Congress just voted to legalize hemp
vox.com
vox.com
We're at a point where we can allow industries who have been silently increasing lobbying support for hemp legalization to begin to take advantage of its industrial applications while maintaining our system of slavery and socioeconomic subjugation.
Do you have a source for this? I would like to investigate this angle further.
This is an exciting time for discovery.
Tree hugger me keeps hoping bamboo and hemp sourced fibers displace most wood and plastic for most of modern society's short-lived tasks. Packaging, paper, hygiene, etc.
Might have been here that I heard this: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-bad-environmentalism-is-...
Unfortunately, some of the links out from there on the topic now appear broken.
http://www.ecoplanetbamboo.com
It's been a long time since then and people can change but I am not very optimistic for now.
I highly recommend the book Legalize This!: The Case for Decriminalizing Drugs (Practical Ethics Series) by Doug Husak
https://www.amazon.com/Legalize-This-Decriminalizing-Practic...
Monopolization of the healthcare system and drug criminalization are two sides of the same coin. With headlines about opioid abuse epidemics, and looking back at how ridiculous the war on drugs is, and how ridiculous it is to have cannabis as a Class I substance, it's difficult to argue that the medical system is somehow functioning well when it comes to drug regulation.
Take acyclovir, which is an important antiviral medication. Research has shown that it's safe for over the counter use, which review panels have acknowledged, but those panels have still recommended against OTR availability because they're afraid of "setting a precedent" with regard to OTR availability.
Drug regulation really has not increased safety at all; it only increases the power of monopolies, legal or illegal.
That being said, clearly the current system has flaws. Perhaps the FDA could alter their requirements for sale to approximate "does not cause harm", with additional classes for "provides more benefit than harm", etc. The problem is, how do you get drug companies to pay for effectiveness studies if they don't have to? This would actually disincentivize such studies.
I think the real issue with FDA regulations are monopolism related more than approval - not that they haven't made the occasional boneheaded move like being reluctant to approve superior sunscreens.
Allowing reimportarion and government bulk purchase negotiations would cut margins and offer good safeguards against monopoly exploitation since if it is cheaper to ship something circularly you are getting ripped off.
I'm reminded of a Vox analysis of McConnell behavior[1]:
“The cardinal rule of McConnell is he will do anything to acquire more power, or to achieve an outcome he thinks achieves his political interest,” says Adam Jentleson, a former aide to ex-Democratic leader Harry Reid.
“I don’t think he’s a conservative; I think he’s a transactionalist. I think he wants to keep the title of majority leader,” says Jason Pye of the conservative activist group Freedomworks. “His vested interest is taking power.”
[1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/17/15970034/m...
Your article is not about how he's corrupt, it's how he can whip votes and control the senate.
He's majority whip, it's his jobs to get votes, most of the time you have to make deals.
As long as its treated differently in its own licensing regime and establishments I think some form of education should accompany it, for consumers. Given generations of bad information.
Its come up with others here in California, the THC products are REALLY strong and offputting for us casuals. The hybrids have potential
Only recently have I started seeing products in dispensaries with cannabinoid/terpenoid profiles to give a more accurate picture of the effects, I think we’re going to start seeing more products that are essentially blends of pure THC/CBD/CBN/CBG/etc + specific terpenes to make very effective targeted medicines.
"THC/CBD/CBN/CBG/etc + specific terpenes"
what?
what would be a good place to have a primer about this, what is the public's understanding of this currently, especially in recreational legalized areas
how do we get to more holistic and broader knowledge for consumers. I agree that locking people up and taking their children isn't a productive use of the state in response to marijuana, and I can perceive this blanket legalization needs some fine tuning primarily with consumer education, something more akin to what you might see from a consumptive drug in the federal regulatory framework.
A blend good for sleep might have a good amount of THC and CBN (and maybe some CBD) plus the mycrene and beta-caryophyllene terpenes (associated with the more sedating strains).
Indica/sativa don’t really mean anything, strains are mostly just variations of terpenes.
Why not just smoke a sufficiently small particle then?
Besides, it's leaving out a lot to say that today's weed is so strong and more so than what hippies had in the 70s. Surely cannabis strains were bred and cultivated back in the day and people with access did get the good stuff as opposed to some seedy mexican brick weed with stems and leaves in it?
If the stuff now is 20% thc and the garbage in the 70s you remember having was 5% just smoke a quarter instead, no big deal. Scales are not illegal nor expensive.
And if you desire a better THC:CBD ratio you only have to choose better, thanks to a regulated market.
No, it was universally worse, because those strains hadn't been bred yet. What you're doing is like assuming that some people in the 60s got to use the "good" computers.
If you just sow a field full of random seeds and just forget about them until harvest instead of maintaining them, removing the males, etc your quality will be worse.
The fearmongering that it's different "now" tends to ignore this.
Any regulated shop is going to have clerks ambiguously asking you your tolerance level, as if we were all running around getting high for the last 20 years with illegal and consistent reliable sources - like they did.
Then they bombard you with edibles and all kinda of concoctions, most of which are impossible to have an even distribution of THC in them. Smoking being the lowest common denominator on this menu.
This is what consumers are experiencing for now, and it can improve.
If the question is that ambiguous, then your answer is simply "no tolerance."
Takes an hour to hit you but that's not always a bad thing, and doesn't jack with my lungs.
In most of Europe cannabis is illegal but you can get hemp-infused drinks and food (though I personally don't care much for the taste), even energy drinks. Not to mention hemp-based textiles.
In Germany growing hemp is illegal for private individuals but commercial growers can cultivate it if they exceed a certain minimum plantation size. Sadly growing it for scientific use (rather than sourcing it from a large-scale grower) also requires official permission.