Leaderboard

Theoretically... Would likely lack the Supermajority needed for Conviction in the Senate though.

Yes, regulation. But cars are not banned, lest we crash them; working in scaffolding and towers are not banned, lest we fall off, and fireplaces and stoves are not banned, lest we burn our homes down. And we do all those things: drive carelessly, build and work carelessly, heat and cook carelessly. Accidents do happen, because nobody can force us to be sensible. Government can only try to minimize the damage we do to ourselves. And that's all legalization of drugs is meant to accomplish: make regulation possible; re-allocate the money from the futile attempt at prevention of the cause to mitigation of the effects.

Because prohibition doesn't work, they have the option of whatever drug they want; the only difference between legal and illegal is, prison rather than a hospital; I know which I'd prefer my loved ones end up in, after they make a mistake. I'm not sure why you'd object to me being stoned in the privacy of my home.

Still working my way through the thread so sorry if I am repeating things that others have already mentioned. A couple of things related to that. Ranking intrinsic risks of a given drug is tricky as quite a few things can change the risk assessment. For example, if heroin is pure and consumed under supervision certain risks are minimized (e.g. sharing of dirty needles, fentanyl associated overdose risks and so on). Other personal risks are also associated with likelihood of addiction. Those are fairly high for opiates, but also nicotine (though the former happens faster), while cannabis is quite a bit lower on that scale (takes longer and habit formation is not quite as strong). Addicts to tobacco, tend to smoke quite a bit more to satisfy their addiction, compared to cannabis users. So if we talk about cannabis, the effects and risks are somewhat distinct from tobacco. The most common effects we see shared are likely due to combustion of the wrappers. While we still need more study, the association with cancer appears to be weaker compared to tobacco and long-term use was associated with different biomolecular markers of cardiovascular health than tobacco use. It is not quite clear what long-term effects are, but at least preliminary data shows a seemingly lower risk (or at least no higher than tobacco). While nicotine overdose is (AFAIK) a rare event, cannabis overdoses can happen, usually via edibles or oils. However, alcohol overdose is also fairly frequent and is generally more harmful (as in it can end up being deadly if not treated). In many ways comparison of cannabis and alcohol also makes sense, as part of the risk is impairment and of course the former is legal. With regard to the impact of legalization, which has been brought up a couple of times, I like to refer to Statscan data showing that two years into legal weed, the number of folks indicating to have consumed cannabis at least once in the past three months of a the survey increased slightly, from 14.9% before to 16.8 % in 2019, which remained unchanged in 2020. The number of folks with daily or almost daily used remained unchanged before and after legalization. Likewise, the rate of folks driving within two hours of smoking remained unchanged. In other words, the free availability of cannabis has not resulted in dramatic increases in its use within the population. For issues mentioned above and the fact that an alcoholic might be at different risks than a heroin addict. Alcohol is legal and you can get pure product easily, for example and treatment might be easier to come by. The other issue is that one can only calculate changes in life expectancy (or e.g. years lost) in a population by looking at reduction from the control cohort, but this could be skewed by the number of alcohol vs heroin use. From that perspective, I find the way of ranking by experts in the paper referenced earlier in the thread quite compelling. While clearly they will be biased a bit based on the available expertise, it is probably the closest to a comprehensive comparison we can get, given the many confounding factors.

Concerning cannabis addiction: Note the paper says it relates to persons with ten years of continuous use. If you do anything for ten years everyday, you will be very likely automatically compelled to perform that action. Personal commitment and guided behavioural modification can alter that compulsive routine people call 'addiction'. Not by any stretch of the imagination does cannabis dig as deep a hole physically and mentally as alcohol. Concerning the "increasing potency" of modern cannabis strains: In terms of effects, increasing Delta-9 THC content on its own doesn't necessarily correlate with greater intoxication. It's actually down to several compounds acting synergistically to modulate its effects. You can get 10% THC strains that are much stronger in effect than one measured at 30% simply because the latter lacks or has less of the synergistic components of the former. Its just a way for breeders and sellers to relieve people of more money.... those numbers matter commercially and for some consumers it's a rainbow to chase. The % of THC does not correlate in experienced potency like the ABV of alcohol does.

Anything's better than being a Boltzmann Brain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

Is it okay to confess to the forbidden love between a man and chocolate-coated cashews in an almond forum? The spouse recently brought home a bag of them, and I was forcibly struck by two things: One, they were salted, underneath the dark chocolate coating, giving a simultaneous jolt of sweetness and saltiness that propagated through my body in what I can only describe as a mouthgasm. (perhaps some are wondering, was that really my only choice of nomenclature? I can only say, sometimes language must evolve and grow...) I have forgotten what the second thing was. Just as well, maybe. Here is a sculpture of Greg Almond. Or not precisely sculpture, but certainly within the boundaries of almond-based art...

That's a good theory. We tried it, in several areas we thought our kids might need guidance. Come 13, they tend to shut down: don't want to be seen with you in public, don't want you to know how they feel, don't eat what you pack in their lunch, don't ask you any questions, slam doors if you ask any. You retaliate with various stratagems that seem clever at the time and that make you cringe in retrospect. In between skirmishes, you can have hilarious family dinners and pleasant evenings of entertainment or homework mentoring, then hostilities resume. The best-laid plans of mice and parents oft go up the generation gap.

One question you should be asking yourselves. And we won't even consider abusers, but if you have a son or daughter, how happy would you be if he/she had the occasional alcoholic drink, or burned an occasional joint, or did an occasional line of coke, occasionally smoking crack or crystal meth, or even injecting heroin every once in a while. Does the idea of your son/daughter doing some of the above, stress you out a hell of a lot more than the first two ? And, if you found your son/daughter with a needle stuck in their arm, would you say that it was all-right since prohibition wasn't working anyway ? If it does, ask yourself "why ?", and then apply the resulting answer to the question of making it legal for everyone's son and daughter. Call up from the basement, Dim, and ask your mom if she's happy with you making the house smell 'skunky' all day and night. ( yes, that was a dig )

It helps the people who are forced into slavery by the criminal's created by the prohibition. It helps the police because: 1/ They can focus on real crime. 2/ They spend less, time and money, chasing a stoner that's just happy to be alone, or not, whatever... 3/ There's less crminals to chase. It helps me, because the money they raise on the tax, a stoner is more than willing to pay; and the money our society would save, raises my standard of living. It's such an obvious win win, one has to wonder, who's dragging their feet?

So it's OK because it's a necessity, pleasurable, and we've been doing it a long time? https://substanceabusepolicy.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13011-021-00394-7 Just making them illegal hasn't worked, same as with alcohol. Focusing on treating the addictions seems to bring better results.

This discussion, seems to show why the elderly shouldn't be allowed to vote; it's not their future...

I said as sure "as any parent can be" Perhaps you need to address the author of the article. This discussion also seems to have shown that when one crosses a certain "political line" or have themselves shown weakness in dabbling in illegal drugs, that it will draw their wrath and a hoarde of neg votes. That's sad, and a poor refelction on some. Thankfully the general moral standards of my society, will never see the ignorant banning of alcohol, nor the legitimising of any other drug already on the illegal list, for the reasons given. Yet sadly again, the majority of five or so articles I posted remain unaddressed. I see you got a like rep for that discriminatory comment. Sort of supports what I have said previously about some members here and crossing a certain political line. While at the age of 77 I may be classed as elderly, at least thankfully I am there and thankfully health wise should be around for a while yet. You have yet to get there.

You keep saying that, and as yet are unable to show any real evidence supporting banning alcohol or anything invalidating the myth of karma! 🤣 But par for the course for you. You offered an opnion, that's all. Thankfully the general moral standards of my society, will never see the ignorant banning of alcohol, nor the legitimising of any other drug already on the illegal list, for the reasons given. Sort of supports at least one of the reasons I presented a while back......"In reality I'n not really interested with any political agenda, and that appears to be the only aspect people taking part in this thread are pushing...that and of course the line one would expect those that do or have partaken in illegal drugs to take, in a kind of self defence case mechanism". But thankfully, you seemed to have emerged from such rebellion against authority. I congratulate you on that score, but suggest perhaps you are just one of the lucky ones. As I have said before, I never ever had any desire, inkling or move to try anything other then what was legal, and I was far from being an angel. My old man told me he would buy me a shandy when I turned 18. I had already been drinking for more then 12 months...Mum knew that but kept it from the old man. I encouraged my own Son to drink, and at the same time informed him of the dangers and unpleasentness of over indulging. Like me, he has occasionally over indulged on special occasions, but also like me, never let that over indulgment affect others. Thankfully, and I say it again, thankfully, he has also like me, never seen the need to indulge in any other illegal drug taking. I'm as sure of that as any parent can be. It was something always worrying the Mrs about our own Son, and the potential to go out and experiemnt. Many times I needed to comfort her and explain that I was reasonably sure he was and would remain clean. As usual, another wise question/post, without fear nor favour from political ideologies or simply supporting some self defence mechanism. THANKS.