People get interested when costs are involved and they are waking up to the expenses of jails, helicopters, etc. and it’s about time. A lot of folks have been pointing this out for decades but that drug war message had a lot fooled, or scared.
Not sure where y'all are from but here is some info I found on NYS counties cost of jail housing. The numbers are staggering! I'm trying to dig up info on all states..... https://jlusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/FREEnewyork-ByTheNumbers_final.pdf
Strange how logical you are.. suppose members of Congress have yet to evolve to utilize their prefrontal cortex Sent from my Pixel 3a using Grasscity Forum mobile app
I don't know what studies and research were done before cannabis became such an issue during and just after the Vietnam War, but a lot of studies and research have been done since. Here we are, 50 years later and where have they gotten us? They still haven't come up with a definitive truth (good or bad)? When I think of scientific studies, I think of all the flip-flops that have occurred over those same fifty years -- coffee's bad for you, then it's good; beta carotene will improve eye sight, 20 years later, studies show it made no difference; chocolate's bad for you, now it's good; the earth is going to freeze into a big ice ball, now global warming's the problem; the list goes on... Those flip-flops are a clear indicator to me (that) anything they say will be reversed in some later study. Governments are waiting for them to decide if cannabis is safe? More later. P.S. I often hear congressmen and others say, "More studies need to be done..." Oh, brother! .
And eggs. I know that flip flop has been going for 30 years too. My fav is now that glass or 2 of wine is bad again. You are spot on and I think these things are driven by money, what else? @Didactylos, from what I’ve read, a lot of the anti pot bias started with politics and race.
I think -- rather, I know -- The problem has always been one of scientific access unfettered by government restrictions, yet in itself unencumbered with outcome bias. It has been very difficult for marijuana researchers to conduct any significant, double-blind, large pool studies of cannabis usage due to government restrictions/interference. That began to change when medical marijuana laws were passed, but I think until we got to the point of legalization for recreational use it was still very difficult to conduct studies free of bias. In fact, it's STILL a problem because those who back studies often (usually) have an ulterior motive: either to prove pot harmless or deadly, or to move the conversation in the direction they wish it to go. The bad news is it has taken forever to get here, but the good news is, it's really starting to happen now. In a way I think we're at a crossroads: weed is no longer the purview of potheads alone, but neither has it proven to be the panacea we all wished it could be for whatever ails us. Yet we are beginning to get a clearer understanding of what weed is good for, what it's not as good for, and we're also settling some of the questions surrounding the widespread empiric knowledge base which is full of anecdotes but shy of data. (Remember when people were convinced purple weed was more potent than green?) It's good when science can verify or debunk empiric maxims like, "You have to hang the plant upside down or all the THC will go into the roots," or "It is the amount of uninterrupted dark a plant gets that determines if it will flower; not how much light it gets!" One thing I learned about weed this week: it's possible to throw your back out when you're making rosin. lol Who knew?
Lol! Yes! All those "perfect foods"! I can't remember the exact order, but there was the egg, potato, milk... As soon as sales were exhausted on one, there was a new "perfect food". Yes - and the wine, that's a good one.
One govt study, going way back, is the LaGuardia report that didn’t come back the way the anti pot, reefer madness crowd wanted. Into the 50s and 60s when the counterculture crowd got hip to weed, that seems to be what it took for politicians to start the current drug war. Nixon declared it the most dangerous substance around (laughable) and Reagan echoed that and spent countless amounts of money to punish pot. I’m sure this brief summary could use some checking on but it’s just the rambling memories of a 50 yr old stoner who read a little over the years.
Ohhhh, I hope your back is better! ...MJ could help that. You made some very good points. I wanted, too, to make the points about "special interests" (swaying findings one way or the other). I am also concerned that government officials (congressmen and the like) need to find a way to invest in the cannabis business before they legalize it, to have their investments in place before the business skyrockets. I, often, wonder what they've got their money (investments) tied up in -- and how that effects passage, or not, of bills. (I have never know a candidate, or congressman, to disclose that info.) Cannabis should be legal; politicians should be outlawed.
Thanks for the memories! (I'm not going to do any fact-checking. Your memory's good enough for me.) The first I remember hearing about MJ was during the Vietnam war.
I'm not sure this has any relevance to our discussion, but it's a true story. I guess it goes to how funds are acquired for studies. In the early seventies, I lived at an apartment complex that rented out apartments to businesses and individuals for short term stays. I went out to the pool and a man flirted with me. I totally wasn't interested until he said he was there to meet with rep from a big pharmaceutical company that wanted a grant from the government for cancer research. He was the government's representative (staying at the complex) and the pharmaceutical rep was to meet him there (at the pool). The guy had just finished a drink and was going for another. He asked me if I wanted one. I didn't, but said yes, and he told me I was welcome to stay while he talked to the rep. It was 11:00 in the morning. The rep showed up with a hand-drawn diagram. The rep started at one end of the diagram and explained the steps of a potential cure. I was playing dumb blonde, but totally fascinated by his presentation. He got to a point on the diagram where the cure fell apart (dead end, didn't work), but he didn't say that. Instead, he said, "Well, it's hard to explain, so let me start here where the cancer's cured" [not the exact words, but close]. He moved his index finger to the other end of the diagram. The government rep started laughing and said he didn't understand any of it. And, oh, silly me! I pretended I didn't understand either! But, I did... and that pharmaceutical guy knew he didn't have anything worth supporting, but he also knew the government rep was half-soused and uninterested in understanding the terms involved. The G-rep said, "Oh, okay. You've got your grant!...." and, probably, another few words, but the meeting was over (in minutes). The P-rep was walking away (happy). The G-rep invited me to sit and talk, but I asked him if he wanted my drink (which I had only taken the tiniest sip from, so he'd think I was drinking). I said I had to go join my boyfriend, who was sitting across the pool. Of course, by then, I had my serious face on and using my natural ("grown-up") voice and he knew I had played him. I'm not a player (I don't "play" people, as a general rule), but I was curious -- here is a government rep, drinking at (and soused) at 11 a.m., meeting someone who was going to use very technical (medical) terms. I wanted to see how it'd play out, how my tax dollars were going to be spent. It was truly educational. Take from that what you will.
dudes, With me the bong is half empty. Members of the Kentucky house said medical Marijuana will not happen. So let's just face it. It's not going to happen. Watching debate in the KY house is like watching Reefer madness.
It’s depressing to watch these politicians fight the will of people so hard. Let’s hope that the upcoming elections gets rid of some, or all of them.
Kentucky is one of those states I'd only fly over, would never think about stepping foot there!.... Get out and get out fast!
We are now friends for life. In fact KY is leading the nation with people moving out of this hell hole.
Haha.....I'm looking into MA, MI, OK, CA.... MJ is my life and I can't be looking over my shoulder and going in and outta jail because of it... This will be my second stint, f'in rats!
That's interesting, but I've experienced the exact opposite from congresswoman Anna Eshoo. She showed up at a hearing in Inyo county concerning miners out near Death Valley that were being illegally run off their land by the BLM, which was using lots of dirty tricks. The guy who got me interested in the case was a miner who was taken off his land in handcuffs, taken to another county and committed to psychiatric observation against his will. The BLM officers bulldozed his trailer and shot his animals while he was held for observation (and released after three days because he was as sane as anyone else. He would have been out sooner but he was drugged for the first 18 hours, and it took him a while to find a lawyer.) Like me, Ms. Eshoo was there merely as a concerned citizen. Her bailiwick was about 300 miles north of there, but she took the time to come down and be heard, as did me and my wife. In the end, what came out was that the Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, had hatched a scheme to site a toxic waste dump near Death Valley and those wildcat prospectors with 99 year leases were in the way of his plans. When it hit the national news his plan fell apart. Anyway, my point is that back then, at least, Ms. Eshoo was a conscientious and involved politician who paid careful attention to more than just her own people and her own district. I guess I'd say that no matter what the field is, there's a few superstars, a LOT of people who are competent but nothing special, and a few bad eggs. Added in edit: I should probably note that Anna Eshoo isn't my congresswoman, never has been, and I've never voted for her or anything like that. She's just someone I met once.