This same thing happened in Washington. Colorado on the other hand decided to transfer all medical outlets into retail stores which seemed to work much better.
Every time I come to this thread, I feel for you Plebs. 
Seriously, any new state that legalizes it, I feel your are a chef/confectioners/pastry chef, you should get in on that business.
Edibles, while it takes 40~ mins to hit, is so much better than smoking.
Yes Scott we know you are a fun sponge.
Because the study was based on hospital discharge records, the findings may not be reflective of the general population. The study was also limited by the researchers’ inability to account for quantity or frequency of marijuana use, purpose of use (recreational or medical), or delivery mechanism (smoking or ingestion).
2 Likes
Oh don’t worry Ro, the Trump administration will soon crush your fledgely industry :-p
Like they did the ACA?
Also states rights is pretty huge with the Libertarians,
so I doubt anything would happen if they tried.
Like something seriously bad has to happen because of legalized cannibis for the GOP to piggy back on to make a campaign against it.
Um… they looked at hospital records for people who were already in the hospital? This was NOT a “study” in the sense of conducting experiments with controls. It was a “study” in the sense of looking at medical reports of people who were ALREADY IN THE HOSPITAL. And it doesn’t account for what PERCENT of people who used MJ even ended up with symptoms, or whether the MJ use was causing the cardiovascular issues or if the people were, hey crazy thought, using the MJ BECAUSE of the symptoms.
In short, this article talks about an aggregation of information that doesn’t actually let us reasonably draw any conclusions.
Nice find, Scott.
8 Likes
There are some very severe risks to marijuana use. It messes with serotonin receptors and increases vulnerability to psychosis. But the legitimacy of those concerns tends to get pushed aside because articles like this ruin credibility of the concerns as a whole.
It’s EXTREMELY easy to crack down on MJ. They don’t even have to pass any laws, they literally can use Federal law to supersede the State’s laws that are already in place. I’m actually surprised it hasn’t come down yet but I figure the justice department is in disarray still.
1 Like
The last appropriations bill had an amendment that prohibited DoJ from funding marijuana raids in states that had legalized it on the State level. It may become very easy to crack down on it soon, but it’s not currently.
There are some very severe risks to alcohol and cigarette use too.
Let’s call it what it is. It is NOT illegal because people are concerned about your health. It is illegal because (1) alcohol and tobacco lobbies don’t want competition, and (b) it’s an easy way to lock up black people to keep them poor and get them to do free labor without actually calling it slavery.
I’ve never used an illegal drug in my fucking life, and yes, I am pissed about this ridiculous double standard for weed vs. the “legal vices.” Stupid laws are stupid whether they hurt me personally or not.
7 Likes
In general I’m way more worried about alcohol abuse than marijuana, but the thread isn’t about that.
It’s disingenuous to have a conversation about the potential risks of MJ without also comparing the risk level of things that are currently legal. Driving my van on the highway is pretty risky, statistically speaking, but I choose to do it anyway because it gives me a much better quality of life than staying in my house all the time. Heart surgery is risky, but sometimes the risks of not having that surgery are worse, so a person chooses to risk it.
Adults make choices about risks all the time, so it is important to put the risks of any particular choice in context. Saying this thread isn’t “about that” is silly when you are talking about a comparison. Yeah, it’s probably not the place to go off on a tear about the dangers of alcohol on its own, but when comparing the risks of one to the other it’s relevant.
4 Likes
Only in the context of whether it should be legalized or not, which is not the context I meant to put my statement under.
This is a statement that there are “very severe” risks with no context as to the likelihood of the risks or comparison to other things people do/use frequently. I DGAF if the conversation is about legalization or not. You made an assertion. Put it in context or accept that standing alone, it means nothing.
FWIW, most of the literature on the topic of that particular “risk” implies no evidence of causation. The same correlation applies to alcohol, cigarettes, many prescription drugs, and even simple severe emotional distress. The primary factors for psychosis remain genetic in most cases.
Not only is cannabis not specifically implicated, but no statistically significant correlation has been identified above or beyond much more common and legal substances. Calling out “risk of psychosis” for cannabis would be like calling out “risk of psychosis” for hiking (due to the associated risk of Lyme disease, which itself is implicated in psychosis).
From one long term study:
“Cannabis use has increased dramatically over the past few decades whereas the rate of psychosis has not increased.”
4 Likes