness to report is rising, so it's currently not
| exactly clear what produces the rise in the stats.
| barrucadu wrote:
| Why would lockdowns encourage crime?
| aikah wrote:
| It's crazy we are still having these kind of debates in Europe.
| 20 years ago most youth around 18/20 thought Cannabis would have
| already been legalised by now, I don't believe one second that
| any of the European elected official under 50 never smoked pot.
| The only possible explanation I see is heavy lobbying from big
| pharma groups or wine interests.
| _fat_santa wrote:
| > or wine interests.
|
| As an American, we are well familiar with Big Pharma but the
| wine lobby? Is that really a thing in Europe? How influential
| are they around these kinds of policy?
|
| Edit: Sorry for the barrage of questions, you've really piqued
| my interest.
| hocuspocus wrote:
| They definitely have some weight. For instance in a few
| countries they fight campaigns like Dry January.
|
| Fun fact: one hundred years ago the wine lobby successfully
| killed absinthe using bogus scientific claims, and today
| Pernod Ricard are on their side of the lobbying.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| France:
|
| "Wine growing makes up 15% of France's agricultural revenues
| while accounting for only 3% of the land area used."
|
| "France consumes over 30 million hectoliters of wine (14% of
| global output) every year, making it one of the world's
| largest consumers alongside the United States and Italy. The
| average French person consumes 48 liters of wine a year.
| (larvf.com)"
|
| Source: https://www.businessfrance.fr/Media/Default/PROCOM/Ki
| ts/Agro...
|
| Germany:
|
| "When calculated per German citizen, this corresponds to an
| average consumption of still and sparkling wines of 23.4
| liters annually per person. Of this wine, 8.7 liters are
| domestic still wines, 11.4 liters are foreign still wines and
| 3.3 liters are sparkling wines."
|
| Source: https://blog.drinktec.com/wine/german-wine-
| consumption-and-p...
|
| It's hundreds of thousands of hectares of land and a massive
| employer. Unlike other agriculture products, the margins on
| wine are very high.
| jotm wrote:
| A couple of things that I'm sad about:
|
| there are medications better than cannabis for anxiety and
| depression. But no one talks about them. They're on the same
| level as alcohol and weed when it comes to addiction potential
| and harm. Just make them legal ffs.
|
| I'm really happy I can get them from pharmacies in my country
| because they're not on a restricted prescription so they just
| give them to you if you pinky promise that you have/had a
| prescription. That said, it's technically illegal.
|
| And 2: holy shit eastern European states are dumb. They are
| missing out on billions in sales and tourism by not legalizing
| cannabis alone. And now western states will legalize it and
| reap all the benefits. Watch how eastern states just keep
| complaining about the brain drain, workforce drain, money
| problems while doing nothing effective to combat it. Just cheap
| places to build factories and buy homes for retirement. Great
| job.
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| My impression is that many of the Eastern European states are
| more subject to Christian religious conservativism than in
| the west. And so the drugs and law and order thing is more
| pronounced there in pockets.
|
| Not sure if this is a post-Soviet slingshot effect or if it
| never went away even under Stalinism. But old "Christian"
| morality seems to be stronger there, and the separation
| between church and state not as really as much of a thing as
| in the west.
| int_19h wrote:
| It's more that those states are generally socially
| conservative. That social conservatism is not religious in
| nature, but cultural - it was also in full display under
| Soviets, for example. It just attaches itself to whatever
| contemporary ideology matches it best.
| schroeding wrote:
| > there are medications better than cannabis for anxiety and
| depression. But no one talks about them.
|
| Could you maybe name them? Would be awesome :)
| jotm wrote:
| I've become reluctant to do it since many people can't
| properly administer them and/or fall into addiction. Then
| again, it happens with cannabis, too.
|
| But eh, whatever, you're responsible for yourself.
|
| For me, gabapentinoids and gabaergics work great.
| Pregabalin, Gabapentin, Sodium Oxybate are what I have
| experimented with and found to be good.
|
| Currently on Pregabalin 2x150mg morning+evening. Each dose
| lasts 6-7 hours (and lingers for much longer, 24-48 hours).
| I'd recommend starting with 75mg, only on empty stomach.
| Effects start after 1-2 hours, if you don't feel anything,
| up the dose. Don't take too much, I tried 300-450mg in one
| dose, was too stupefying. Quitting is easy by tapering down
| over a week. May have 1-2 days of bad sleep or insomnia.
| Minimized anxiety, suicidal thoughts gone, and it even
| mixes well with most stimulants (for ADHD).
|
| Pretty much the same for Gabapentin, which was great,
| better than pregabalin (more energy and creativity), until
| I quit it for ~6 months and now I have some sort of
| permanent tolerance. It's strange.
|
| Sodium Oxybate (aka GHB!) is also great, easier to get but
| dosing is difficult, it's short lasting and has a big
| impact on sleep (forced me into biphasic sleep, which is
| actually how narcoleptics take it), can't fall asleep
| without it, but it's great quality sleep after ~3 weeks).
| Big danger of addiction, even though quitting is easy by
| tapering down over a week. Basically you need more than 12
| hours between after the last dose. Or if you fall into a
| 24/7 trap (taking it every 1-3 hours), lower the dosage
| every day. Much harder than it sounds so just never take it
| more than 3-4 times a day and never more than 3-4 grams at
| a time.
|
| Would not recommend it unless you're really good at self-
| restraint and/or quitting drugs. Quitting an a-pvp binge
| was easier than sodium oxybate.
|
| There's also benzodiazepines and phenibut that I stay clear
| of (they act partially or fully on GABA-A, way more
| dangerous/addictive than those that act on GABA-B), and
| baclofen that I haven't tried due to unavailability.
|
| They all have quite different effects and you need to find
| a right dosage/schedule. Gotta see what works best for you.
|
| To put it in simple terms, they're mostly like alcohol
| without the negative effects. I have to say I've been a
| long time functional alcoholic (over a decade of near daily
| use), so either my brain craves something for GABA
| receptors or I've screwed it up and now this stuff works.
|
| Still, any of them are less stupefying than cannabis (and
| at higher dosages close to it in relaxation effects) and
| have none of the occasional negative effects like paranoia.
|
| Also, I use tizanidine to knock myself to sleep when
| quitting various stuff.
|
| But holy shit, please for the love of everything _learn to
| use medication responsibly, learn to quit them and not fall
| into abuse_ , because withdrawal can be ugly.
| symlinkk wrote:
| +1, I need help.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > The only possible explanation I see is heavy lobbying from
| big pharma groups or wine interests.
|
| More likely law enforcement.
|
| The criminalization of drugs provides an endless supply of
| criminals of various levels (from the drug
| production/distribution itself to weapons and violence used to
| defend the illegal operation) and thus generates endless
| amounts of work for all kinds of people involved in law
| enforcement, from police to prisons to various subcontractors
| providing goods/services used by the aforementioned entities.
|
| Most of those are not criminals because they want to hurt
| people or break the law on purpose and thus will no longer be
| criminals when drugs are legalized (instead of switching to
| another crime to remain a criminal). Thus, the second it's
| legalized, the "demand" for law enforcement services drops
| dramatically, and the crimes that do remain will require more
| effort to solve than your typical drug case.
| moonchrome wrote:
| >The only possible explanation I see is heavy lobbying from big
| pharma groups or wine interests.
|
| What about church ? Last time I checked church was very much
| against this, and is a far larger political influence than
| those you mentioned. I could be wrong - but in my peer group
| the first people I would see vote against weed would be the
| religious.
| ketzu wrote:
| > I don't believe one second that any of the European elected
| official under 50 never smoked pot.
|
| To be honest, just the very first statistics I could find on
| the topic, I didn't put any effort in looking it up at all:
| https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/753/e...
| says the following
|
| > In the 2012 EMCDDA Annual report, it is conservatively
| estimated that cannabis has been used at least once (lifetime
| prevalence) by around 80.5 million Europeans: almost one in
| four of all 15- to 64-year-olds.
|
| This matches my personal experience (currently mid 30s in
| Germany) a lot closer, unless politicans are vastly more likely
| to smoke pot (or pot smokers vastly more likely to go into
| politics) I have a hard time imagining your estimate is even
| close to true.
| fabian2k wrote:
| Germany has lots of borders to several european countries, once
| it is legal here there is probably no realistic way to
| efficiently control the transfer across borders.
| briffle wrote:
| The largest volume dipensary in the state of Oregon is just a
| few miles from the Idaho border, where its still illegal, and
| only 45 min from Boise.
| orangepurple wrote:
| They could technically leave the European Union Customs Union
| (EUCU), stay in the EU, and continue to be a part of the
| Schengen Area. Then more products could be controlled at the
| borders. I never said it would be a good idea.
| romanovcode wrote:
| The only difference will be that the weed will be bought
| legally. What you're implying is already happening for decades.
| stefan_ wrote:
| Because right now we are perfectly in control of illicit drug
| transfers across borders.
| [deleted]
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Not that there ever was in the first place...
| Tade0 wrote:
| My high school classmate and, coincidentally, my SO's friend from
| college is currently doing time for "possession of large amounts
| of marijuana" - 19g to be specific.
|
| He used to be a local weed dealer and while he knew what he was
| getting into and was consciously breaking the law at the time,
| after his first arrest a few years ago he stopped and got a
| regular job.
|
| He only got involved with the court again because one
| acquaintance of his was charged with drug dealing and figured he
| could lessen his sentence by giving the authorities someone else
| to prosecute.
|
| All in all a person who could otherwise continue to be a
| productive member of society has to spend two years in prison
| now.
| rbinv wrote:
| What's the state where this happened?
| Tade0 wrote:
| Not in the US. Poland.
| subpixel wrote:
| I have a high-school friend in prison for 20+ years for
| marijuana-related charges.
|
| I now live in a recreationally legal state, the irony is not
| lost on me.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| 20+ years in the US? No gun related charge or priors with
| other drugs/guns? That is very unusual if so.
| iinnPP wrote:
| US prisons are absolutely packed with young marijuana
| dealers/users with effectively lifetime sentences.
|
| Many of them are truly good people.
| treis wrote:
| >US prisons are absolutely packed with young marijuana
| dealers/users with effectively lifetime sentences.
|
| No they aren't. Only 20% of inmates are in jail for drug
| offenses and only a tiny fraction (if there's even one) is
| on a life time sentence for dealing weed.
| cstejerean wrote:
| Effectively a life sentence I think means they'll have a
| hard time finding a job once they get out resulting in
| likely reoffending at some point and ending up back in
| jail.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > US prisons are absolutely packed with young marijuana
| dealers/users with effectively lifetime sentences.
|
| Just not at all true.
| donkeyd wrote:
| > Many of them are truly good people.
|
| If prison hasn't fucked them up. I really hope these people
| will find their way in society if there's ever a pardon,
| because it might be really had to adapt to normal life,
| even if you ended up in jail for something as stupidly
| innocuous as smoking weed.
| rainworld wrote:
| A small fraction is in for possession only, and even that
| is misleading considering the prevalence of plea deals and
| career criminals.
| andybak wrote:
| When I was younger, a lot of my friends sold the
| occasional bit of pot. As far as I know the vast majority
| of them are productive members of society nowadays.
| zwarag wrote:
| Are there any European weed stocks?
| adrianN wrote:
| You probably want to invest in companies growing other things
| hydroponically. The skillset should allow them to quickly enter
| the cannabis market.
| rbinv wrote:
| No, but Tilray ($TLRY) has operations in Germany and Portugal
| (for medical cannabis). Their potential moat with regards to
| the recreational market depends on the licensing rules to come.
| noodlesUK wrote:
| I hope they eventually do this in the UK. Weed is basically not
| illegal if you're relatively well off and white. I've seen a
| number of cops just take the weed away from a rich uni student or
| similar and bin it with no further action taken, but if you're
| not, criminal charges await. Making it decriminalised would solve
| that disparity of treatment.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| man all over the UK and continental Europe this decriminalized
| stuff is just like 4% THC, and the legal CBD shops can't go
| above 2% THC. And so we're stuck with all the "cool kids"
| trying to be endearing when they hear you're from the states,
| but its this super low quality crap with no way to tell
| quality.
|
| I want r e c r e a t i o n a l like California, in Europe I
| don't want like 3 novelty shops in Amsterdam, I want the
| commercial Apple-store-of-weed style seen in California, I also
| agree with more tiers on THC amount and studies instead of
| anecdotes. I want some actual consumer protection and options
| based on science and letting consumers make more informed
| choices. The US has no adequate studies yet like clinical
| trials and that's pretty pathetic as the states are unequipped
| to do this at the standard the FDA does. Other countries
| shouldn't have that dilemma.
| Tenoke wrote:
| Eh, I've smoked near cops in London as a poor immigrant student
| and they've at best given me a stare or a few words. It depends
| on the cop but generally they are pretty lenient with non-
| dealers.
| [deleted]
| BrianOnHN wrote:
| Not sure why your comment is down-voted, because this is true
| in the US, too.
| rovek wrote:
| I would suggest because the sentiment is a trite
| misrepresentation of people's experiences across multiple
| facets. Throughout the summer you'll smell weed constantly if
| you're out and about and never see anyone so much as
| approached by any nearby police, regardless of who they are.
|
| Edit: UK, I can't speak for the US
| frereubu wrote:
| This has been true for a while - in the 1990s when effective
| decriminalisation wasn't on the cards, I knew the son of a
| judge who was caught in the middle of Edinburgh with a shopping
| trolley full of cannabis plants. He got arrested, but didn't
| get anything worse than a slap on the wrist.
| blackhaz wrote:
| I really hope so as well. Black market weed in UK sucks. I've
| moved here recently and all the stuff I was able to get was dry
| deodorized skunk grown on chemicals - really sad state. It
| stinks a mile away, it's not fresh, you literally can feel
| there's something added to it that shouldn't be there. I
| stopped using cannabis completely at this point.
| Findecanor wrote:
| I find it crazy to decriminalise a drug in _smoked_ form. It is
| often through second-hand smoke in social situations that people
| get addicted to a smoked drug before they start using it
| themselves. I 'm afraid that that would lead to more addiction.
|
| Personally, I don't have anything against it being ingested in
| other forms: such as "magic" brownies or vaping that don't affect
| other people around you.
| bennovw wrote:
| 1. You are not going to get high from second hand cannabis
| smoke unless you're doing mouth to mouth or locked up with 3
| other guys smoking in a closet. 2. 30% of daily cannabis
| smokers have trouble stopping vs 85% of daily tobacco smokers.
| 3. Smoking indoors uninvited is generally strongly frowned upon
| in most social settings and prohibited by law in areas open to
| the public. 4. You don't have to smoke, cannabis is also
| frequently prepared into "special" cookies or brownies and
| eaten. The downside is that you then can't have more than one
| cookie due to the...implications...
| rbinv wrote:
| Cannabis is not "supposed to be" consumed in any specific way.
| Smoking it is one way to consume it, but so are vaporizing and
| eating it, both very popular and with almost no harm (if any).
| Findecanor wrote:
| Agreed. Poor wording on my part. I edited my post.
| Personally, I don't care if people eat or vaporise it.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > It is through second-hand smoke that people get addicted to a
| smoked drug before they start using it themselves
|
| Eh? No, that's not generally the major concern about passive
| smoking; not sure where you got that from.
| Findecanor wrote:
| Not being what more people are concerned about does not mean
| that it does not happen. Although, I'll concede that cannabis
| _is_ much less addictive compared to tobacco, for which this
| _is_ how most smokers are made.
| bmicraft wrote:
| Second hand smoke is not how most smokers are made for
| _any_ drug. Generally that's peer pressure, but I see how
| those could be mixed up (being around smokers).
| bennovw wrote:
| Yep, don't blame the second hand smoke, blame your own
| "first hand" desire to conform to the social norms and
| behavior of your peer group. This is why you should
| choose your friends very carefully.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > I find it crazy to decriminalise a drug that is supposed to
| be smoked. It is through second-hand smoke that people get
| addicted to a smoked drug
|
| I can testify that as a child with a habitual smoker in the
| house, of ordinary cigarettes, it was kinda terrible. All our
| clothes would smell of tabacco, and teachers at school were
| convinced me and my brother are smokers.
|
| after being tortured by cigarette smoke for a decate, we find
| them repulsive and have never touched them.
|
| so it runs contrary to my experience, and i never heard of
| anyone aquiring addiction through 2nd hand smoking, but it can
| be damaging to the wholw familt.
| hans1729 wrote:
| Wording: Germany will not legalise Cannabis. _Maybe_ it will be
| decriminalized, but there is basically no chance of legalisation
| (too complex /expensive of a process).
|
| I have no reason to trust the SPD that they will deliver on this,
| they are _the_ infamous poster child for betrayal. They are the
| kind of party that would sell their entire voting base if it
| served the acting politicians individual careers.
|
| If they will do it, then it will be leveraged to the max, right
| before the next critical election.
| Semaphor wrote:
| > Wording: Germany will not legalise Cannabis. Maybe it will be
| decriminalized, but there is basically no chance of
| legalisation (too complex/expensive of a process).
|
| Source?
| hans1729 wrote:
| I was told so from a credible source a couple years ago. What
| I can recall: legalisation would entail complex legal work,
| to a degree where that option is essentially not on the
| table. This is supported by the fact that "Legalisierung" is
| not part of the political language wrt topic, instead they
| refer to "Kontrollierte Abgabe" (~'controlled distribution').
| andrewinardeer wrote:
| So just because it is complex it won't get done? That
| sounds rather defeatist to me.
| LeonidasXIV wrote:
| The entire german government is terminally defeatist.
| They've been dragging their feet on digitalization for so
| long, they've been dragging their feet on accessible
| internet for so long they've been dragging their feet on
| transport infrastructure, they've been dragging their
| feet basically everything for ages. You go to Eastern
| Europe and wonder how things seem to be progressing much
| faster there.
| yrgulation wrote:
| > You go to Eastern Europe and wonder how things seem to
| be progressing much faster there.
|
| Is there a kind of fetish among germans to demonise east
| europe? Perhaps the recovery process after 45 years of
| communism is slow and takes time. And perhaps east
| europeans arent as inferior are a certain german ideology
| claims they are? Anyway pathetic analogy.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| That's how _an awful lot_ of German politics works.
|
| Source: am German, am pissed off beyond belief about a
| lot of things in politics, especially the lack of will to
| just move forward and do something instead of debating
| all day.
| cupofpython wrote:
| could be some trauma leftover from a previous time they
| just moved forward with political goals without fully
| understanding them.
|
| That said, I am rooting for Germany. It is a relatively
| young nation overall, and has so many things going for
| it. I think it has potential to become the biggest
| European superpower over the next 20 years
| jabiko wrote:
| > I was told so from a credible source a couple years ago
|
| I'm not sure if you have noticed it but there where
| elections last year and the new coalition that formed has
| the legalization of cannabis as one of its official goals.
| Your "credible sources" might have been right a few years
| ago, but the political landscape has changed.
|
| > This is supported by the fact that "Legalisierung" is not
| part of the political language wrt topic
|
| Of course it is. The expert consolidation which is part of
| the creation of new law has just concluded. Now the federal
| ministry of health will create a draft law and publish it
| by the end of the year.
| shkkmo wrote:
| "Controlled distribution" is legalization. Nobody says that
| Utah has "decriminalized but not legalized" liquor even
| though it can only be bought in state run stores.
| romanovcode wrote:
| > Maybe it will be decriminalized
|
| I don't know where you are from Germany but cannabis is pretty
| much decriminalized in Berlin already for quite some time.
| People buy/smoke at the streets and police does not mind.
| hans1729 wrote:
| I am. Berlin and Germany are in a special relationship, I'll
| leave colorful elaborations to others :-)
| abbbi wrote:
| still, you will lose your drivers license. I dont care if it
| is decriminalized, if i get pulled over and lose my license
| becuause i used to smoke 4 days ago, theres something wrong.
| I think this is one of the biggest hurdles to overcome: how
| to deal with cosumption in regards to roadworthiness
| hans1729 wrote:
| >Roadworthiness or streetworthiness is a property or
| ability of a car, bus, truck or any kind of automobile to
| be in a suitable operating condition or meeting acceptable
| standards for safe driving and transport of people, baggage
| or cargo in roads or streets, being therefore street-legal.
|
| TIL ;)
| romanovcode wrote:
| True, I know a guy from Berlin who had exactly same
| situation. I wonder if you can call a lawyer and refuse to
| give your hair/urine in this case.
| gallexme wrote:
| If you refuse, then you under arrest and get driven to
| the police station where a Amtsarzt(approved police
| office doctor) will draw your blood and check if you are
| roadworthy
| MaKey wrote:
| The police can do that - however, they need reasonable
| suspicion for it. I have refused to be tested for alcohol
| successfully in the past. I didn't drink anything, I just
| don't like such tests being routinely used when there is
| no indication that alcohol or drugs were consumed.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Agreed on the idiocy of the SPD ("wer hat uns verraten?
| Sozialdemokraten")... but this time, the Justice Ministry
| belongs to the FDP. They have alienated an awful lot of voters
| with their effective denial of reasonable covid measures,
| they'd be completely done for if they would not manage to get
| cannabis legal-ish enough that people can buy cannabis products
| in stores and smoke on the streets without fearing arrest.
|
| We have elections in Bavaria and Hessen in 2023, the FDP will
| need at least _something_ to show off, and cannabis is the
| easiest thing to pass, particularly as the Greens and parts of
| the SPD have long fought for it.
| hans1729 wrote:
| advocatus diaboli: the FDP has a long track record of
| advocating for legalisation and then voting against it or
| abstain in parliamentary elections. Their core clientel are
| small business owners and (other) anti-regulation folk, I
| strongly doubt that they lose big margins of voters due to
| their covid policy, maybe even the opposite is the case.
|
| Point being: if the FDP is the reason to have faith in this,
| I'm not feeling much more confident than before.
| 2-718-281-828 wrote:
| > They have alienated an awful lot of voters with their
| effective denial of reasonable covid measures
|
| they also won a number of sympathizers ... and "reasonable
| measures" - what a funny moment to write that nonsense.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > they also won a number of sympathizers
|
| LOL, they lost massively in all elections since the
| Bundestagswahl - mostly because of their disastrous
| performance during covid, with NRW's education minister
| Gebauer being the most obvious example. They may have
| gained some people from the AfD, but lost so much more
| instead.
|
| Basically the FDP is now learning the hard way what Soder's
| CSU learned after the clusterfuck in the 2018 Bavarian
| elections: copying the far-right and ultra-libertarian
| demands may earn you _some_ votes from there, but alienate
| so much more of the moderate vote that it can even threaten
| your existence.
|
| Germany is _not_ the US - ultra-libertarian attitudes may
| give you applause from Twitter crowds but not from voters.
|
| > and "reasonable measures" - what a funny moment to write
| that nonsense.
|
| The FDP vetoed _anything_ to reasonably deal with the
| pandemic - they were the reason tests were cut down, they
| are even opposed to mask mandates, and forget about a
| vaccination mandate.
| 2-718-281-828 wrote:
| every region can declare itself a hotspot and make masks
| mandatory. beyond that they don't serve any purpose
| except being a nuisance.
| coffeebeanHH wrote:
| Yes, but... Basically other parties aren't that different. In
| the end it doesn't matter which color of the rainbow, or black,
| is going to fuck the people.
| hans1729 wrote:
| The SPD brands itself as social, pro worker, peaceful,
| pragmatic and economically-focused all at the same time. They
| woo young voters, while their core clientel is >65. They
| actively make policy that works against the youth (serving
| their main voters, which are old), while presenting
| themselves as the good guys _to the youth_.
|
| From my point of view, this makes them pure evil, much more
| so than the other parties. Yes, all the parties play the
| power game, but not all of them have the insane level of
| audacity that the SPD demonstrates _again and again_ , in
| every election since I'm old enough to pay attention.
| numerik_meister wrote:
| I could make a very strong similar argument for the Greens.
| They are basically light-conservatives, but they brand
| themselves on the left side of the spectrum.
| solarkraft wrote:
| I know few young people who take them that seriously. My
| sentiment of them being a "CDU lite" (much more
| conservative and much less social than they act, generally
| not very progressive) appears to be widely shared.
|
| In their defense: They _are_ the lesser evil. Which seems
| to basically be all that they run on nowadays (it 's how
| Scholz became chancellor).
| sgift wrote:
| Which anti-youth policies do you specifically have in mind
| here? The SPD has done various things which were e.g.
| actively harmful for workers, but I don't really remember
| something which could be thought of as against the youth.
| coffeebeanHH wrote:
| > since I'm old enough to pay attention First of all...
| Hhhhh I like that!
|
| Yes I agree that the socialists lift themself way higher
| that they should. I think the age of their politics and
| voters is an effect of inheritance over decades. But it's
| still not a thing only the socialists have. The right wing
| sort of has the same. Specially the christians. I wouldn't
| even say it's a very evil thing. There are young people
| that are interested in politics, that's good and important.
| But it's by far not the most of them. I agree that it's not
| very smart to pretend to be a youngster or doing politics
| for the future generations while not even asking them what
| they want and need or stepping aside to let them fix their
| problems on their own.
|
| And honestly Scholz is very suspect and unsympathetic to
| me. He seemed wrong when he was major of hamburg and still
| I don't trust him a dime. He literally is the result of
| being the least garbage. At least in what the public can
| see. But still I don't see how the others are much
| different from fooling the people. The christians are
| corrupt, afd is a nazi party based on denial. The
| "democrats" only care about their own wealth. Green has
| internal issues with their concurring members and the deep
| red just burried themselves over the last years and is in
| huge inner conflicts as well.
|
| None of them has the motivation or will to change. It's
| just about getting the votes to talk bad about others and
| don't change a shit. Would be good to do a 80% flush. Get
| new and young politicians in the parliament and keep a
| fifth of the old ones to show the new ones around and
| explain how some stuff works.
| [deleted]
| yrgulation wrote:
| This is excellent news. Once Germany legalises it, other
| countries will likely be _forced_ to follow suit.
| loufe wrote:
| EUR10 a gramme of bud.... I don't know about prices in Germany
| but I can tell you that a lot of the market in Canada would go
| illegal if taxes were that high here. That is more in taxes than
| the cost of high quality legal pot in ON/QC.
| adriand wrote:
| > Canada has made some progress since legalisation in 2018, but
| through a regionally varied patchwork of free-market and state-
| controlled supply systems that makes it hard to draw broad
| lessons
|
| This strikes me as an odd claim. Each province has its own
| approach, and the provinces are large. Wouldn't having varying
| approaches among different large regions be perfect for drawing
| lessons?
| ttul wrote:
| It had to be this way. Provinces determine how alcohol and
| tobacco are sold within their borders; it would have been
| strange for cannabis distribution to be federally regulated.
|
| Some useful comparisons can indeed be drawn. Quebec launched
| with a very restrictive distribution model. BC was quite
| liberal. The latter province has fared much better in terms of
| squeezing out profits for organized crime. There are virtually
| no unauthorized cannabis shops in the province and very little
| black market activity relative to pre-legalization.
|
| Keep distribution straightforward and analogous to how tobacco
| and alcohol are sold, and keep taxes on cannabis low to cut out
| profits for the black market.
| newsclues wrote:
| Some of the most successful BC stores are run by people still
| brokering in the black market.
| hans1729 wrote:
| Not with respect to the country as a whole. 'broad' is the key
| term in the sentence you quoted.
| spacemanmatt wrote:
| The stronger stuff is simply higher bang for the buck, and in
| today's economy that matters more than everything else. It's too
| bad consumers are so disconnected from producers due to the legal
| situation, or else they might see a regular response to demand
| for more balanced buds.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| > " _European countries that have a much bigger problem with
| illegal cannabis use, like France, are watching very closely what
| Germany is doing at the moment._ "
|
| The criminal activities and gang wars linked to cannabis
| trafficking in France are huge. It's a shame that France never
| took action either on legalisation or on crime...
|
| I am not sure that whatever Germany does will have much impact in
| France, though.
| [deleted]
| olabyne wrote:
| I live in Marseille, famous for being home of the illegal
| traffic. In the poorest suburbs, there is dozens of 'drive
| through' spots, where the criminals are very friendly to the
| customers, almost like regular business, while being well alert
| for any police raid.
|
| It is a cat and mouse game, where the police only manages to
| catch kids, and the sell spot just spawns at another
| appartment-building.
|
| IMO, the french government is blind to think it can fight
| cannabis traffic by trying to stop the ilegal offer. France is
| number one consumer of cannabis in europe, so the demand will
| always create another traffic, unless you counteract with
| legal, and regulated offer.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| I know, 'cousin' ;)
|
| > _It is a cat and mouse game, where the police only manages
| to catch kids_
|
| They only 'manage' to catch what they want to catch
| considering government's policy over several decades... If
| they actually wanted to end this it would be ended in under a
| month. That's one of the big problems in France: Many of
| those neighbourhoods and criminal activities have been left
| to fester for decades without anything being actually done,
| so things just keep getting worse, politicians keep being
| 'shocked' without doing anything, and round we go.
| coldcode wrote:
| While I have no interest in weed, I never understood why people
| are against it, since cigarettes are also a drug and are far more
| damaging to heath and the economy, and in the US kills a couple
| hundred thousand folks a year, or alcohol, which is a drug, and
| kills tens of thousands of people a year. Eliminating illegality
| would save in so many ways, and taxes could help offset other
| taxes. But no, weed is somehow more terrible...
| Hamuko wrote:
| What if I'm against weed, cigarettes and alcohol?
| jcbrand wrote:
| Then don't use them.
| Hamuko wrote:
| I don't use any of them. Doesn't mean that I'm not affected
| by the harmful effects of them.
| dymk wrote:
| Particularly weed, what negative externalities do you
| experience?
| Hamuko wrote:
| Not that many at the moment, considering that it's an
| illegal substance and <2% of the population consumes weed
| monthly (<0.2% daily), meaning that it's consumed a lot
| less than cigarettes (approximately 12% of the population
| between 20 and 64 smoke daily). It's also primarily used
| by young people here, meaning that long-term effects are
| not yet visible. But obviously there are health factors
| to consider with smoking weed (heart infarcts, lung
| issues/cancer, mental health issues, etc) that will be
| subsidized by the rest of the society. I'm also concerned
| about the affects of weed on driving if it becomes legal
| and its consumption increases, as alcohol is involved in
| every fourth fatal car accident and weed increases risk
| factors for car crashes.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Anyone can grow weed and that would cut into tobacco profits, a
| powerful lobby. You don't honestly think legislation is about
| health
| cmrdporcupine wrote:
| Anybody can grow tobacco too. I do it most years just because
| of the pretty flowers.
|
| Much easier than growing cannabis, actually.
|
| The curing process is a bit of work, but for cigarette (as
| opposed to pipe or cigar) quality tobacco not so hard.
| alar44 wrote:
| Nonsense. Are tobacco companies not allowed to own a cannabis
| company? They'll jump on that shit as soon as they can.
| bornfreddy wrote:
| I think GP was trying to say that it is easier to grow
| cannabis than tobacco at home, which puts an upper limit to
| prices.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| Cigarettes are only expensive because of the taxes.
| dpbriggs wrote:
| It's possible to have concerns about it even if alcohol is
| worse. I think most people are reacting to the "it cures
| cancer" culture which denies any negative effect.
|
| Personally I've seen weed addiction in close friends and family
| and it's not pretty. It's slowly poisoning yourself while your
| life stagnates or falls apart. But they're convinced they're
| not addicted as you can't get addicted to weed.
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| >But they're convinced they're not addicted as you can't get
| addicted to weed.
|
| Habit forming, yes. Physically addictive? No.
| dpbriggs wrote:
| Recovery from wake and bake will involve withdrawal
| symptoms and cravings, both of which have a physical basis.
| You can't expect flooding your brain all day and every day
| with a menagerie of feel-good chemicals and not expect
| adaptations which need to be undone.
| yccs27 wrote:
| I don't think we would ever legalize cigarettes and alcohol if
| they weren't already widespread. You cited the numbers
| yourself, it would be a terrible decision. But lots of people
| are already using these substances, and we've seen how well it
| works to make alcohol illegal... The reason cigs/alcohol are
| legal has nothing to do with their addictiveness or the harm
| they do, so a comparison with them.
|
| The anti-legalization thought is simply: Cigarettes and alcohol
| are already bad enough, let's not add a third substance!
|
| (Note: Personally, I actually support weed legalisation,
| because it eliminates black markets and other problems that
| illegality brings. But that's a whole other, more nuanced
| argument. See the frontpage thread about steelmanning...)
| adrianN wrote:
| Banning tobacco is plausible because it's somewhat difficult
| to grow the plants. But you can't ban alcohol. Anybody can
| produce it. You can literally produce it by accident.
| jamesakirk wrote:
| Yeast has been genetically modified to produce psilocybin (
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S10967176
| 1... ). Researches have yielded the equivalent of about 60g
| dried shroom in only 1 liter of solution. When psychedelics
| become as easy to produce as beer, the world is gonna be a
| whole lot weirder.
| piva00 wrote:
| > The anti-legalization thought is simply: Cigarettes and
| alcohol are already bad enough, let's not add a third
| substance!
|
| Which is a stupid thought given that even when completely
| banned and carrying harsh penalties people still partake in
| drug usage. Draconian laws may diminish the ratio of users
| but they are still there, and draconian laws only make those
| people become pariahs in their societies, pushing them into
| deeper holes.
|
| Singapore, Japan, Sweden, Philippines, etc. still have drugs
| and users, no matter how draconian prohibition is...
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| >The anti-legalization thought is simply: Cigarettes and
| alcohol are already bad enough, let's not add a third
| substance!
|
| This is absolutely NOT the argument against legalization
| anywhere that I've seen. It's almost universally a claim that
| MJ is uniquely dangerous and should be kept illegal for that
| reason.
| an9n wrote:
| The trouble is that skunk is now prevalent and much, much more
| powerful than standard weed or hash - and the stronger it is,
| the more likely that it will trigger serious mental health
| problems like schizophrenia in a percentage of users. Also,
| setting aside the acute and dramatic consequences, take a walk
| around pretty much any reasonably sized town in the UK and
| before long you'll smell the characteristic smell of skunk-type
| weed. No matter how lenient one is the question has to be
| asked: is it really healthy for a society to have a good
| proportion of its citizens in a permanent semi-baked state? I
| certainly would prefer the doctor, driver, pilot or teacher for
| my children that does not smoke skunk, given the choice, and
| all else being equal.
| samatman wrote:
| There is no flower available which is stronger than hash.
|
| If you think about it for a few seconds, you'll see why. You
| didn't because it undermines your argument, since the UK has
| mostly smoked hash historically.
| iinnPP wrote:
| Pfizer and their ilk prevent it.
| kzrdude wrote:
| Cigarettes are stimulating in a way similar to coffee - weed is
| not, so the lutheran morals dominated cultures (admittedly a
| quite outdated generalization) look very disapprovingly upon
| it.
| mellavora wrote:
| No, sorry. Study history.
|
| Weed was criminalized as a mechanism for white people to
| control black people, because weed was a Mexican and black
| person drug when those laws were enacted. It's all in the
| arguments in favor of the criminalization laws when they were
| passed.
|
| nothing to do with the Protestant Work Ethic.
|
| Sorry if the phrase "black person" is offensive, none is
| meant.
| mariusor wrote:
| Can you tell us how does your theory apply to the other
| countries of the globe where marijuana is illegal though?
| mason55 wrote:
| American hegemony.
| NickRandom wrote:
| Hmm. Perhaps we studied different histories?
|
| As far as I was aware, the criminalization of weed was
| related to hemp being a competitor to the wood/paper
| industry.
|
| https://greathemp.net/why-hemp-was-banned-in-1937/
| imtringued wrote:
| For me hemp has always been an incredibly valuable
| industrial crop. It is an amazing construction material.
| One hectare of hemp is enough to grow material for a
| single family home every year.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > "You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't
| make it illegal to be either against the war or black,
| but by getting the public to associate the hippies with
| marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing
| both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,"
| Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid
| their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them
| night after night on the evening news. Did we know we
| were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
|
| The war on drugs was purely designed to target hippies
| and people of color [1]. The sooner it is gone on all
| levels, the better.
|
| [1] https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-
| ehrlichman-...
| concinds wrote:
| Bullshit. That quote came from Baum in a 1994 interview
| of Ehrlichman. Baum was writing a book about the war on
| drugs, so why did the quote only come out in 2016? Why
| not put it in the book?
|
| > "because it did not fit the narrative style focused on
| putting the readers in the middle of the backroom
| discussions themselves, without input from the author."
|
| The worst lie I've ever heard. The quote is gold for a
| backroom discussion.
|
| Then Ehrlichman dies, and the quote comes out more than a
| decade later, when he can't dispute it; with zero
| corroboration except Baum, and no recording! (No
| recording for a book background interview of an
| influential US political actor?)
|
| The quote is reddit-catnip but only spreads because of
| low-integrity operators in the media. Golden rule: don't
| put words in people's mouths after they're dead.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| This is such an US centric take, on an article about
| Germany.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| I'm German. The complete ban on cannabis and the begin of
| the full blown war on all drugs and not just opiates in
| Germany came in 1971, three years after the mentioned
| events. We only have cultural hegemonism of the US to
| "thank" for that.
| lbotos wrote:
| I think you missed the point. Protestant work ethic does
| not want people "being lazy". In that era when workers were
| Black and Mexican and smoking, protestant work ethic is
| what is making white people in power want to stop people
| from having a little escape.
| imtringued wrote:
| The point of the protestant work ethic is about splitting
| society into lazy and hard working.
|
| Any sane person knows that people should decide how much
| division of labor they want for themselves.
| yc-kraln wrote:
| Coming a bit late to the party, but one aspect of this is that
| there is already massive usage of cannabis in Germany, and in
| many areas quite a significant amount is decriminalized.
|
| In recent years, however, crappy cannabis adulterated with
| synthetic cannaboids have become pervasive--they're inferior to
| the real stuff, addictive, and deeply connected with organized
| crime. Legalization will likely result in a safer supply for
| everyone, while also removing a huge money source for criminals.
| pimeys wrote:
| It's funny how different it is between regions here. In Berlin
| you smell it everywhere on the streets and in the bars. In
| Munich, if you're caught smoking, the police gets quite
| interested.
|
| It's obvious how it's going to be legal in Berlin, I'm just
| wondering how it's going to look like in other places of
| Germany...
| piffey wrote:
| Personally can't wait for the equivalent of Appellation d'origine
| controlee for weed. "It's not Champagne Double Cork Kush unless
| it comes from the Champagne region."
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellation_d%27origine_contr%...
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| British Columbia should get in on that and have BC Bud
| protected.
| mhrmsn wrote:
| This made my day - Merci beaucoup!
| newsclues wrote:
| Fighting over who owns genetics is already happening
| sk8terboi wrote:
| Shadonototra wrote:
| This is the worst idea ever
|
| The American lobby strikes again, they now control the whole
| industry and let their domestic market grow for years, they are
| ready to use EU as their market, yet again
|
| On top of making their population even more dumb
|
| What a sad and funest faith for Europe
| bmicraft wrote:
| You think Germany, a country that already grows weed for
| medical purposes, will start importing massive amounts of weed
| from outside the EU?
| Shadonototra wrote:
| EU used to make many things, it also used to have a strong
| telecom industry ;)
| aurizon wrote:
| Here in Canada a strange thing happened - all these weed shops
| openedu, wanting to see at $10/gram. They got some business but
| had rent, taxes, government added taxes etc - half went broke
| because the guvmint treated it like a cash cow and though the
| guvmint would replace the dealers and make big $$. about half
| people went to them, maybe less. The police stopped bothering
| with them. Huge grow ops started up on aboriginal lands and sell
| in aboriginal shops on their lands and many people went there as
| it was cheaper than the shops. Police had zero interest in
| stopping hundreds of people as they travelled as most cars
| held3-4 people buying 25 grams(legal max) = waste of time.
| dealers walked over land and bought carts full for
| $800-1000/pound (453 grams) just because the guvmint wanted a
| cash cow to milk - not seeing that fields full could be grown in
| the summer for $5-10 a pound. The program stumbles on. Marijuana
| IPO's are dying like flies in this downturn because the
| principals simply stole the IPO cash and walked away - now there
| are dozens of lawsuits of all types. I am a spectator = non
| smoker of anything!!
| ttul wrote:
| Another Canadian observer here. The roll out was botched in
| parts of the country because control over licensing was
| delegated to provinces and some did a better job than others.
| British Columbia's legalization effort has been a resounding
| success, in so far as there are a plentiful supply of well
| regulated, pleasant shops pretty much everywhere. And you can
| buy online easily from the government-owned store -- literally
| it's a Shopify site.
|
| I do not consume cannabis, but here in BC, it has never been
| difficult to obtain. The difference with legalization is that
| it's now just a non-issue. Not sketchy. Not dangerous. It's
| just part of the fabric of daily life.
|
| Governments like Germany should focus on maximizing access
| through private distribution much as is the case for alcohol
| and tobacco. Trying to control the retail end too much will
| result in a failure.
| diebeforei485 wrote:
| The concentrated stuff should require a prescription IMO. But
| there shouldn't be restrictions on edibles in the 5mg-10mg range.
| k__ wrote:
| Boohoo, I just found out I'm allergic to cannabis.
| DrBazza wrote:
| I look forward to the increase in smoking related diseases and
| cancers in the not too distant future.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)#Physical
| mhh__ wrote:
| And a decrease in alcohols huge burden on society?
| opabinia wrote:
| Should we criminalize chocolate bars and hamburgers as well
| then?
| [deleted]
| OscarDC wrote:
| The answer to the concern of potential health issue of
| cannabis legalization is almost always "what about [this
| other bad product with some common effects], should we forbid
| it too?"
|
| This argument always sounds like a fallacy to me, as we're
| talking about legalizing something that was previously not,
| not the other way around.
|
| I get that the argument might be seen as relativizing by
| providing examples of legal substances everybody agree today
| should be legal, but the way this answer (and others) is
| always presented sounds to me excessively aggressive and non-
| productive. If you want to make a point, please make it,
| don't just stop at this absurd proposition.
|
| ---
|
| Some people (I'm not even included in that group as I don't
| really care about this issue) seem very concerned about the
| global health implications of cannabis legalization.
|
| Instead of aggressively diminishing this opinion with
| whataboutisms, legalizing proponents motivated enough to
| answer to this person should IMO better take into
| consideration (and respect) this opinion.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| > Instead of aggressively diminishing this opinion with
| whataboutisms, legalizing proponents motivated enough to
| answer to this person should IMO better take into
| consideration (and respect) this opinion.
|
| Regarding the US: We already experimented with alcohol
| prohibition. It failed for the same reasons that marijuana
| prohibition failed. (I believe Europe did the same thing,
| but I'm less familiar with its history.)
|
| You're advocating for a "nanny state" law. These are
| difficult in democracies.
|
| In the US, we see debates about similar issues: Some people
| want to ban guns, some people want to ban abortion, some
| people want to ban bad drivers, some people want to require
| helmets for XXX.
|
| Nanny state laws only pass in the US when the politicians
| who pass them know they will get re-elected. (IE, the US
| has some areas with very restrictive alcohol laws, because
| the people in that area believe drinking is a sin.)
| samatman wrote:
| The fallacy is presuming, wrongly, that the legal status of
| a substance has any bearing on whether it should be legal.
|
| It's called assuming the consequent.
| elif wrote:
| For context, the proposed limit of 10 euro / gram taxation is the
| average total price in Amsterdam coffeeshops. So it would be an
| effective 100% tax rate. California taxes at 15% and still only
| manages about 60-70% control of the market.
|
| If their goal is regulation, I think they will need to chill a
| little on the taxes.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-01 23:01 UTC)