New Jersey passes Medical Marijuana bill

[Gustave5436]

Well I made some points in the "Drug War destroys society" thread - but I'm not in favor of using it recreationally as it wrecks minds.

So does caffeine (in the sense that caffeine is also psychologically addictive), but no one seems to care about someone having a cup of coffee every morning.

 

[Shekwan]

I'd say he was refering to the extremely marginal chance that cannabis use brings about psychosis. It becomes even less likely when its use is limited to those older than 18, which should be a given anyways.

 

[Holycannoli]

My brother qualifies for medical marijuana, but he's a CO so there's big questions.

It's just a matter of time before marijuana is legalized to the point that alcohol is. In my opinion alcohol is much more dangerous, physically and psychologically. I do not use nor have I ever tried marijuana, but I know I've never seen anyone high on it who wasn't mellow and happy. Same can't be said for alcohol!

My guess is that it will take at least one more generation. The oldtimers in Washington and the various state capitols are part of the generation when marijuana was demonized, and the younger generations have an almost opposite view of it. As the younger generations assume more and more power, we will see increasing legalization. Marijuana isn't cocaine or heroine, and while I don't think you should be able to smoke it in any old public place (just like you can't just drink in a park or on the street corner), I think it would be OK to regulate it and designate certain public places for it's consumption, much like a bar.

We'll see. It's gonna take time.

 

[Quackers]

Ehh...nope.

I'm interested to see how this will play out in NJ. The MMJ law they signed in strictly forbids patients growing their own medicine and they can only have 1.5 ounces for 30 days. Pretty strict stuff.

Good to see another state showing some common sense though!

Maybe not 100% of the time but if you smoke enough you get messed up. The politicians who smoked weed in the 60s were smoking a less viral strain than the potent "skunk" of today so they think its ok but the drug is a lot harder now.

So does caffeine (in the sense that caffeine is also psychologically addictive), but no one seems to care about someone having a cup of coffee every morning.

I'd say he was refering to the extremely marginal chance that cannabis use brings about psychosis. It becomes even less likely when its use is limited to those older than 18, which should be a given anyways.

 

[CaptainF]

Maybe not 100% of the time but if you smoke enough you get messed up. The politicians who smoked weed in the 60s were smoking a less viral strain than the potent "skunk" of today so they think its ok but the drug is a lot harder now.

Super potent weed has always been around. The stuff around today isn't any more potent than the stuff you could find yesterday.

I know people who started smoking as teenagers who are now in their late 40's or 50's making six-figure incomes.

So, no. It doesn't "mess you up".

 

[Quackers]

"Maybe not 100% of the time" is the key phase there - I ensured I didn't make a blanket statement. How many people could of been earning 6 figures but are not because of this smoking? You can't measure it.

 

[CaptainF]

"Maybe not 100% of the time" is the key phase there - I ensured I didn't make a blanket statement. How many people could of been earning 6 figures but are not because of this smoking? You can't measure it.

Cannabis is a pretty much totally benign drug that doesn't kill braincells or anything of the sort. Science confirms this.

I'll side with you partially and say that no, you shouldn't be smoking weed if you're under 18. Your brain is still developing after all.

But cannabis by itself doesn't cause people to get "messed up". Some people fit the lazy, burntout stoner stereotype but that's because they were lazy burnouts before they became stoners.

 

[Ulyaoth]

I'm all for legalizing it and taxing it to hell.

 

[CaptainF]

I'm all for legalizing it and taxing it to hell.

As long as I can grow my own, I agree with you.

 

[Ulyaoth]

sure why not, I don't see why the government should be able to say what you can and can't grow.

 

[Formaldehyde]

"Maybe not 100% of the time" is the key phase there - I ensured I didn't make a blanket statement. How many people could of been earning 6 figures but are not because of this smoking? You can't measure it.

That is an interesting hypothetical, but I bet it is basically the same number for the most part. There are many very successful people who make 6-figure incomes and who smoke pot on a frequent basis. You seem to have this stereotypical impression that all pot smokers are worthless stoners.

What you apparently think are facts are actually well-known myths largely perpetuated by those who want to continue to make it a crime while allowing you to use far more dangerous and toxic recreational drugs instead. Here is one such example:

Myth: Marijuana Is More Potent Today Than In The Past. Adults who used marijuana in the 1960s and 1970s fail to realize that when today's youth use marijuana they are using a much more dangerous drug.

Fact: When today's youth use marijuana, they are using the same drug used by youth in the 1960s and 1970s. A small number of low-THC samples seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration are used to calculate a dramatic increase in potency. However, these samples were not representative of the marijuana generally available to users during this era. Potency data from the early 1980s to the present are more reliable, and they show no increase in the average THC content of marijuana. Even if marijuana potency were to increase, it would not necessarily make the drug more dangerous. Marijuana that varies quite substantially in potency produces similar psychoactive effects.