In "honour" of 420 day a marijuana poll

[PDH]

The stuff now does seem stronger, but then most of what I partook in back in the day was grown in closets of dorm rooms with less than precise techniques...or it was South Dakota Ditch Weed.

[Admiral Yi]

My stoner buddy talks about growing up smoking "brick."  Mexican weed, leaves and stems and stems and all, shmooshed into a brick.  He said it took some work to get high off it.

[grumbler]

Marijuana is not a serious political issue in Hong Kong.  It is treated on par with any other drug like heroin.  You don't want to be caught with marijuana in Hong Kong. 

I hear China actually has a Goddess of Cannabis named Magu. That sounds like a religion that would really take off among certain populations in this country.

Why is Hong Kong so against freedom of religion I blame the British Imperialists  

Thugs are against freedom of religion just like they are against any other kinds of freedoms (except for themselves).

[merithyn]

i've been told, but don't have much of a reference point, that pots gotten much stronger.

It is. At least in my experience. Like PDH, I used to use Iowa Ditch Weed in college, which was pretty mild compared to what you can get today in a dispensary.

[viper37]

Most people I know have no difficulty having a few beers or glasses of wine in the backyard, with their kids playing right there. The very same people will say they don't want to smoke in front of the kids, because they don't want their kids to see them stoned.

When you smoke, your kids smoke with you.

Yet as you know, alcohol makes the average person behave far worse that pot does. So why not express the same reluctance to have the kids see them drunk?

Right.  First off, that is totally false.  Secundo, you do know that people drink socially, right?  I mean without excess, just to enjoy the taste.  Contrary to pot users who want to get high as fast as possible.
Tertio, the majority of stoners are that, stoners.  The majority of alcohol consumers aren't alcoholics.

I think the difference is that there is still simply a greater cultural acceptance of casual drinking. It isn't seen as 'drug taking'.

And it ain't, in small quantity.  But not many parents will drink to excess in front of their kids, or in front of kids.  I've been drunk many times (the goold ol' times ), but never in front of kids.  While I drink at family gatherings, it's never to excess.  And most people are just like that.  And I certainly don't pass out from excessive drinking if I need to watch over children, even teens.

[merithyn]

Most people I know have no difficulty having a few beers or glasses of wine in the backyard, with their kids playing right there. The very same people will say they don't want to smoke in front of the kids, because they don't want their kids to see them stoned.

When you smoke, your kids smoke with you.

No more than my kids (as children) were allowed to drink with me.

Yet as you know, alcohol makes the average person behave far worse that pot does. So why not express the same reluctance to have the kids see them drunk?

Right.  First off, that is totally false.  Secundo, you do know that people drink socially, right?  I mean without excess, just to enjoy the taste.  Contrary to pot users who want to get high as fast as possible.
Tertio, the majority of stoners are that, stoners.  The majority of alcohol consumers aren't alcoholics.

That is not at all true. I know plenty of casual weed users. I'm one of them. I might have half a gummy once a month, if that.

I think the difference is that there is still simply a greater cultural acceptance of casual drinking. It isn't seen as 'drug taking'.

And it ain't, in small quantity.  But not many parents will drink to excess in front of their kids, or in front of kids.  I've been drunk many times (the goold ol' times ), but never in front of kids.  While I drink at family gatherings, it's never to excess.  And most people are just like that.  And I certainly don't pass out from excessive drinking if I need to watch over children, even teens.

You've bought into the whole "drugs are evil" message from the 80s, and it shows. Marijuana is no worse than alcohol and far better for you than cigarettes. It does, however, have a stigma which you've accepted as fact. Malthus is right. The only reason it's a big deal when parents smoke pot in front of their kids is because the war on drugs has made it a big deal. My children's generation will be completely lost on why this is a big deal today.

[viper37]

No more than my kids (as children) were allowed to drink with me.

If they are in the house, worst in the same room, they will inhale your smoke.  Not so with a drink.

That is not at all true. I know plenty of casual weed users. I'm one of them. I might have half a gummy once a month, if that.

I don't even know what's a gummy

Fine, they may exist.  They may even be more numerous thank pink unicorns.   But they still aren't the majority.

Marijuana is no worse than alcohol and far better for you than cigarettes.

For the lungs, it's slightly better than tobacco.  For the brain, it's worst.

It does, however, have a stigma which you've accepted as fact.

Personal experience + scientific studies.

Malthus is right.

Malthus has used to much of the stuff over the years, he can't be trusted to be impartial

[Admiral Yi]

A gummy is a soft candy with weed in it.

Maybe you've seen Gummy Bear candies?

[Malthus]

when you smoke, your kids smoke with you.

Responsible smokers don't smoke up their kids, either on purpose or second hand. So no.

Right.  First off, that is totally false.

You are probably wrong. Alcohol is worse for people in every way:

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/alcohol-marijuana-which-worse-health-2017-11%3famp

In terms of behaviour, there is no comparison - alcohol is widely associated with violence, as it lowers inhibitions against violent behaviour. Pot is not associated with increased violence.

  Secundo, you do know that people drink socially, right?  I mean without excess, just to enjoy the taste.  Contrary to pot users who want to get high as fast as possible.
Tertio, the majority of stoners are that, stoners.  The majority of alcohol consumers aren't alcoholics.

People certainly smoke socially, not just to get totally wasted. Basing your stereotype of smokers on teens who binge smoke makes exactly as much sense as basing your stereotype of drinkers on teens who binge drink. Neither is the only way the drug is consumed.

Last time I smoked pot was last summer. I was at a friend's summer cabin. Our wives and kids were up at the cabin, we were down at the lake poking sticks into a fire at night, and we had a joint. We later went up to the cabin and played bridge.

And it ain't, in small quantity.  But not many parents will drink to excess in front of their kids, or in front of kids.  I've been drunk many times (the goold ol' times ), but never in front of kids.  While I drink at family gatherings, it's never to excess.  And most people are just like that.  And I certainly don't pass out from excessive drinking if I need to watch over children, even teens.

Yes, and responsible pot smokers are - get this - exactly the same: they don't get completely stoned when the kids are around, no matter what they may have done in their wild youth. Is that so surprising?

The difference is that booze is a lot worse, on average - more addictive, more associated with family violence and a leading cause of death. The "on average" is the important part, obviously it is easily possible to be a responsible drinker.

If the stigma about drugs were based on rational fact, the stigma would be a hell of a lot worse for drinking than pot smoking - but of course it isn't.

[Josquius]

Even the biggest pot heads I know are fully capable of going most of the week without lighting up. I've only ever know one guy who seemed to have a genuine addiction that was messing with his life.
Alcohol on the other hand... Go to any bar in the land and you'll find problem alcoholics. I've known a bunch of people with alcoholism.
And this goes beyond anecdotes. On a scientific level and in terms of hard numbers alcohol is far more addictive.
The science just isn't there for cannabis being worse than alcohol.

[Duque de Bragança]

In Anglo lands, alcohol is seen both as way more dangerous than in wine countries (Prohibition...), where wine drunk in reasonable quantity (25cl for a man for instance) is part of the meal. Binge drinking is now becoming common, but not so much with wine, more with cheap, strong beer, drunk in great quantities, say 8.6% (but not Trappist triple beers for some reason) or cheap liquor, the real problem.
Of course, more often than not, it's not XO cognac that is problematic, old grand-bourgeois notwithstanding (your kilométrage may vary though).

So you can spin pot as being not so dangerous. Pot driving or drunk driving gets the same result however.
Plus there is the whole tasting aspect of wine, beer or even liquor which is completely absent of pot, where the only thing that counts is the effect, not the taste. So not really comparable.

In Portugal, drug taking is depenalised for Portuguese citizens, sorry foreigners.
France, in theory criminalises pot smoking but the law is not really enforced. Macron suggested giving tickets instead of the theoretical misdemeanor.

As for me, smoking pot would have meant dealing with pot dealer scum sooner or later, so it was never really palatable. Not to mention the product is often cut with God/Allah knows what.
Some legalization as in Uruguay or the Portuguese approach would be fine.

PS: potheads I knew could not pass a single day without a joint, starting when they get up. In comparison, having a glass of beer or wine at breakfast, puts you firmly in alcoholic territory (trembling hand etc.).

[viper37]

Responsible smokers don't smoke up their kids, either on purpose or second hand. So no.

Sure.And if everyone was responsible, there wouldn't even be a pandemic right now
It's like saying we don't need gun control at all because responsible gun owners keep it under lock&key and don't go out on a shooting spree.

In terms of behaviour, there is no comparison - alcohol is widely associated with violence, as it lowers inhibitions against violent behaviour. Pot is not associated with increased violence.

Only works for alcoholics.

People certainly smoke socially, not just to get totally wasted. Basing your stereotype of smokers on teens who binge smoke makes exactly as much sense as basing your stereotype of drinkers on teens who binge drink. Neither is the only way the drug is consumed.

color me skeptical.

Last time I smoked pot was last summer. I was at a friend's summer cabin. Our wives and kids were up at the cabin, we were down at the lake poking sticks into a fire at night, and we had a joint. We later went up to the cabin and played bridge.

no sane individual under 70 would play bridge, so you made my point

Yes, and responsible pot smokers are - get this - exactly the same: they don't get completely stoned when the kids are around, no matter what they may have done in their wild youth. Is that so surprising?

Yes, it is.

The difference is that booze is a lot worse, on average - more addictive, more associated with family violence and a leading cause of death. The "on average" is the important part, obviously it is easily possible to be a responsible drinker.

If the stigma about drugs were based on rational fact, the stigma would be a hell of a lot worse for drinking than pot smoking - but of course it isn't.

Marijuana was barely studied, due to its illegalness.  As the product is more&more strudied, we see the adverse effects it has on brain development of teens, and the adverse effect on overall memory on adults.
It may be less adverse than smoking tobacco for your lungs, because you generally smoke less of it, but it is still linked with an increase in lung cancer.

[grumbler]

The idea that marijuana has not been extensively studied because it is illegal is false, just as that sentiment is false for recreational opioids, cocaine, etc.  It has been extensively studied.  Its effects are not completely known, because THC is a complex molecule with a complex impact on humans (and marijuana has a host of other canniboids in lesser amounts).

Studies have shown it to be less harmful than almost any other harmful drug, but it is still harmful.  It can be addictive, it can lead to reduced verbal skills when regularly imbibed during development, and its effects on any given person are hard to predict.  Two of its more harmful aspects are that (1) it isn't well-regulated in terms of quality and effect (much  worse where illegal, of course) and (2) the average person has little knowledge of its actual effects on things like driving, or dosage relevance, etc. (also clearly worse where illegal).

While certainly it is true that alcohol is a more harmful substance, the fact that alcohol is worse doesn't eliminate the dangers of marijuana.  I favor marijuana legalization not because I think that marijuana is a delightful substance that everyone should at least be allowed to try, or because I think it will make research easier, but because legalization will bring it out of the shadows and make it possible for people to find accurate information on its pros and cons, and allow the states to regulate its production and distribution.  The only argument against legalization that I really see as honest is the one that says that vices are evil - and my response t that is that people who argue that should abstain, and let others choose to abstain or not.

[saskganesh]

Its legal and I smoke lots of marijuana

[Malthus]

Anecdotally, the main dangers of pot are that smoking anything is bad for your lungs, and that in my experience excessive use can lead to a sort of dullness of behaviour - heavy potheads tend to get stuck in a rut, not wanting to try anything new. I know the that it is alleged to be associated with some increase in mental problems in people prone to them, as well. Another danger is that potheads often don't think they are impaired, which is bad for driving etc.

All recreational drugs have risks, particularly with immoderate use. My point is that the actual risks were not historically reflected in legislation, which was based much more on cultural preferences. Assuming that the more harm a drug does, the more regulation it ought to attract, pot should be at the low end of the regulatory spectrum, and alcohol at the high end - but of course that would prove very unpopular with voters, who are attached to the use of alcohol. Prohibition was a notorious failure, after all (almost as much as the 'war on drugs').