Hacker News Reader

Comment by hprotagonist | Hacker News Reader

The national academy has a very nice writeup on "The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids: The Current State of Evidence and Recommendations for Research (2017)" which is by far the most comprehensive guide I'm aware of.

http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/reports/2017/health-effects...

The conclusions summary PDF has the highlights: http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Report%20File...

Personally, i first used weed when i was 22 and figure that's about right. I continue to use it in moderation. I would not be comfortable with its use by a minor child or a pregnant mother.

View on HN

In ever US state where it is legal (Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Alaska, Mass., and 2020 Illinois and Michigan) I think the minimum age is 21. Sure people underage can get it, but there is an attempt being made to limit it to people at least 21.

I knew parents who let their teenagers know they used it, but also told them they didn't want their kids using it until they were at least 18 (but if they wanted to try it; to ask them and not do it at a party or anything).

I generally agree.

I've stuck electrodes in enough brains to be very, very conservative about what i'm comfortable allowing to cross the BBB in rapidly developing tissues :)

Can you provide a little more detail for those of us who don’t work in your field? As an outsider, it’s not obvious to me what commentary placing the electrodes has to offer.

>Sure people underage can get it, but there is an attempt being made to limit it to people at least 21.

This is actually an argument for legalization. Who would you rather snitch on if you got caught with weed as an underage teen: your dispensary employee/friend or your street dealer?

My weed dealer when I was in highschool was a jackass wannabe-surfer (never saw the ocean) whom I didn't particularly like, but was totally harmless. I'd much rather betray him than a friend. I know it happens sometimes, but the stereotype that weed dealers are/were often violent criminals is a bit silly. I'm sure if you were buying in bulk from organized crime things could easily get dicy, but a teenager buying a dimebag from some dude? Probably not much risk there...

it's a QA issue not a "my dealer poses a threat" issue. You're right, 90% of dealers are shaun of the dead-type folks.

I want a well-regulated market with solid CLIA-certified lab tests. I'm totally willing to pay the extra money for it.

Absolutely. Particularly, being reasonably sure I'm not breathing in toasted pesticides is a huge plus to the legal industry in my view. I generally trust that kind of stuff to be safe on raw fruit, but god knows what that stuff turns into if you burn it a little.

> In ever US state where it is legal

I'm assuming you know that marijuana remains illegal due to (a) federal law and (b) the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.

I mean this with complete sincerity and genuine curiosity: Why did you choose wording that suggests the activity is wholly legal in those states?

Because you can walk into a store and buy it?

Unless the federal government wants to get into a serious fight over state’s rights, weed is effectively/wholly legal in states like California (I don’t know the specific laws outside of CA)

If you’d like to argue that the federal government - through the supremacy clause - has the power to override States that legalize marijuana, perhaps you’re right in theory.

But I think it’s a fantasy that the federal government will want to die on that hill. There are politically valuable reasons to avoid addressing the tension between state’s rights and the federal government’s power.

It is a kind of ironic situation. Modern states rights arguments tend to reside on the right, but that is also where anti-drug legalization sentiment resides as well. I'd be very interested to hear a debate where a right winger insists the fed should step in, and a left winger replies "Personally I support states rights". Just to see where it all goes.

Whenever power in Washington changes from one party to the other, the other party rediscovers the importance of states' rights.

Personally whenever I hear "states rights" my mind jumps immediately to people using that term to justify the pro-slavery side of the Civil War.

It sounds like we're using different definitions of the word "illegal". It's unfortunate that English makes it cumbersome to draw the necessary distinction.

Given that the federal government has consistently grabbed more power than our founding documents actually gave them, forgive me for not really giving a shit what the federal government's opinion is.

Demanding that people give the federal disclaimer every time they discuss the matter is tedious and pointless (since of course you already know it...)

> Demanding that people give the federal disclaimer every time they discuss the matter is tedious and pointless (since of course you already know it...)

It seems to me that saying "pot is legal in MA" is precisely as incorrect as saying "pot is illegal in MA". They're both half-truths.

I believe there's rhetorical and political power, however, in repeating an untruth without anybody challenging it.

HN is intended to be a site for serious discussion and honest debate, and I choose to not let use this rhetorical device go unchallenged.

It costs me karma every time, and I consider it a cost worth paying.

Does your distinction matter? If the state of Delaware declares driving a red cars illegal everywhere on the planet, would you jump to correct people saying driving red cars is legal in Germany and let them know it isn't?

Most people would not do so because there is no feasible way of Delaware enforcing their opinions in Germany. If you're not willing to take your viewpoint to the extreme then you're making an implicit declaration that you think the federal government does have the power to override the states here and will do so.

That's why people are downvoting when you say you're just exposing an "untruth". It's similar to hen people say they don't care about politics which really implies that the current status quo suits them well enough to not be involved

The US federal government has many ways of enforcing their opinions on US states and does so regularly. Almost all banks will not open accounts for pot related businesses due to federal banking laws. In the past the federal government convinced the states that did not have a drinking age of 21 to up the age by withholding federal highway funds from those states until they did.

Its a silly thing to get worked up over although important in a few instances. The pot industry has limited access to banking and you have states like Kansas going after Colorado for enabling drug traffiking

Being "precisely correct" is tedious and pointless. I was like that in the past and it was a hard habit to kick, but I strongly encourage you to do the same.

Your comments are extremely generous.

Pragmatically, this is a question of enforcement.

Federal LEOs shall not compel state LEOs to enforce federal law. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act and the 10th Amendment for why, but this fact has very long precedent.

So if nice Mr DEA man goes to the state police and say "help me bust these grow operations", the head of the state police says "go piss up a rope, those are tax-paying law abiding citizens who are breaking no law I have the responsibility to enforce."

And this is called state's rights.

Rhetorically I am well within the realm of sanity to describe purchasing weed at the dispensary down the street as legal. Feel free to insert the implicit footnoted "persuant to the laws of the state of oregon" in your head, if you like, for completeness.

It saved the life of woman I know during pregnancy, quite literally. She has recurrent hyperemesis gravidarum. Which is nausea and vomiting in pregnancy so persistent and strong that some mothers resort to abortion due to the pain and suffering. She was in the hospital begging for her life while the doctors were unable to help. None of the standard treatments worked for her. She had lost over 20% of her pre pregnancy weight and hadn't eaten in weeks, surviving off her own dwindling body fat and a banana bag. (I can't overstate how agonizing it is. If you're skeptical, there are plenty of mothers accounts to read) She was discharged for the fourth time, where every previous time she became so dehydrated from the lack of IV fluids that she was re admitted within a day. Finally, encouraged by other mothers success with it, she tried medical cannabis. Slowly she could actually drink water, then a day later sip some juice, another day tiny bites of crackers. She still vomited, and was still nauseous, but less intensely and could push through it more easily. She could finally eat. The baby was born vaginally, no complications and no health issues (and still so, years later).

It's just one data point, but worth looking into further.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com